Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I rise in opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 1216, which would undermine the teaching health centers program, which trains primary care physicians. Madam Chairman and members, this is just one more trick by Republicans to dismantle health care reform. They are going after the training of primary doctors. We need more primary doctors, even if there was no health care reform. There are many communities throughout this country that have no primary health care physicians. Our Nation is facing a serious shortage of primary care physicians. Primary care physicians are an essential part of a successful health care system. They are the first point of contact for people of all ages who need basic health care services, whether they are working people with the employer-provided health insurance, low-income children on Medicaid, or seniors on Medicare. The Republicans have made it clear that they are not concerned about access to basic health care services. The Republican budget for fiscal year 2012 turns Medicare into a voucher program, slashes Medicaid by more than $700 billion over the next decade, and cancels the expansion of health insurance coverage, which was included in the The Affordable Care Act last year. The Republican budget cuts to Medicare are especially detrimental to current and future Medicare recipients. Under the Republican budget, individuals who are 54 and younger will not get government-paid Medicare benefits like their parents and grandparents. Instead, they will receive a voucher-like payment to purchase health insurance from a private insurance company. There will be no oversight to these private programs. We will not be able to contain the cost. We will not be able to mandate what the basic services should be. As a matter of fact, we know the stories about the HMOs and the fact that they had accountants who determined what care you could get, not physicians who had the knowledge and the ability to determine what you need. When the first of these seniors retire in 2022, they will receive an average of $8,000 to buy a private insurance plan. That is much less than the amount of the subsidy Members of Congress receive for our health plans today. The coverage gap in the Medicare prescription drug program will continue indefinitely. Under the Affordable Care Act, this so-called doughnut hole is scheduled to be phased out. The Republican budget will allow seniors to continue to pay exorbitant prices for their prescriptions when they reach the doughnut hole. The Republican budget also gradually increases the age of eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 67 years of age. Madam Chairman, the Republican budget is also detrimental to Americans who depend again on Medicaid, including low-income children, disabled Americans, and seniors in nursing homes. The budget converts Medicaid into a block grant program and allows States to reduce benefits, cut payments to doctors, even freeze enrollment. Medicaid funding is slashed by more than $700 billion over the next decade. That is over one-third of the program's funding. 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. The national shortage of primary care doctors is not a problem for multimillionaires. They will always be able to find a doctor who will treat them and pay them whatever they ask for. But most American seniors need well-trained primary care physicians and Medicare benefits that they can rely on. I urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill, oppose the drastic cuts to Medicaid, and oppose the Republican plan to dismantle Medicare. They're trying to dismantle health care reform piece by piece, inch by inch. Today it's an attack on training needed by primary care physicians. What is it tomorrow? We know that they have a strategy that includes hundreds of bills that would dismantle, again, piece by piece Medicare reform. It's not fair, Madam Chair and Members. Health care reform so that all Americans are covered is something that we should all support.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman. My amendment requires the inspector general of the intelligence community to report to Congress on racial and ethnic diversity in the intelligence community. A diverse workforce is essential to intelligence work. People from a variety of backgrounds bring a variety of perspectives to the table to understand the world in which we live. A diverse workforce provides intelligence agencies critical insights into different cultures around the world, where information about potential threats to our national security is being collected and analyzed. Many leading intelligence officials understand the importance of a diverse workforce. The Web site of the Central Intelligence Agency includes the following statement: ``In order for the CIA to meet our mission of protecting our national security interests, we need to employ a workforce as diverse as America itself, the most diverse Nation on Earth. Diversity reflects the unique ways we vary as intelligence officers. Our nationality, race, ethnicity, gender, age, language, culture, sexual orientation, education, values, beliefs, abilities, and disabilities. These assorted attributes create different demographic, functional, and intellectual views which are so vital to our innovation, agility, collection, and analysis.'' And I really do think that says it all. Unfortunately, there is virtually no data available to Congress and the public regarding the degree of racial and ethnic diversity in the intelligence community. The most recent publicly available report that discusses this subject is a 1996 report by the Government Accountability Office on personnel practices at intelligence agencies, which focused on equal employment opportunity practices. The report concluded that intelligence agencies have workforce diversity programs, but results lag far behind other Federal agencies. This report was written more than 5 years before the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and 15 years before the death of Osama bin Laden. Needless to say, both the intelligence community and the world in which it operates have changed tremendously since then. My amendment states that, within 180 days after the enactment of the bill, the inspector general shall submit to Congress a report on the degree to which racial and ethnic minorities in the United States are employed in professional positions in the intelligence community and barriers to the recruitment and retention of additional racial and ethnic minorities in these position. The amendment requires that the report be submitted in unclassified form, but allows the inspector general to include a classified annex. It is long past time for Congress to reevaluate the diversity of the intelligence community workforce, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Again, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Ruppersberger, for yielding.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I would like to thank the gentlelady from Florida for extending time to me to rise in support of this bill. I am now--and have been for many years--a big supporter of the people of Haiti. I am the proud author of H.R. 4573, the Haiti Debt Relief and Earthquake Recovery Act. It was that bill that freed up $828 million that they would have had to have paid out for their debts, money that can now go toward helping with the earthquake response. Immediately following the earthquake, there was an outpouring of sympathy from people in the United States and around the world; and I am very appreciative for what our government did and for what the people of this country did--individuals, churches. We've not always had our politics right in Haiti, but we sure rose to the occasion with regard to this devastating earthquake that hit Haiti. The international community pledged a total of $9.9 billion in reconstruction funds, including $5.3 billion for the first 2 years. Yet, more than 1 year later, little, if any, of the money has reached the people of Haiti. According to the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, 680,000 displaced people are still living in tent camps, and the conditions in many of these camps are appalling. There is a critical need for food, clean water, and sanitation facilities. A deadly outbreak of cholera has already killed more than 4,800 people and has infected more than 280,000 people. The effects of the epidemic were exacerbated by the lack of clean water and sanitation infrastructure. Foreign aid without transparency will accomplish nothing. We owe it to the Haitian people and the American people to find out how much of this money has actually been delivered to Haiti and where that money went. That is why I strongly support this bill, which requires the President to report on the status of post-earthquake relief, recovery, reconstruction, and development efforts in Haiti. The report must evaluate coordination among various international agencies and donors, the extent to which U.S. and international efforts are in line with the priorities of the Government of Haiti, and mechanisms for Haitian civil society to participate in recovery efforts. I am in awe of the strength and resiliency of the Haitian people. We owe it to them to assist them in their time of need. We also owe it to them to make certain our assistance reaches the people who need it the most. As I said, we've not always had our act together in Haiti. Well, there has been a new election, and they've elected a President. There was a lot of turmoil and disorder around this election, but it's over now; it has been done, and we want to work with the new government to make sure that there is transparency and that we do know what happened to this money. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit to Congress a report on the extent to which States are expected to have difficulties establishing health benefit exchanges without the Federal assistance repealed by this bill. The Affordable Care Act requires the establishment of health benefit exchanges in every State. These exchanges will be a marketplace where individuals, families, and small businesses can purchase health insurance. The exchanges will feature a variety of health plans offered by different insurance companies, all of which must offer a comprehensive set of essential health benefits at affordable prices. The purpose of these exchanges is to enable American consumers to compare premiums, out-of-pocket expenses and benefits, and make informed choices among competing health plans. The Affordable Care Act places an emphasis on State-based health reform. The Affordable Care Act allows States to set up their own health benefit exchanges and offers grants to States to assist them in doing so. A total of 49 States, the District of Columbia, and four territories have already applied for these exchange grants. These States and territories are working hard to determine what type of health insurance marketplace will be best for their families and businesses. Without Federal funding, some States could have difficulty establishing exchanges in a timely manner. This could lead to poor management of the exchanges, fewer health plans included on the exchanges, and years of delay in getting the exchanges up and running. Some States might simply refuse to establish exchanges at all in the absence of Federal assistance. This would result in greater costs for the Federal Government because the Affordable Care Act requires the Federal Government to set up health exchanges in those States that do not set up their own exchanges. According to the Congressional Budget Office, States that attempt to set up health exchanges without Federal funding may face challenges in making their exchanges fully operational by 2014, as the law requires. These challenges could limit the desirability of the exchanges for consumers and reduce the capacity of some exchanges to process enrollment. As a result, CBO estimates that by 2015, there will be almost 2 million fewer people enrolled in State exchanges. Many States are already facing declining revenues and budget pressures as a result of the Great Recession. Some States were forced to make painful choices, increasing taxes or cutting spending in order to make ends meet. Budget pressures have forced States to consider closing public health facilities, postpone transportation and infrastructure projects, and lay off teachers, law enforcement officers and other public employees. If the Federal Government expects States to set up health exchanges without any assistance, it will only compound their budgetary problems. My amendment requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to Congress, within 6 months of enactment, on the difficulties States will encounter while trying to set up these exchanges without Federal help. If Congress is going to deny States the funding that was mandated for them to set up their health exchanges, Congress needs to know the extent of the difficulties States will face without these funds. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlemen. Mr. Chairman and Members, the gentleman from Alabama evidently has amnesia. Clinton administration eliminated the deficit and left a balanced budget. It was the Bush administration that created the deficit. I rise in strong support for this, the Progressive Caucus alternative balanced people's budget. During the last administration, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle maxed out our Nation's credit card for wars and tax cuts for the rich, all the while saying deficits don't matter. Now they are using our deficit crisis as a rationale to undermine programs that they have never supported and push a divisive social agenda that is a sideshow to our budget debate. Mr. Chairman, this country is not broke. We have spent our money on wars and tax credits for the very rich, and now it is time to entertain the people's budget, a balanced budget. The Ryan budget breaks our promise to these American families by expecting them to bear the entire burden of deficit reduction, neglecting the fact that just 4 months ago my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle insisted on $80 billion in tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of individuals in this country. This is a balanced budget. I ask my colleagues to support this very responsible, balanced budget.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Well, that's fine. Because I do know that this amendment that I'm offering is a national amendment that would cause all of the airports to come into compliance with this kind of cooperative amendment. And if, in fact, the gentleman is offering cooperation on the next amendment, I would withdraw this one.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WATERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WATERS. Do I understand that the other amendment that I have coming up that's more specific to Los Angeles is something that you would be more inclined to cooperate on rather than this amendment?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires airport operators, as a condition for receiving grants under the Airport Improvement Program, to consult on a regular basis with representatives of the local community regarding airport operations and their impact on the community. Airports and airport operations have a profound impact on the communities that surround them. Airplane takeoffs and landings can make noise that interrupts families in their homes and workers in their offices. Daytime takeoffs can interrupt school children who are trying to learn and teachers who are trying to teach. Nighttime takeoffs can make it difficult for local residents to sleep. Jet fuel emissions and other harmful pollutants contribute to air pollution, and traffic congestion surrounding an airport adds to the noise and to the pollution. Needless to say, airports play an important role in our economy and our society. But airport operators should be good neighbors in their communities. Being a good neighbor simply means consulting with the local community regarding airport operations. It means minimizing the nighttime takeoffs and landings so that residents can sleep. It means assisting families with residential noise mitigation programs, such as retrofitting windows, doors, siding, and insulation, to help keep aircraft noise to a minimum. It means consulting with local residents and small businesses regarding plans to expand, upgrade or realign runways and other airport facilities, and listening to their concerns. My amendment requires airport operators that receive Airport Improvement Program grants to consult on a regular basis regarding airport operations and their impact on the community. Airport operators would be required to include in these consultations local residents who are impacted by airport operations. Airport operators would specifically be required to include any organization, the membership of which includes at least 20 people who reside within 10 miles of the airport, that notifies the operator of its desire to be consulted. This amendment is not overly burdensome for airports and does not cost money for the Federal Government. It merely requires airport operators to be good neighbors, and it holds them accountable to the communities that they serve. Mr. Chairman and Members, I have one of the world's largest airports in my district--and they do a good job--but I'm constantly contacted by residents in the surrounding community who are raising questions about new plans, new operations, airport noise, and other kinds of things that, if the airport operators were in communication with the communities in some kind of formalized way, they would have a better understanding. It's not that these neighbors are saying they don't want these airports. As a matter of fact, we're pleased that they have LAX in our community. It is job-intensive, and we like the idea that the people who work there are able not only to earn a good living but to live in the community, and they contribute to the economy of the community. We're simply talking about urging and encouraging a relationship where the airport operators share with the schools and with the residents what they're doing. Oftentimes, it would just make for a better understanding. It's not always controversial. It's not always confrontational. But it is shining a light on what is going on and getting people cooperating and understanding the operations of the airport. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Yes, this is absolutely the same thing we agreed to.

Ms. WATERS. I would just simply ask for support for transparency and support to keep this program going.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WATERS. This amendment is a transparency amendment that I worked on with Mr. McHenry, where our constituents would be notified and have an opportunity.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my amendment, which is a commonsense provision that provides transparency and clarity for distressed homeowners. My amendment would require the Secretary of the Treasury to send a letter to HAMP applicants that they will not be considered for a modification due to termination of the program, and that they can contact their Member of Congress for assistance in negotiating with or acquiring a loan modification from their servicer. I raise this amendment because my friends on the opposite side of the aisle have the majority in the House, and they will probably prevail on this amendment; but I think that we have a responsibility to say to our constituents what we are doing and what we are not doing. Many of them have just begun to learn about the loan modification program, the HAMP program, and all of a sudden it is going to be pulled out from under them if this amendment prevails and if it passes on the opposite side of the aisle and in the Senate, et cetera; and the constituents need to know exactly what we have done. Now, I worked with Mr. McHenry on this amendment and we worked out some language that he thought was fair, and I believe we do have his support. That is not to say that I support the bill because I don't support this amendment. I don't support this bill that would literally dismantle the HAMP program. Yes, there are criticisms about this program. I and others would have liked for it to have been broader, for it to have helped more people. But don't forget, over 600,000 people have been helped. I know the target was 3 million to 4 million people, and we certainly haven't come close to that. But to do away with this program would leave the American taxpayers who have gotten into loans, oftentimes tricked into these loans, misled into these loans by the loan initiators, the banks and the mortgage companies that told them that they could help them get a mortgage even though these were exotic products, these were teaser loans, these were no doc loans, these were loans that were going to reset and cause the taxpayer to be in a loan that they could not afford. Many innocent people trying to live the American Dream signed on the dotted line. And also there was a lot of fraud involved where some of these loan initiators signed on the dotted line for the homeowner or the would-be homeowner. And so we have this crisis, this subprime crisis that we have been going through, and there is a lot of misery out there, people who were just trying to own a home who now find themselves in foreclosure. The banks were not helping with loan modification, so we had to come up with something. The administration came up with the HAMP program. It is a voluntary program. But they signed on to these agreements with the banks to say that they would do loan modifications under certain conditions. And the administration had to do this because the banks were not helping out the homeowners. As a matter of fact, the banks said: Well, we don't have anything to do with this anymore. It is up to the servicers. What a lot of people don't know is who is the servicer. The servicer is simply in most cases a company that is owned by the bank. They own their own servicing company, which means that once the mortgage is signed on by the homeowner, they now give it to this other company that they own, these servicers; and the servicers have the responsibility for collecting on the mortgage, for collecting on late fees, for collecting on attorney fees, and for doing loan modifications. But the homeowners couldn't get to them. HAMP is supposed to help them get to them. These servicers have gotten away with being unregulated for all of these years. As a matter of fact, there are no standards for servicers. If you call one bank, they will send you to their loss mitigation department. What they don't tell you, banks such as Bank of America, their loss mitigation is an offshore operation. You may be talking to somebody in India who has got this little cookie-cutter sheet which says: How much money do you make? How many times have you been late on your payment? Let's figure out how not to give you a loan modification, but maybe to give you a few months to catch up. But loss mitigation means a lot of different things in all of these different banks, if you are lucky enough to get to the servicer.

Ms. WATERS. I beg your pardon?

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment would direct the Secretary of HUD to conduct a study to determine the approximate number of foreclosed and abandoned properties that will not be purchased or rehabilitated in the district of each Member of Congress as a result of the rescission and termination of funding under this act. The Secretary would then report these findings to Congress. CBO has scored this amendment at zero cost. Now, personally, I do not believe that the Neighborhood Stabilization Program should be terminated because NSP creates jobs. So far, about 72,000 housing units are projected to be impacted by round one of NSP. HUD projects that an additional 24,000 housing units are projected to be impacted by NSP2. Each of these projects requires the work of contractors, such as roofers and painters and landscapers and pavers. And through the program, other real estate professionals like Realtors and title insurance agents have also received employment and contracting opportunities. This NSP program really does create jobs, and this is a program that creates jobs by doing important work in the community. Contrary to what some say, the problem of homes abandoned by banks is common, and it is difficult for municipalities to mitigate their effects. As GAO has noted in a report from November 2010, servicers sometimes charge off properties or fail to formally foreclose on borrowers because the costs of maintaining the property post- foreclosure exceed the costs of just writing the property off. These charge-offs typically occur after the foreclosure proceedings were initiated. However, borrowers aren't aware that the servicers are stopping short of taking their title. Because borrowers think that their servicer has finalized the foreclosure process, they may move away and become unreachable by the municipal agency now dealing with the upkeep of the property. Additionally, it may become logistically difficult or cost prohibitive to track down thousands of borrowers now responsible for property maintenance, taxes, and code violations because of servicers' failure to formally foreclose. Additionally, NSP provides an alternative to speculative investors purchasing foreclosed properties. Unlike homeowners and municipalities, some speculative investors often purchase properties for cash and in bulk, sometimes sight unseen, buying them up before others have a chance to bid. Some of these investors may not resell properties to owner-occupants, but let them sit on the market without any improvements while the investor waits for housing prices to rebound. Alternatively, anecdotal evidence suggests that investor-owners sometimes rent properties out to tenants with little or no rehabilitation or maintenance of the property. We had a field hearing in Minneapolis in January 2010. At that field hearing, State Senator Linda Higgins said, ``Homes are being snapped up by investors. Some are clueless about how to rehabilitate a building and get good tenants. Others think that the laws really aren't meant for them. They buy a house for pennies, paint the wall, scrub the kitchen appliances, and rent it out. They forget the small details like the condemnation order and the requirements for lifting the condemnation and getting a new certificate of occupancy and the need for a rental license.'' That is not to say that all private investment is bad, but we must recognize that the work NSP is doing is a critical counterweight to some of these bad practices. For all of these reasons, I will defend the work that NSP is doing across the country. However, we are here now because we need to talk about this amendment and what it would do once this program is terminated. My NSP study amendment would provide critical information to Members of Congress. If Members knew the number of abandoned and foreclosed properties in their district that will not be mitigated because of this rescission of funds, they would be better prepared to help grantees access responsible private market sources of funds that can help community revitalization. I would ask my colleagues' support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I have heard so many convoluted arguments today about this legislation from the opposite side of the aisle. My colleague from California, my friend and someone I highly respect, knows that he does not have to wish what an amendment would say. If he is interested in an amendment, he can offer it. My colleague from California did not offer the amendment that he has just alluded to, and he did not suggest when we were in committee that somehow he would like to have an alternative. So I find it rather curious that he would come to the floor and start wishing what my amendment would say. Secondly, I want to straighten out something. My colleague from California keeps talking about how this bill does not stop any foreclosures. The NSP legislation was not intended to stop foreclosures. It was intended to do exactly what the name implies, which is to stabilize communities by taking these boarded up and abandoned properties, rehabbing them or tearing them down so that they discontinue the devaluing of the properties of those homeowners who are trying to keep their properties up and stay in the community. If he, in fact, was concerned about helping homeowners, he would have supported the FHA refi programs. That program, he voted against. The FHA refi program was basically a program for middle class people who paid their bills on time, but who simply knew that their homes were underwater. They were not worth what they thought they should be worth when they got into the market, and they want to refinance them. He voted against that. So I am not so sure, when he talks about this NSP program not helping anybody stay in their homes, whether or not he really, really wants to help people stay in their homes when he is voting against something like the FHA refi. As for jobs, this bill creates jobs; and I think my colleague knows that. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, my amendment would simply require the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to send a notice to all of the NSP grantees who would have received funding under the third round of NSP that the program has been terminated. Further, the notice would include the name and contact information for the Member of Congress representing that grantee's district, along with a notice saying that the grantee can contact that Member directly for assistance in mitigating foreclosed properties. As you know, we passed such an amendment off the floor when we took up the FHA bill, which would have basically allowed the homeowners to refinance their properties. So we have one such amendment with the elimination of that program. The CBO has scored this amendment at zero cost. Since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which provided the NSP funds that are now subject to this repeal, my office has received many calls from potential grantees about the status of the program and what funding they could expect. Because this act would rescind those funds nearly 8 months after the passage of Dodd-Frank, I think that a simple letter from HUD, sent to States, counties and cities, which would simply notify them of this change, is in order. Moreover, a note to these States, counties and cities saying that their Members of Congress are available to assist them in mitigating foreclosed properties can help these grantees find alternative solutions. I've discovered there are any number of Members starting to do this kind of thing. They are getting calls from their constituents who are asking for help with loan modifications, and the Members are able to, not get involved with the particular problem, but to help guide them and send them to the proper servicers to get their loan modifications. This is similar to that. Simply, our office has been able to say: Yes, the program is no longer in existence, but this is what you can do if there is an alternative. Now, I would prefer not to rehash the back-and-forth we saw in the Financial Services Committee about the termination of this program. Members on my side of the aisle showed pictures, talked about the problems caused by abandoned properties, and even showcased letters from their districts, letters which talked about the good work NSP was doing. Yet the debate, it seems, will not sway my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Instead, I think it's best to focus on my amendment. I believe this is a commonsense provision that can be accepted by both sides of the aisle regardless of whether they agree with the underlying bill. Grantees should be made aware of this funding recision, and Members of Congress should stand ready to help communities mitigate the effects of blighted properties. I would ask for the support of my colleagues. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.