Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that was made in order under the rule.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to bring my bill, H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010, to the floor today; and I stand in strong support of its passage. Moreover, I'm proud that this bill has the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, having passed out of the Financial Services Committee in April on voice vote. Mr. Chairman, this bill is essential. The Flood Insurance Program provides valuable protection for approximately 5.5 million homeowners; but, unfortunately, the lack of a long-term authorization has placed the program at risk. The program has lapsed three times now since the beginning of this year: for 2 days in March, for 18 days in April, and again from June 1 to July 2, when President Obama signed my bill to provide for a short-term extension of the program through the end of September of this year. These lapses meant that FEMA was not able to write new policies, renew expiring policies, or increase coverage limits. These delays also meant that each day 1,200 home buyers who wanted to purchase homes located in flood plains were unable to close on their homes. Given the current crisis in the housing market, this instability in the Flood Insurance Program is hampering that market's recovery and must be addressed. Mr. Chairman, in drafting this bill, I also wanted to address the challenges posed to communities by the imposition of new flood maps. I saw these challenges firsthand in my home city of Los Angeles. Earlier this year I was able to assist homeowners in the Park Mesa Heights area of Los Angeles who had been mistakenly placed in a flood plain. In this 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. H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010, would restore stability to the Flood Insurance Program by reauthorizing the program for 5 years. It would also address the impact of new flood maps by delaying the mandatory purchase requirement for 5 years and then phasing in actuarial rates for another 5 years. The bill also makes other improvements to the program by phasing in actuarial rates from pre-firm properties, raising maximum coverage limits, providing notice to renters about contents insurance, and establishing a flood insurance advocate similar to the taxpayer advocate at the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Chairman, we must reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program and pass the reforms included in H.R. 5114. This country is reeling from major floods in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Oklahoma; and we are now officially in hurricane season, with south Texas still recovering from Hurricane Alex. I urge my colleagues to stand with me in support of this important extension. In closing, I would like to recognize the many Members on both sides of the aisle who have approached me with their concerns about flood insurance programs. I'm further gratified that, through this bill, we're able to address many of those concerns. I remain committed to working with Members on ensuring that this program works for their communities and their constituents. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, quite simply, I support the gentleman's amendment. While I believe that the bill is clear that the grants provided under the bill would be competitive and, therefore, not subject to earmarking, I can understand the gentleman's need for wanting to clarify that these funds cannot be used for earmarks. Therefore, I support the amendment, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Ms. WATERS. I have no other speakers, Mr. Chairman; and I would reserve the right to close.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to make sure that the gentlelady understands that we are moderating the subsidy in several ways on second homes, on nonresidential property, and when the homes are sold, and that's an important point that we will have some discussion on later. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), who's been responsible for making sure that we give homeowners an opportunity to pay installments instead of up front all of these premiums that they will be responsible for. Thank you so very much for your work.

Ms. WATERS. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from D.C., Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Ms. WATERS. I yield 1 minute to my colleague from California, Linda Sanchez, who has given a lot of her time to this effort.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas, who has fought so hard for his constituents and making sure that they have a strong advocacy program in this bill, Marion Berry.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida for offering this amendment. The underlying bill authorizes grants to local communities to reach out to homeowners and communities about the flood insurance program and flood risk. As we know, the process by which homeowners receive notification of new flood maps is severely lacking. Too often, homeowners learn that they are in a floodplain when they receive a letter from their mortgage company informing them that they have 45 days to buy flood insurance or it will be purchased on their behalf. Local communities are supposed to inform residents about new maps. However, communities often receive little notification from FEMA themselves. Also, some communities simply lack the resources to do the type of notification that is necessary to ensure that homeowners are aware of changes to the flood maps. By providing a grant program to assist communities, the underlying bill would address this problem. The gentleman's amendment would require the director of the flood insurance program to submit annual reports to the Congress on the effectiveness of these grants. I think that is important. And I think that Congress should know how these grants are working and how these funds are being spent. So I support the gentleman's amendment, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. I think everything has been said that needs to be said. I simply again want to thank all of the Members that have been involved. I am very pleased that we finally are responding to the concerns of all of our constituents, particularly about new mapping. There are a lot of concerns about that. But the way that we delay implementation will give our constituents an opportunity to prepare the installment plans, the way we deal with the actuarial rates. I think this is some of the best work that could have been done to honor the concerns of our constituents. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentlewoman's amendment. I understand that the gentlewoman has some concerns with the flood insurance program. I understand that she does believe that homeowners in her district are subsidizing the cost of flood insurance for homeowners along the coast. While I disagree with her premise, I see no harm in having the GAO perform the study described in her amendment to look into the role of the private insurance market in providing flood insurance, the impact on the program if communities drop out, and the feasibility of regionalizing the program. However, I would like to note that flood insurance is just that, insurance. It insures against an event that may or may not happen in the future. We have taken several steps in this bill to address the ``sticker shock'' that homeowners are encountering as a result of the mandatory purchase requirement resulting from the new maps. However, if the maps are accurate, and if there is a flood risk, public policy should dictate that homeowners have coverage for that risk because if they don't, the Federal Government will have to pick up the tab. Therefore, I disagree with the problem the gentlewoman has with the program. But I see no harm in her amendment, and so I would support that amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment I have submitted to the committee would make further improvements on the bill. The amendment would contribute to the stability of the flood insurance program by prospectively phasing in actuarial rates for severe repetitive loss properties and properties sustaining substantial damage. The financial solvency of the program would also be protected by a provision that would make sure that homeowners receiving preferred rates who deliberately drop out of the program are charged actuarial rates if they rejoin the program. The amendment also strengthens protections for homeowners by allowing all homeowners to pay flood insurance premiums in installments, providing grants to homeowners experiencing repeated flooding with funds to mitigate their flood risk, requiring FEMA to take a second look at areas that may be incorrectly mapped, and requiring FEMA to study the impacts of the flood insurance program on working waterfronts. I am pleased that this amendment also incorporates amendments offered by many Members, including Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Clyburn, Ms. Herseth Sandlin, Mr. Hare, Ms. Markey, Mrs. McCarthy, Mr. Melancon, and Mr. Pascrell. I thank these Members and others who have made suggestions to me for their constructive additions to this amendment. This amendment makes significant improvements to the underlying legislation, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Representative Costello, who has been the leader on this issue of the maps, the remapping. And because of him we have a strong bill. He worked very hard, and I am very grateful.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, we patiently waited over here to hear what this motion to recommit was going to be all about. We thought about all of the Members who have been calling us, writing us, working with us from both sides of the aisle to please help them address the concerns of their constituents about flood insurance. We have worked very hard with Members from both sides of the aisle to include their concerns in this bill. You saw Members come to the floor with those amendments. You saw in the manager's amendment that we had worked with so many Members not only to include their concerns, but to answer questions and prepare them for going back to their communities explaining how this whole thing works. Many of those questions that have been raised by our constituents have been raised over a long period of time. Our offices are bombarded with questions about the mapping. How does it work? How are they going to get timely notification? What are the premiums all about? These questions go on and on and on, to the point where our offices are oftentimes overwhelmed, not able to give sufficient information, or to assist those communities where they have banded together, despite the fact oftentimes they have few resources to deal with these issues. And now, in this comprehensive authorization that we are doing we address those constituents' concerns with this outreach. I am very surprised that the Members on the opposite side of the aisle would try and deny to their constituents the basic kind of information and services that we should all be responsible for. We should be able to say to our constituents not only do you have a right to this information, but we are going to give you some help. You don't have to try and band together with resources that you don't have to find out how it all works to oppose FEMA, to find out from your mortgage servicers why you didn't get a timely notice, to find out from your city, who was notified perhaps by FEMA, why they didn't notify the community. Mr. Speaker and Members, these are simply outreach activities that must be dealt with. These are outreach activities that our constituents deserve. To oppose assisting our constituents when they may be forced into new mapping that's going to cost them money that they had not anticipated, on and on and on, is just unbelievable. So I would simply say it speaks for itself. Assistance to our constituents asking those basic questions. I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this motion to recommit. It works against the best interests of all of our constituents. They deserve better than this.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

Ms. WATERS. I yield 1 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green). His State has experienced a lot of hardship with Katrina and Alex, and I thank him for his hard work.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), who has worked very hard on these issues, and we have, in the manager's amendment, some of the work that she did.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 5114, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, the insertion of appropriate headings, and clerical errors in amendatory instructions.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank our chairman, John Conyers. He is always on the case in a timely fashion, providing leadership that is so desperately needed on issues such as this one. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5503, the Securing Protections for the Injured from Limitations on Liability Act, that is, the SPILL Act. H.R. 5503 is a good first step and must be passed to immediately assist the victims who would otherwise be denied adequate compensation under our current laws. I am very disappointed at some of the arguments that are being made against this bill by my friends on the opposite side of the aisle. One of the arguments that they make is the DOHSA provisions of the SPILL Act will allow surviving families to receive undue compensation. Well, let me set the record straight. DOHSA currently provides outdated and uneven compensations for victims on the high seas because it fails to award damages for pain and suffering, loss of care, comfort, and companionship in many cases, including an accident like the Deepwater Horizon explosion. The changes to DOHSA are not intended to single out any particular industry. The SPILL Act will make Federal law consistent so that the families of all victims on the high seas can receive the compensation they truly deserve. These gross inequities exist because DOHSA, enacted back in 1920, has undergone only one significant update, in 2000, 4 years after the TWA Flight 800 crash. I would simply ask for support and a vote on H.R. 5503, recognizing the families who have been harmed. However, we cannot discount the critical needs of entire communities and other individuals whose way of life has been severely impacted by the oil spill. The outlook for little-known communities of black oyster farmers is especially bleak. These small villages of black fishermen have been self-sufficient for generations, relying on the region's wetlands for their economic independence. The challenges these oyster farmers will face must not be excluded in our efforts to help the Gulf Coast. We must ensure that BP and other responsible parties are held liable and accountable to the hundreds of thousands of lives they have destroyed at the expense of cutting costs. Therefore, while I fully support H.R. 5503, I am very disappointed that critical amendments to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) as well as my amendment that would have legally nullified BP's original attempts to make their $5,000 payouts legal settlements were taken out of the bill. All we have now is BP's word that they will not enforce these waivers or honor the $75 million liability cap current law provides. However, this is unacceptable. In the same manner that the federal government responded to the 9/11 attacks and the economic collapse, we must be equally as vigilant in responding to the crisis in the Gulf Coast. DOHSA currently provides outdated and uneven compensation for victims on the high seas because it fails to award damages for pain and suffering, and loss of care, comfort, and companionship in many cases-- including in accidents like the Deepwater Horizon explosion. The SPILL Act will make federal law consistent so that the families of all victims on the high seas can receive the compensation they deserve. These gross inequities exist because DOHSA, enacted in 1920, has undergone only one significant update--in 2000, four years after the TWA Flight 800 crash. Because many of the TWA victims were children who earned no income, Congress narrowly amended DOHSA to grant non- pecuniary damages to family members of commercial airline victims on the high seas, but not for any other deaths on the high seas.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support, strong support, of Congresswoman Barbara Lee's amendment to the 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act. This amendment would limit the funds appropriated within the supplemental to the continued protection of our military and civilian personnel in Afghanistan, while a plan is implemented to begin their safe and orderly withdrawal from the region. Despite nearly $300 billion spent on a predominantly military operation, by the way, resulting in the loss of over 1,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, we have not been able to successfully address Afghanistan's economic depravity, political corruption, or social divisions that have significantly impeded our military efforts within the country. The American public is tired of this long, drawn-out war. Moreover, many of us in Congress do not see the logic in investing further funds toward training the Afghan Army, when all methods utilized to this point have failed to achieve tangible gains. Furthermore, charges of corruption within the Karzai government have negatively impacted our credibility among Afghans, forcing them to choose between two different groups of terrorists. The counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy is failing in Afghanistan and the Afghan government remains corrupt and illegitimate in the eyes of many of the Afghan citizens. The critical appropriations being offered in other Amendments (disaster relief, education funding, black farmer settlements) today underscores why we can no longer afford to continue our expensive military strategy in Afghanistan. Deploying more combat troops to Afghanistan and continuing Bush wartime engagement strategies will fail to help Afghanistan build long- term sustainable institutions and a credible democratic government. Despite nearly $300 billion spent on a predominantly military operation (resulting in the loss of over 1,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan), we have not been able to successfully address Afghanistan's economic depravity, political corruption, or social divisions that have significantly impeded our military efforts within the country. The American public is beginning to tire of this long drawn-out war. Moreover, many of us in Congress do not see the logic in investing further funds towards training the Afghan army when all methods utilized to this point have failed to achieve tangible gains. Furthermore, charges of corruption within the Karzai government have negatively impacted our credibility among Afghans, forcing them to choose between two different groups of terrorists--the Taliban or the corrupt Karzai government comprised of former warlords, responsible for some of the same atrocities the Taliban currently inflicts upon civilians. A strengthened Taliban has resurfaced and is engaged in violent attacks throughout the country so that now is the deadliest time for American soldiers since the war began. Booming opium production helps fund the Taliban, which also receives aid from al Qaeda networks in Pakistan. The fledgling Afghan army and police are not ready to defend the country from insurgent attacks and operate independently from U.S. military involvement, training, and support. The highly organized and determined insurgency has continued to exploit the weak central government. Although the main insurgent groups may not have the same operational structure or long-term goals, they are inherently united in their efforts to drive the U.S. out of Afghanistan and unravel the central Afghan ``democratic'' government. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on Representative Lee's Amendment so that we can begin the process of bringing our troops home!

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise in support of the rule. A lot of people have put in a lot of work to organize this supplemental in ways that many of us would have the opportunity to support. I am focused on several aspects, but I am particularly focused on the amendment that will be brought before us by Barbara Lee. Barbara Lee has an amendment that basically would strip the funding that is dedicated to the war in Afghanistan and redirect those funds so that we can safely withdraw from an Army that has less and less support of the American people. And while I will not get into details about my support for that amendment at this time--I will be speaking on it later--I wish to congratulate the leadership and our Rules Committee members for the hard work that they have put in in organizing the rule on the supplemental. It has not been easy. There are a lot of concerns. There are a lot of demands. We have a lot of needs that need to be addressed. So while we are wrestling with addressing the needs of our domestic community and our domestic concerns, we still have to be concerned about the direction that the war is taking and what that means for the future of this country. While we are bogged down in a serious deficit, the moneys that we are spending on this war must be reconsidered in ways that will eventually wind this war down and give us an opportunity to focus on our domestic needs. So I would ask my colleagues to support the rule on this supplemental.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I am pleased and proud to stand here today in support of this most significant piece of legislation that is before this House. Again, I thank Chairman Frank for his leadership, and I'm especially proud that this work of the conference committee was done by such a diverse group on this side of the aisle. I'm especially proud that members of the conference committee included not only women, but African Americans and Latinos and Anglos. It was truly diverse, and you can see that work reflected in what came out of the conference report. For example, the CBC members of the Financial Services Committee worked on a number of these issues over the past several years, and we came up with those things that had been brought to our attention year in and year out that are finally paid attention to in the conference report. The Federal Insurance Office, we will be asking them to gather information about the ability of minorities and low-income persons to access affordable insurance products. To give consideration and mitigation of the impact of winding down a systemically risky institution on minorities and low-income communities. The expansion of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's advisory board to include experts in civil rights, community development, communities impacted by high-priced loans, and others. And perhaps most importantly, the establishment of the Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion at each of the Federal financial services agencies. These offices would provide for diversity in the employment, management, and business activities of these agencies. The data for the need for these offices speaks for itself. Diversity is lacking in the financial services industry, with the GAO reporting from 1993 to 2004 the level of minority participation in the financial services professions only increased marginally, from 11 percent to 15.5 percent. We took care of that in this bill. And now we have the opportunity to not only give oversight to diversity, but to help these agencies understand how to do outreach, how to appeal to different communities so that we can get the kind of employees that will create the diversity to pay attention to all of the needs of the people of this country. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that this conference report includes a provision that I championed to allow the SEC to issue rules on proxy access, giving the Nation's pension funds and other long-term institutional investors a say in the governing of the companies in which they own stock. Additionally, I am pleased that this bill addresses foreclosures, which have single-handedly inflicted tremendous damage on neighborhoods in my district in California and across the country. It has long been my position that this bill would be incomplete without directly addressing the needs of America's homeowners and neighborhoods. That is why I have fought for an additional $1 billion in funds for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, a program whose authorizing legislation I wrote in 2008. And it is helping neighborhoods all across this country that have foreclosed properties and rundown properties that are driving down the price of other homes in that community. Now we can rehabilitate those properties and keep the values up of the homes in the neighborhood. I am also pleased that an additional $1 billion in emergency assistance for unemployed homeowners was included in this bill. Reports indicate that 60 percent of individuals seeking help in avoiding foreclosures are doing so because they are unemployed.