Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4458, the Cybersecurity and Financial System Resilience Act, which is sponsored by the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. McHenry. H.R. 4458 would require the prudential regulators, specifically the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, NCUA, to each issue an annual report to Congress describing measures the respective agency has taken to strengthen cybersecurity. The report must include steps each agency is taking to address any cybersecurity concerns identified by the annual independent evaluations conducted under the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014. The bill sunsets after 7 years. A wide range of regulators, including the Financial Stability Oversight Council, as well as experts and industrial stakeholders, have recognized cybersecurity is a key risk to our financial system and broader economy. As technology continues to rapidly change how financial products and services are delivered, it is important that regulators are ensuring financial institutions, including their third-party service providers, such as cloud service providers, have in place robust cyber policies and practices to help protect against cybersecurity incidents that could compromise sensitive consumer data. In addition, it is equally important that regulators themselves have their houses in order and that they are protecting their own information systems from cyberattacks. Indeed, many of our regulatory agencies already conduct ongoing cyber exercises to assess their cybersecurity systems. But as the threat of cyberattacks increase, there is an opportunity for Congress, as well as the public, to better understand how their personal data is being protected. Furthermore, these agencies also must have well-qualified cybersecurity experts on the job to help thwart potential cyberattacks that may be directed at these Federal agencies or the institutions they oversee. I appreciate that the ranking member worked with our side of the aisle to make important improvements to the bill before the committee marked it up. These changes include expanding the bill from the Federal Reserve to apply it to all Federal depository institution regulators, including the FDIC, OCC, and NCUA. The bill was also clarified so that the annual reporting includes how regulators supervise banks and credit unions, as well as their third- party service providers, to mitigate cybersecurity risks. Madam Speaker, I urge Members to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, cybersecurity is a major issue facing all aspects of our economy, including the financial sector. It is an important issue for both private companies and government agencies. H.R. 4458 will enhance congressional oversight of our banking regulators to ensure that they are maintaining strong cyber defenses of their own systems, as well as the banks and credit unions they regulate. I urge Members to support this important legislation. I thank the ranking member for his leadership and for the way that he reached across the aisle in working with us. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 457) to require that $1 coins issued during 2019 honor President George H.W. Bush and to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to issue bullion coins during 2019 in honor of Barbara Bush.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 457, the President George H.W. Bush and First Spouse Barbara Bush Coin Act. This bill directs the Treasury to issue $1 coins honoring the life and legacy of President George Herbert Walker Bush as well as a bullion coin commemorating his wife, former First Lady Barbara Bush. The dollar coin was one of the first silver coins minted in the United States. Since the first dollar coins were struck in 1794, the dollar coin has, on occasion, been minted with the images of various individuals whose leadership, actions, and deeds have played an integral role at key moments in our Nation's history. These include President Dwight D. Eisenhower, suffragist Susan B. Anthony, and, most recently, Lemhi Shoshone guide and interpreter for the Lewis and Clark expedition, Sacagawea. Beginning in 2007, the Mint sought to honor our Nation's Presidents by issuing $1 coins, featuring their images in the order that they served. The last President to be honored under this program was President Ronald Reagan in 2016. This bill reauthorizes the Treasury to mint a $1 coin in honor of the late President George H.W. Bush and his wife, Barbara Bush, under the Presidential $1 Coin Program. George Herbert Walker Bush served as the 41st President of the United States from 1989 to 1993. A career public servant, President Bush served our country as a U.S. Navy pilot during World War II before going on to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, as a U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, as Director of Central Intelligence, and as the 43rd Vice President of the United States. As President, Bush presided over the collapse of the Soviet Union, German reunification, and the first Gulf war. In his post-Presidency, Bush is remembered for using his spotlight to support various charities and for working closely with former Presidents Carter and Clinton to encourage public service and encourage aid for victims of natural disasters both at home and abroad. Barbara Pierce Bush also served as First Lady from 1989 to 1993. A fierce advocate for literacy, Mrs. Bush was dedicated to eliminating generational cycles of illiteracy through her involvement in the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy and other reading organizations. As First Lady, she was known as much for her humor and self-deprecating wit as she was for being a keen adviser and confidant to President George H.W. Bush. In addition to their decades-long careers as public servants, President and Mrs. Bush were the patriarch and matriarch of a family of public servants, including the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush, and the former Governor of Florida, John Ellis Bush. Their dedication to patriotism, service, and each other are an inspiration to us all. So I thank our Senate colleague Mr. Cornyn for introducing this bill, as well as Mr. Williams and all members of the Texas delegation, including our own Representative Sylvia Garcia, a valued new member of the Financial Services Committee, for their hard work on the bill, and I urge Members to vote ``yes.'' Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), a valued new member of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This bill honors a couple who devoted their lives to public service and were known for their deep faith and commitment to decency and civility. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have worked in a bipartisan manner on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, the rules of debate won't allow me to cite all of the reasons why this President should be impeached. There are many. However, Madam Speaker and Members of this House, to quote the late Maya Angelou: ``When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.'' This day was not inevitable, but it was predictable, because this President has shown himself time and time again to believe that he is above the law, and he has no respect for our Constitution or our democracy. Based on all that we know about Donald Trump, we could have predicted he would have abused the power of the Presidency by ``corruptly soliciting the Government of Ukraine'' and Ukrainian President Zelensky to publicly announce investigations into his political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden. This impeachment resolution includes evidence that this President withheld $391 million of taxpayer funds that Congress appropriated for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression, another blatant abuse of power. Our investigations revealed that this President advanced ``a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine, rather than Russia, interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.'' ``For corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit.'' Never before in our history have we experienced a President who has so clearly conducted himself in a ``manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution,'' and who directed his Cabinet members, executive branch agencies, and other White House officials to defy lawful subpoenas from Congress. Was he attempting to hide wrongdoing? It is without question that this President ``has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law,'' because at every turn, he has shown us who he is. It is no secret that this President could have been impeached a long time ago. Today, we stand here with an irrefutable case and an indisputable set of facts that this President absolutely abused his power and obstructed Congress. Any other individual who would have been caught conducting themselves in the way this President has would have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It is shameful that any Members of this House are willing to disregard the Constitution, turn a blind eye to hard facts, and ignore a confession from the President himself. History will remember those who were willing to speak truth to power. Yes, I called for Trump's impeachment early. This is our country. Our foremothers and our forefathers shed their blood to build and defend this democracy. I refuse to have it undermined. I wholeheartedly support this resolution. I am proud that, in the final analysis, justice will have been served in America and Donald Trump will have been impeached.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2534 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2534, the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, introduced by the gentleman from Connecticut, Representative Jim Himes. This long overdue bill creates a clear definition of illegal insider trading under the securities laws so that there is a codified, consistent standard for courts and market participants to better protect the hard-earned savings of millions of Americans and bring certainty to the U.S. securities market. For nearly 80 years, the Securities and Exchange Commission--that is, the SEC--has sought to hold corporate insiders accountable for insider trading through general statutory antifraud provisions and rules it has promulgated under those provisions. This has resulted in a web of court decisions that generally prohibit insiders with a duty of trust and confidence to a corporation from secretly trading on material, nonpublic corporate information for their own personal gain. These insiders are also generally prohibited from tipping outsiders, known as tippees, who then trade on the information themselves, even though they know it was wrongfully obtained. But, because there isn't a statutory definition of ``insider trading,'' there is uncertainty around who is subject to insider trading prohibitions; and, with various court decisions, liability for this type of violation has shifted. For example, in 2014, an appeals court added a brand-new requirement that the tippee must not just know that information was wrongfully disclosed but must also know about the specific personal benefit that the insider received. This decision has severely hampered the SEC's ability to prosecute insider trading cases and, according to Preet Bharara, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York ``provides a virtual roadmap for savvy hedge fund managers to insulate themselves from tippee liability by knowingly placing themselves at the end of a chain of insider information and avoiding learning details about the sources of obvious confidential and improperly disclosed information.'' So I am pleased that this bill codifies existing case law and overturns this new controversial requirement, creating a clear, consistent standard for the SEC, the courts, and market participants to follow, and does so in a way that, as Columbia Law School professor John Coffee testified before one of our subcommittees, ``expands liability in ways that should not be controversial.'' I would like to commend Representative Himes for his efforts since the bill was marked up in May in committee to ensure that it fairly reflects existing law. In addition to extensive outreach to current and former regulators and prosecutors, investor advocates, and institutional investors, Mr. Himes also repeatedly engaged with our colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle. As a result, Ranking Member McHenry will offer an amendment which will remove unnecessary ambiguities, clarify the intent of the bill to reflect existing insider trading case law, and ensure that the bill preserves the SEC's ability to bring bad actors to justice under other related insider trading laws. I plan to support this amendment as a reasonable bipartisan compromise, so I urge all Members to support this commonsense bill that makes the definition of illegal trading very clear for all so that the SEC can effectively crack down on corporate insiders who illegally trade on inside information. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), the chair of the Strategic Technologies and Advanced Research Subcommittee of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and a valued member of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Madam Chairwoman, H.R. 2534, the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, is a long overdue piece of legislation that simply spells out the definition of illegal insider trading under the securities laws. It creates clarity for participants in financial markets and empowers the SEC to punish bad actors. As we have discussed, this bill is supported by groups, including the Council of Institutional Investors, the California State Teachers' Retirement System, the North American Securities Administrators Association, Healthy Markets, and Public Citizen. Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member, Mr. McHenry, for his very kind comments. I thank him for his cooperation. I thank him for recognizing that it is possible to have bipartisan legislation. And I thank him for recognizing that Mr. Himes has worked very hard to ensure that he would have this as bipartisan legislation, rather than simply having the Democrats try to run roughshod over the opposite side of the aisle to get this done. I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this important bill. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I thank Ranking Member McHenry for offering this amendment to H.R. 2534 to help further ensure that this commonsense bill codifies the law against insider trading in a fair manner. When we marked up the bill in committee in May, I understood that my Republican colleagues had several concerns with the bill but nevertheless voiced their support in hopes of having those concerns addressed before the bill made its way to the House floor. At the end of the day, those concerns amounted to wanting additional clarity that H.R. 2534 reflected the current judge-made law against insider trading, aside from the controversial 2014 appeals court decision that has been subject to criticism from many sides. After months of discussion with the bill's sponsor, Representative Himes, Ranking Member McHenry has crafted this amendment to do just that. In particular, the amendment would clarify that the existing law that requires the SEC to establish some personal benefit to a tipper in cases involving tipper and tippee liability; clarify that the material, nonpublic information that forms the basis of liability may be related to either a specific security or to any security if that information would have or reasonably be expected to have a material effect on the market price of that security; and remove the rule of construction to avoid confusion and ambiguity and to ensure that this act is not the exclusive means by which the SEC, the Department of Justice, or private litigants may pursue insider trading. If the amendment is accepted, I believe that the bill would provide the SEC with clear additional authority to bring to justice corporate insiders and others who take unfair advantage of confidential information. In addition, because the bill uses the same terms identified in the current case law against insider trading, the SEC and market participants can easily understand what those terms mean. Again, Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member McHenry for strengthening the bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), the sponsor of this important legislation.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose Representative Huizenga's amendment that replaces the bill's standard of illegal insider trading while ``aware of'' material, nonpublic information with trading while ``using'' material, nonpublic information. This narrower standard is inconsistent with current law, would severely weaken the bill, and would create substantial enforcement hurdles to the benefit of bad actors and to the detriment of the SEC. If the amendment is adopted, the SEC would have to prove that the reason the defendant traded was because of a specific piece of information. That means that the SEC would have a hard time proving its case in court unless it had an email from a defendant explaining his motive for trading. Not many bad actors engaging in illegal insider trading are that dumb. Moreover, such a change would benefit insider traders at hedge funds or other market intelligence firms because they would merely have to tell the judge that they had other reasons or data to support their trade. The SEC's existing rule 10b-5 clearly states that the appropriate standard is awareness. Changing it to ``use,'' as Representative Huizenga's amendment would do, dramatically and substantially weakens the SEC's authority to prosecute insider trading. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by Mr. Huizenga. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), the sponsor of this important legislation.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to join the American Diabetes Association and millions of doctors, nurses, health professionals, and concerned Americans to recognize American Diabetes Month. Diabetes remains the seventh leading cause of death in the United States. It effects more than 30 million Americans--seven million of whom are undiagnosed. By the end of this year, more than 40,000 people will be diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes--which is identified as the body's inability to produce insulin. Type 2 diabetes--which indicates a deficiency in the way the body uses insulin--remains the most common form of diabetes, and makes up more than 90 percent of all diabetes cases. In addition, 10 percent of all women develop gestational diabetes during pregnancy, which blocks a mother's ability to use insulin and can complicate the health of both the mother and the baby. Without proper treatment, diabetes can lead to serious and sometimes deadly complications, including heart disease, nerve damage, blindness, lower limb amputations, kidney failure, high blood pressure, and even stroke. In my home state of California, more than 4 million people-- approximately 13 percent of the adult population in our state--have diabetes. What's worse, more than 1 million Californians have diabetes, but have not been tested and are unaware that they are living with the disease. An astounding 10 million Californians have prediabetes, which is a health condition where blood sugar levels are higher than normal, but are not high enough to be diagnosed as Type 2 diabetes. By the end of this year, 263,000 residents of our state will be newly diagnosed with diabetes. The troubling increase in the number of Americans living with diagnosed diabetes has also increased the overall economic costs of treating the disease. According to a 2018 American Diabetes Association report, in 2017 the cost for treating diabetes was an astounding $327 billion. Americans diagnosed with diabetes had medical expenses that were 2.3 times higher than Americans without diabetes, and spent, on average, $9,600 on healthcare expenditures. That same report found that in the state of California, the overall cost of medical expenses and treatment of diabetes was $27 billion. For minority communities around the country, the risk of developing diabetes or suffering from complications of the disease is devastatingly heightened. Diabetes effects 15 percent of American Indians and Alaska natives, 13 percent of African Americans, 12 percent of Hispanics, and 8 percent of Asian Americans. Though they are most impacted and at risk of developing diabetes, it's no secret that minorities often lack access to quality health care, are more likely to have prediabetes, are more likely to suffer from complications of diabetes, and in some cases, are nearly twice as likely to die from diabetes. To this end, for many years, I have proudly authored and fought for support of H.R. 4550, the Minority Diabetes Initiative Act, which is supported by the American Diabetes Association and 60 of my House colleagues and fellow members of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus. My bill will provide grants to physicians and community-based organizations for diabetes prevention, care, and treatment programs in minority communities. It will also provide grants for a variety of diabetes-related health services, including public education on diabetes prevention and control, routine health care for diabetic patients, eye care, foot care, and treatment for kidney disease and other complications of diabetes. I am also a strong supporter of increased federal funding for diabetes programs at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and have supported many legislative measures that ensure that Americans living with diabetes have the quality and affordable healthcare they deserve. During American Diabetes Month, and every month, we must continue to raise awareness of this disease and show our strong support for research, innovations, and healthcare services that improve the lives of the millions of Americans who are living with or at-risk of being diagnosed with this disease. Diabetes will continue to ravage our communities and lead to the premature death of Americans if we fail to act. While both genetic and environmental factors can contribute to the development of diabetes, it is imperative that every American regardless of their age, race, or geographic location get tested for diabetes, and speak with their doctors about actions they can take to prevent or postpone the progression of the disease. I thank the millions of doctors, nurses, health professionals, and concerned Americans who are engaged in the fight against diabetes, and I am proud to continue to join with my colleagues in the Congressional Diabetes Caucus to do all that we can to develop and pass legislation that will aid in the treatment and prevention of this disease. Americans must get tested, get informed, and spread the word about the dangers of diabetes. The sooner we know, the sooner we can act to prevent or postpone the impact of this disease.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, my friend Fahari Jeffers' legacy as a civil rights and labor rights leader in American history had its beginning in the Black Power movement. She joined the San Diego chapter of the U.S. organization in 1967 and served as a teacher in the weekend School of Afro-American Culture for Children. A dedicated civil rights advocate and cultural rights powerhouse, she became involved in labor union organizing, having convened the major African People's gatherings in the 1970s and worked with the NIA cultural organization in San Diego. Fahari was proud of her roots in the Black Power movement. Her early work prepared her for the work that Cesar Chavez recruited and trained her and her husband, Ken Msemaji, to do in founding and building the United Domestic Workers of America. Today, over 200,000 California homecare workers and nearly 2 million nationally work under union contracts. Her model of collective bargaining rights law is now patterned across the Nation. On Sunday, March 18, 2018, Fahari Jeffers was inducted into the San Diego Women's Hall of Fame for her work in cofounding the United Domestic Workers of America. With her passing, the State of California and our Nation suffered a tremendous loss. She will be remembered for her ``si, se puede'' attitude and for exemplifying the meaning of her Swahili given name, Fahari, which means magnificent, and magnificent she was.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am providing this statement to explain the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 2019 (H.R. 3702), as ordered reported to the House of Representatives by the Committee on Financial Services, along with additional amendments made since committee consideration: The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is the federal government's largest and most widely available source of financial assistance for state and local government-directed neighborhood revitalization, housing rehabilitation, and economic development activities. One of the national objectives of the CDBG program allows communities and states to use program funds to address serious and immediate public health and safety threats. Accordingly, Congress has used the CDBG program's framework to provide additional assistance (CDBG-DR) for state and local recovery activities in the wake of presidentially- declared disasters. In response to a disaster, Congress must pass each supplemental CDBG-DR appropriation on a case-by- case basis. To date, Congress has appropriated $87 billion in CDBG-DR assistance. CDBG-DR grants are generally governed by the underlying Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, (42 U.S. 5301 et. seq) (``CDBG statute'') and rules and the relevant supplemental appropriation act. A supplemental appropriation act providing disaster assistance typically identifies the amount appropriated, the period covered, the eligible uses of funds (to the extent that they are different from the underlying CDBG statute and rules), and the certifications required for assistance. For each supplemental appropriation, HUD publishes a corresponding Federal Register notice establishing the allocation of funds to eligible grantees and describing the rules, statutes, waivers, and alternative requirements that apply to allocations under the notice. In July 2018, the HUD Office of Inspector General (HUD OIG) found that HUD's use of multiple Federal Register notices to administer CDBG-DR assistance created challenges for grantees. Specifically, HUD OIG found, among other challenges, that grantees had to navigate confusing and sometimes duplicative requirements contained in multiple notices. HUD OIG recommended that HUD codify the CD BG-DR program to: (1) establish a permanent framework for future disasters; (2) reduce the existing volume of Federal Register notices; (3) provide a standardized set of rules for all grantees; and (4) ensure that grants are closed in a timely manner. Further, the GAO has found that historically, disaster relief has been inequitably distributed among people of different races and ethnicities, economic classes, and homeownership status. As a result, some of the largest HUD fair housing settlements have come after major disasters, as states and localities receiving disaster recovery grants often did not serve affected families equitably. H.R. 3702 adopts the HUD OIG recommendations by permanently authorizing the CDBG-DR program, as well as addressing concerns that have been raised about the administration of the program. Among other requirements, the bill would mandate that: (1) HUD allocate CDBG-DR funds within 60 days of a Congressional appropriation; (2) HUD coordinate with FEMA, and the Small Business Administration (SBA) to better improve data sharing; and (3) any CDBG-DR funded new construction, repair, or rehabilitation utilize minimum federal standards for flood risk mitigation and storm water protection as well as utilizing the latest national consensus-based building codes and standards for construction in hazard-prone areas. Additionally, H.R. 3702 would allow cities and counties with well-developed disaster relief resources to become precertified to receive funding more quickly and establish a reserve fund to be used to provide technical assistance and capacity building to help communities develop their action plans. The bill would also require HUD develop best practices that communities can use for disaster recovery. The act includes two sections: Section 1 states that the title of the bill is the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 2019. Section 2 is entitled the. ``Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program.'' This section amends Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) by adding a new sections 123 and 124 to permanently authorize the CDBG-DR program and establish a CDBG-DR reserve fund. The new section 123 is entitled ``CD BG-Disaster Recovery Assistance.'' Subsection (a) of the new section 123 authorizes the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) assistances to States, including Puerto Rico, units of general local government, and Indian tribes for necessary expenses for authorized activities related to disaster relief, resiliency, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing mitigation, and economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed areas affected by Presidentially-declared disasters. Subsection (b) of the new section 123 provides that when allocating funding, the Secretary of HUD is required to include an additional amount of funding for mitigation that is not less than 45 percent of the amount allocated to a grantee for unmet needs. The Secretary of HUD must allocate funds to grantees within 60 days of the date of enactment of an Act making funds available for disaster assistance. The deadline for allocation of CD BG-DR funds shall not apply if the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has not made sufficient information available to the Secretary of HUD regarding relevant unmet recovery needs to make allocations in accordance with the deadline. The Secretary of HUD must notify Congress of progress on or delay in receiving the necessary information within 60 days following the declaration of a major disaster and monthly thereafter until all necessary information is received. The Secretary of HUD is required to disburse funding allocated to a grantee, but only if the grantee is in substantial compliance with the requirements of this section. The new subsection (b) also requires the Secretary of HUD to coordinate with other agencies, including FEMA, and the SBA, to obtain data on recovery needs when necessary regarding disaster benefits, and share with FEMA and make publicly available, all data collected, possessed, or analyzed during the course of a disaster recovery for which assistance was provided. This new subsection (b) also requires that funds made available must be used in accordance with section 312 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended by section 1210 of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (Division D, Public Law 115-254), and such rules as may be prescribed. Households having the lowest incomes must be prioritized for assistance under this section until all unmet needs are satisfied for families having an income of up to 120 percent of the median for the area. In any case in which a CDBG-DR grantee provides assistance that duplicates benefits, the new subsection (b) requires that the grantees bear responsibility for absorbing such cost of any duplicative assistance and return that amount to the grantee's account or be subject to remedies for noncompliance under Section 111 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary of HUD shall protect personally identifiable information. Subsection (c) of the new section 123 provides that no later than 90 days after the allocation of funds, the grantee must submit a plan to the Secretary of HUD for approval detailing the proposed use of all funds, which shall include how the funds will be used to address disaster relief, identification of officials administering the disaster funds, an agreement to share data with Federal agencies, and a plan for ensuring compliance with the Fair Housing Act. The new subsection (c) also requires the Secretary of HUD to specify criteria for approval of a grantee's disaster assistance plan, including approval of substantial amendments to the plan. The Secretary of HUD shall disapprove a plan if (1) the Secretary determines that the plan does not meet the approval criteria, (2) the Secretary determines that the plan does not provide equitable allocation of resources between infrastructure and housing projects or between homeowners, rents and persons experiencing homelessness, (3) the Secretary determines that the plan does not provide a credible plan for ensuring compliance with the Fair Housing Act, (4) the Secretary determines that the plan does not prioritize the one-for-one replacement of damaged federally subsidized affordable housing, or (5) the Secretary determines the plan does not provide applicants for assistance notice by the grantee of the applicant's right to appeal any adverse action or inaction. In developing the action plan, the new subsection (c) provides that grantees, at a minimum, must (1) consult with affected stakeholders, including residents, local governments, and public housing authorities, to assess needs, (2) publish the plan, including online for at least 14 days, (3) ensure equal access to individuals with disabilities or with limited English proficiency, and (4) publish the plan in a way that allows stakeholders a reasonable opportunity to review and provide feedback on the plan. In the event of a disapproved plan, the Secretary of HUD shall permit a grantee to revise and resubmit its plan. The Secretary of HUD shall approve or disapprove a plan within 60 days of the plan being submitted. If a plan is disapproved, within 15 days after the disapproval, the Secretary shall inform the applicant of the reasons for disapproval and the actions the applicant could take to meet the criteria for approval. Applicants have 45 days following the date of the disapproval to submit amendments or resubmit the action plan to the Secretary of HUD. The Secretary of HUD has 30 days to approve or disapprove the plan amendment or resubmission. The Secretary of HUD shall ensure that all grant agreements are executed within 60 days of approval of the grantee's plan. Subsection (d) of the new section 123 requires the Secretary of HUD to develop and maintain a system to ensure that each grantee has an approved process for financial controls and procurement, and adequate procedures to ensure all eligible families and individuals are approved for and provided assistance, as well as to prevent duplication of benefits and detect waste, fraud and abuse, and to maintain publicly accessible websites that make available information regarding all disaster recovery activities. The Secretary must provide, by regulation or guideline, a method for qualitatively and quantitively evaluating compliance. As a condition of making any grant, the Secretary of HUD shall certify in advance that the grantee has the proper financial processes and procedures in place. Subsection (e)(I) of the new section 123 provides that a grantee may not use less than seven percent but no more than 10 percent of its grant funds for administrative fees. The Secretary of HUD may establish a series of percentage limitations on a grantee's administrative fees, but only if such limitations are based on the amount of grant funds received, such series limitation is lower for grantees receiving a greater amount of grant funds and higher for grantees receiving a lesser amount of grant funds, and in no case may a grantee use more than 10 percent of grant funds for administrative fees. Subsection (e)(2) provides that amounts under this section may not be used for activities reimbursable by FEMA or the Army Corps of Engineers. The new subsection (e)(3) also provides that the Secretary of HUD may use one percent of CD BG-DR appropriated amounts exceeding $1 billion for administrative costs, of which, under new subsection (e)(4), 15 percent of that amount shall be transferred to the HUD IG for audits, reviews, oversight, evaluation, and investigations relating to amounts made available for use under this section. The new subsection (e)(5) authorizes the lesser of 0.1 percent or $15 million for capacity building and technical assistance. This new subsection (e)(6) provides that each grantee shall use not less than 15 percent of funds for comprehensive mitigation planning, except that the Secretary may establish a lower percentage for grantees receiving a grant exceeding $1 billion. Under the new subsection (e), each grantee must ensure that comprehensive mitigation plans are coordinated and aligned with existing comprehensive, land use, transportation, and economic development plans, and specifically analyze multiple types of hazard exposures and risks. Each grantee must also coordinate and align mitigation planning with other mitigation projects funded by FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Forest Service, and other relevant agencies. Mitigation planning funds can be used to purchase data and development or updating of risk mapping for all relevant hazards. The new subsection (e)(6) also directs Grantees to prioritize the expenditure of mitigation dollars for programs and projects primarily benefitting low- and moderate-income households with the greatest risk of harm from natural disasters. The new subsection (e)(7) provides that after consultation with the FEMA Administrator, the Secretary of HUD shall make no CDBG-DR funds available for the construction, reconstruction, or installation of any infrastructure or residential, commercial or public buildings in hazard-prone areas that does not, at a minimum, comply with the lasts published editions of relevant national consensus-based codes, and specifications and standards referenced therein, except that the new subsection (e) provides that nothing that in the new section 123 prohibits grantees from requiring higher standards. The new subsection (e) provides that compliance with this section may be certified by a registered design professional. The new subsection (e)(7) also provides a number of definitions of key terms used. ``Hazard-prone areas'' are defined as areas identified by the Secretary of HUD, in consultation with the FEMA Administrator, at risk from natural hazards that threaten property damage or health, safety, and welfare, such as floods, wildfires, earthquakes, tornados and high winds. The Secretary may consider future risks and the likelihood such risks may pose to protecting property, and health, safety, and general welfare when determining or modifying a hazard-prone area. ``Latest published editions'' is defined, with respect to national consensus-based codes, and specifications and standards referenced therein, the two most recent published editions, including amendments that were adopted by State, local, tribal, or territorial governments to incorporate the latest hazard-resistant designs and establish criteria for the design, construction, and maintenance of structures for the purpose of protecting the health, safety and general welfare of people against disasters. The new subsection (e)(8) provides that the Secretary of HUD shall require than any structure that is located in a special flood hazard area, and that is newly constructed or substantially improved using CDBG-DR funds must be elevated with the lowest floor, including the basement, at least two feet above the base flood level, except that critical facilities, including hospitals, nursing homes, and other public facilities providing social and economic lifelines (as defined by the Secretary of HUD), must be elevated 3 feet above the base flood level or higher if required by the previous section. The new subsection (e)(8) also provides that for existing structures consisting of multi-family housing and row houses, the Secretary of HUD shall consult with the FEMA Administrator and provide for alternative forms of mitigation (apart from elevation) and shall exempt flood level requirements for those structures that meet the standards of the alternative form of mitigation. Subsection (f) of the new section 123 provides that in administering any CDBG-DR funds, the Secretary of HUD may not allow a grantee to use its funds outside the scope of its original application, may not permit a grantee to amend a plan to retroactively approve a beneficiary's use of funds other than for approved activities, and shall prohibit a grantee from delegating the responsibility for inherent government functions. Subsection (g) of the new section 123 provides that the Secretary shall require each grantee to provide ongoing training to its staff and sub-grantees regarding grant management. Subsection (h) of the new section 123 provides that in procuring property or services paid for with CDBG-DR funds, a grantee shall follow its own procurement processes and procedures or must comply with such processes or procedures established through regulation by the Secretary of HUD. A grantee's processes and procedures must (1) provide for a full and open competition and require cost or price analysis, (2) include requirements for sub-grantees, (3) specify methods of procurement and their applicability, (4) include standards of conduct for employees, and (5) ensure that all purchase orders and contracts include any clause required by Federal Statute, Executive Order, or implementing regulation. The new subsection (h) provides that if the Secretary of HUD finds that a grantee's procurement processes and procedures do not comply with this section, the Secretary shall provide the grantee with specific written notice of the elements of noncompliance, provide the grantee a reasonable period of time to come into compliance, and allow the grantee to proceed with procuring property and services only if the Secretary determines the grantee is making a good faith effort to effectuate compliance with this section. Subsection (i) of the new section 123 provides that funding made available under this section shall not be considered relevant to the non-disaster CDBG formula allocations. Except for those statutes that relate to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards and the environment, subsection (j) of the new section 123 authorizes the Secretary of HUD to waive or specify alternative requirements for any statute or regulation when the Secretary makes a public finding that there is good cause that the waiver or the alternative requirement would be consistent with the overall goal of CDBG-DR. The new subsection (j) provides that any waiver shall not take effect before the expiration of the five-day period beginning upon the publication of notice in the Federal Register of such waiver, and that the Secretary of HUD shall not reduce the percentage of CDBG-DR funds that must be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income to less than 70 percent, unless the Secretary specifies that there is compelling need and that funds are not necessary to address the housing needs of low- and moderate-income residents. Subsection (k) of the new section 123 provides that grantees may adopt, without review or public comment, any environment review approved by a Federal agency Subsection (l) of the new subsection 123 provides that for each major disaster for which CDBG-DR assistance is made available under this section, the Secretary of HUD shall collect information regarding all recovery efforts and shall make the information available to the public, while ensuring personally identifiable information is not made publicly available. Under this subsection, the Secretary of HUD may make full and unredacted information available to academic and research institutions to study the equitable distribution of recovery funds, adherence to civil right protections, and other areas. Subsection (m) of the new subsection 123 provides that the Secretary of HUD shall direct the Office of Community Planning and Development to collaborate with the Office of Policy Development and Research to identify best practices for grantees on issues related to disaster recovery to be published by the Secretary of HUD as a compilation. After disseminating the compilation, the Secretary of HUD must issue regulations that establishes requirements grantees must follow when using best practices to qualify for expedited review and approval. The guidance must establish standard language grantees can include in their action plans and standardized programs and activities based on best practices. Subsection (n) of the new section 123 requires the Secretary of HUD to establish a program under this subsection to pre-certify eligible grantees for assistance. To be eligible for precertification, a locality shall demonstrate compliance with the requirement of this section and shall have previously received CDBG-DR assistance in connection with two or more Presidentially-declared disasters. The pre- certification shall be effective for a term of 10 years. Subsection (o) of the new section 123 requires the Secretary of HUD to recapture any unused CDBG-DR funds if the grantee notifies the Secretary that it has completed all activities provided under the grant or the grantee has not spent all or part of the appropriated funds within 6 years. Under the new subsection (o) the Secretary of HUD may, subject to authority provided in advance by appropriations Act, transfer unused funds to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit into the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Reserve Fund established under section 124, except that the Secretary of HUD may permit the grantee to retain amounts needed to close out the grant. Under the new subsection (o), the Secretary of HUD is required to extend the time period by not more than four years if the Secretary of HUD waives the six-year time requirement and submits a written justification to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. Under the new subsection (o), after the initial extension period, the Secretary may provide an additional extension of no more than four years to insular areas and shall provide additional technical assistance to help increase capacity within the insular area receiving the extension and submit a written justification for the extension to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. Subsection (p) of the new section 123 provides a number of definitions applicable to the new section. New section 124 is entitled ``Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Reserve Fund.'' This section establishes the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Reserve Fund, which shall consist of amounts appropriated to the Reserve Fund or recaptured funds as specified under this section. Funds shall be available only for providing technical assistance and capacity building for grantees to facilitate disaster recovery planning and increase capacity to administer assistance. New section 124 also provides that the Secretary of HUD shall issue proposed rules to carry out sections 123 and 124 within six months of H.R. 3702 being enacted, and issue final regulations within 12 months of H.R. 3702 being enacted. H.R. 3702 is an important step in putting forward a framework for HUD to address disasters that affect communities across the United States. I commend Representative Green and Representative Wagner for their dedicated efforts to bring this bill before the House, and I urge all members to support this legislation.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4634) to reauthorize the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, and for other purposes, as amended.