Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and the lead Democratic sponsor of this bill.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Sherman, for working across the aisle to develop H.R. 5953, the Building Up Independent Lives and Dreams Act, or the BUILD Act, which will assist nonprofits in providing affordable housing to those in need. Some nonprofit organizations, like Habitat for Humanity, help borrowers who would otherwise not be able to afford a home by offering zero percent interest mortgages with terms that ensure the borrowers have the ability to repay the loans while also taking care of other household expenses. Oftentimes, these nonprofits rely heavily on limited staffs or volunteer labor to underwrite mortgages for families in need. Because of these unique dynamics, some smaller affiliates of these types of organizations have had a bit of difficulty adapting to the current updated disclosure forms that are used to inform mortgage borrowers about the material terms and costs of their loans. This bill would give those nonprofits the flexibility to choose whether to use truth-in-lending, good-faith estimate, and HUD-1 mortgage disclosure forms when originating a mortgage or the TILA-RESPA integrated disclosure, or TRID, forms. Even though this very narrow exemption already applies to organizations that make five or fewer mortgages annually, I believe we are all in agreement that extending this flexibility to charitable nonprofits with a unique business model like Habitat is a positive change. Nonprofits like Habitat for Humanity operate with different business models and traditional financing institutions. They are and they serve a different clientele. It is clear that the BUILD Act does not provide any opportunity for other types of lenders to take advantage of the carve-out in a way that could potentially harm borrowers. With that in mind, I support this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 4537, as amended, would ensure that international insurance standards or agreements are consistent with our domestic insurance system. The bill also encourages greater transparency, accountability, and congressional involvement in the development of international insurance standards and covered agreements. H.R. 4537, the International Insurance Standards Act of 2018, is a product of months of bipartisan negotiations. I am pleased to be able to support the final compromise bill that is before us today. Today's bill is a reflection of the work of the bill's sponsors, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Heck, and many others, including myself, to narrow and streamline the bill so that we do not intentionally weaken the United States' ability to negotiate strong rules internationally. This is important. We cannot forget that, during 2007 and 2009, the United States faced the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression. One of the most notable events during the crisis was the near collapse of insurance giant AIG, which threatened the stability of the entire U.S. financial system. AIG's rapid demise and need for a Federal bailout underscored the importance of consolidated supervision and appropriate prudential standards for certain types of nonbank financial institutions, including large, global insurance companies. The Dodd-Frank Act helped us fill in these gaps. I would like to note that the core Dodd-Frank reforms, in this respect, remain intact in this bill. Again, I would like to thank Mr. Duffy, Mr. Heck, and their staffs for working with me and my staff to improve the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a special moment to thank Mr. Duffy and Mr. Heck. They worked very hard to resolve the concerns and the differences that arose in trying to put together this legislation. As Mr. Duffy has said, the world has changed, and we cannot be isolated in any way, just thinking about regulations that absolutely are impacted by what is going on internationally. I think, with all the hard work that was done by these two Members, we were able to figure out how to protect the work of the States and the laws that we have, but, at the same time, recognize that we are working in an international atmosphere. We must understand that gaps must be closed; I think we have done that sufficiently. Again, I would like to thank them. Mr. Heck is just getting off the plane. He wanted to be here, because he has worked so hard on this legislation. He is not able to make it, but I want everybody to recognize that he did a tremendous job in helping us work through the difficulties of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate reality in our country that a child's ZIP Code can determine her future and that families often have limited options in choosing where to live. Rigorous studies have demonstrated that giving a low-income family the opportunity to move to a lower poverty neighborhood can have a profound impact, particularly for young children. For example, one study found that young boys and girls in families that used a voucher to move to lower poverty neighborhoods were 32 percent more likely to attend college and earn 31 percent more annually compared to their counterparts in families that did not receive a voucher. However, families with housing choice vouchers continue to face significant challenges if they want to move to a better neighborhood. In fact, data shows that only one in eight families with children with a housing choice voucher used their vouchers to live in low-poverty areas. H.R. 5793 will help reduce barriers to mobility for families with housing choice vouchers by establishing a demonstration program that would enable and incentivize public housing agencies to form regional collaborations that will enhance opportunities for mobility across jurisdictions. This is a bipartisan proposal that was included in previous HUD budget requests under the Obama administration. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that this demonstration will allow more than 7,000 families to move to areas of opportunity. I am pleased to support this legislation, and, of course, I urge my colleagues to do the same. I would like to say that Mr. Cleaver and Mr. Duffy have worked very hard to get this demonstration. I am very pleased about that because it is well known that I have big concerns about HUD and HUD's ability to give the kind of support to the least of these and families that need it so desperately. But this may be an indication that we can get more positive action from HUD. So, again, I am very pleased to support this legislation, and I would like all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), the ranking member of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee and the lead Democratic sponsor of this bill.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I certainly support this bill because we all must have hope. We all must have hope that we can get rid of poverty, that we can open up opportunities, that we can do something that would allow families who are locked into very poor neighborhoods be able to escape those neighborhoods and have better opportunities. It is not always clear how that is going to happen, but given this legislation by Mr. Duffy and Mr. Cleaver, they certainly are attempting to put something together that may be able to move these families and give them better opportunities. We know that we support housing with Section 8 and public housing projects, et cetera, and we know that we have people who have Section 8 certificates who have been desperately looking for a decent place to live and would love to be able to move into higher opportunity neighborhoods. We have got to think in this collaboration that is going to be done about how we are going to convince landlords to be more open to accepting voucher choice participants. We have got to think about what public housing programs can do. Most, of course, public housing is in poor neighborhoods. But certainly, if we have those who are in stronger neighborhoods, better neighborhoods, perhaps there can be the kind of collaboration that can see to it that people in some of the poorer neighborhoods and public housing would have an opportunity for moving into these better neighborhoods. So, again, I think we must be hopeful. We don't always know how it is going to be done, but to give it a try is certainly worthwhile. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, robust and regular disclosures by public companies, such as the detailed quarterly financial information filed on a form 10Q, make our markets more attractive to investors by enabling informed investment decisions and ensuring shareholders can hold corporate boards accountable for practices that may undermine the value of the company. Standardized quarterly financial reporting on form 10Q also provides a means for regulators to conduct efficient and effective oversight of public companies and protect investors from fraud and other corporate misconduct. When investors have faith in the integrity of our markets, they are more likely to entrust their capital to public companies, thereby providing opportunities for economic growth and job creation. The benefits of quarterly reporting are well recognized by the investor community. In a June 2016 letter to the SEC's Division of Corporate Finance, the SEC's Investor Advisory Committee wrote, ``The current degree, quality, and frequency of disclosure for U.S. issuers overall is appropriate and a source of strength for the U.S. capital markets. The current system greatly benefits retirees, pension funds, endowments, and households that are directly and indirectly market participants.'' Additionally, in May and June of this year, investors and investor advocacy groups wrote to the Financial Services Committee expressing their support for the SEC's current quarterly reporting regime, including the form 10Q. According to CalPERS, the largest public pension fund in the United States with more than $350 billion in global assets, ``10Qs provide substantial and important information and serve as a great historical resource. Any modification of standard quarterly filings should be preceded by significant study with ample opportunity for investor input.'' While some business groups have called for the elimination of the 10Q as a cost-saving measure for corporations, I agree that any attempt to alter the existing quarterly reporting requirements first requires a careful and balanced study that considers the impact of any changes on investors and our markets. H.R. 5970, as amended, requires the SEC to conduct such a study, to include consideration of the benefits of form 10Q reporting to the SEC, public companies, investors, market researchers, and other market participants. I support the bill as amended, and I thank Mr. Gottheimer and Mrs. Wagner for working together to develop a bipartisan approach to the study. I hope that the SEC takes this study as an opportunity to hear from investors about the disclosures they find important and ensure that our public markets and the companies which seek to access them continue to enjoy the benefits of comprehensive and standardized financial disclosure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5841, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018. This bill represents a bipartisan effort to bring much-needed reform to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, which serves an important function in the national security area. I would like to thank Chairman Hensarling, Chairman Barr, Ranking Member Moore, Congressman Pittenger, Congresswoman Maloney, and also Congressman Heck, who is here today, in particular. Congressman Heck has, for the good part of a year, been working very hard to ensure that any legislation addresses key jurisdictional gaps in the current scope of CFIUS authority, and this bill does just that. I thank him for his leadership. It is Congress' responsibility to ensure that CFIUS appropriately balances the benefits of our traditionally open investment climate with the need to protect our national security. And make no mistake, the national security threats we face today in this area are both serious and evolving. The world has become a much more complicated place since Congress last reviewed and reformed the CFIUS process a decade ago. The bill brings CFIUS into the 21st century. H.R. 5841 would expand the jurisdiction of CFIUS with regard to certain types of transactions that have previously avoided scrutiny, and it reforms the national security reviews performed by CFIUS to address growing concerns that foreign entities may be using acquisitions of and partnerships with U.S. businesses to chip away at American technological leadership. The primary concern here is that China's aggressive industrial policy and their efforts to invest in early stage, cutting-edge U.S. technologies with potential military applications, including artificial intelligence and robotics, in part to advance China's military modernization, will diminish America's technological advantage. During the course of our deliberations on this legislation, despite some honest intellectual disagreements as to how best to counter this threat, at the end of the day, we understood that we have a responsibility to address these problems in the most effective and efficient way possible, in ways that do not undermine other important functions of government, many of which also contribute to our national security. Importantly, this legislation also recognizes that, as the volume of cases and the complexity of transactions continue to increase, expanding the scope of CFIUS without additional resources would not only undermine CFIUS' mission, but it would also deplete other important government services and functions, both domestically and internationally. So I am very glad that this legislation authorizes $20 million annually for the next 5 years to fund CFIUS' operation, as well as provide the authority for Treasury to impose a filing fee on the companies that file with CFIUS based on the value of the transaction, taking into account a number of other factors, including the effect of any given fee on small-business concerns. The bill does not address everyone's concerns yet, including concerns by some entertainment industry stakeholders, which I share. As we move forward, I will continue to support ongoing refinements to the legislation. H.R. 5841 deserves strong support in the House, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a member of the Financial Services Committee who has fought tirelessly on CFIUS reform and has been engaged in this process from the beginning, for the purposes of a colloquy.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I think that all of our speakers have been eloquent in the way that they have described the work that was done on the bill. I am very pleased and proud that on this issue of national security that we were able to come together. I think that what we have done is certainly in the best interests of our country. As the chairman said, some did not get everything that they would like to have in the bill, but we were able to work through the various concerns, I think, in a very honest and open way. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to say that I appreciate the bipartisan work of the bill's sponsor, Chairman Greg Walden, and, of course, Chairman Kevin Brady and our cosponsor Frank Pallone and cosponsor Richard Neal on this bill, H.R. 6, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose H.R. 5797, also known as the ``IMD CARE Act.'' H.R. 5797 allows states to use Medicaid funds to treat adult patients ages 21-64 with opioid abuse disorders in Institutions for Mental Disease (IMDs) with more than 16 beds. While expanding access to treatment for substance abuse disorders is an admirable goal, H.R. 5797 is not the way to accomplish this goal. One obvious limitation of H.R. 5797 is that it only applies to opioid and heroin use disorders. It does nothing to expand access to treatment for other types of substance abuse disorders, including alcoholism and the abuse of other illegal drugs like methamphetamine, crack, and other forms of cocaine. A second problem with this bill is that it only expands access to treatment in inpatient IMD facilities. It does not provide Medicaid funding for substance abuse treatment services in an outpatient setting, nor does it require states to make such services available. Not all substance abuse patients need to be treated in an institution, and those that do will also need outpatient recovery services after they are released from an IMD. Currently, states can already use Medicaid funds to treat patients in IMD facilities by means of a waiver from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In order to qualify for a waiver, states must take steps to ensure that patients are able to obtain substance abuse treatment and services in the community, as well as in institutions. Eleven states already have a waiver for this purpose, and eleven other states have waiver applications pending. Expanding access to inpatient treatment in states that do not provide outpatient services risks forcing patients into treatment that is ineffective and inappropriate for their situation. Another option that is already available for states that want to expand access to substance abuse treatment services is to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Medicaid expansion would ensure that all low-income people, including those with substance abuse disorders, are able to obtain treatment for their medical conditions. I submitted an amendment that would have required states to expand Medicaid pursuant to the Affordable Care Act as a condition for using Medicaid funds to treat people with opioid abuse disorders in IMD facilities. This amendment would have provided an additional incentive for states to expand Medicaid, which in turn would have expanded access to a broad range of treatment and services for patients with substance abuse disorders. Expanding access to Medicaid will benefit patients with substance abuse disorders, regardless of the type of addiction from which they suffer and regardless of whether they would be best served by inpatient treatment, outpatient treatment, or a combination of the two. It is especially ironic that this bill is being considered on the House floor the day after House Republicans unveiled their fiscal year 2019 budget proposal, which would cut $1.5 trillion from Medicaid. If the majority party cares about Americans suffering from an opioid abuse disorder, they would not rob them of the health care services thiey already have. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5797 and support a comprehensive solution to substance abuse disorders that will meet the needs of all people suffering from these tragic medical conditions.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I don't think the amendment really does what the gentleman would like to have it do, but I am not opposed. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I sat here and I listened to Congressman Hensarling, the chair of the Financial Services Committee, where I serve as ranking member, I thought to myself he was absolutely correct on many of the issues that he surfaced when he held the letter up in the air and he said that there are many Members of Congress who could tell similar stories or maybe have gotten similar letters. He is absolutely correct. Even more than that, there are many of us who have watched the devastation of communities that we represent because of drug addiction over the years for a long time. Unfortunately, many of these stories ended in tragedy, and I am pleased that we are focusing time and attention on opioid addiction and abuse. I am so absolutely thrilled that we are paying attention, and we are recognizing that this is literally a disease and that we can help people, that we can do rehabilitation, that we can provide resources to keep people from dying and being imprisoned and treated in ways that will not help deal with the problem in any real ways. I am pleased about all of that, and I think the intentions of many of our Members are very good, that they really want to do something because many of them are seeing this for the first time. But let me tell you how many years I have been seeing this. Let me tell you about how many deaths I know about. Let me tell you about the imprisonment of those who were both addicted and dealing drugs. Let me tell you about those who have died not only from heroin, that you are seeing now, but crack cocaine and other kinds of drugs and the mixtures that we don't even know about that have caused so many deaths, so much devastation. So I want to do everything that I can to share my knowledge with you, to share my experiences with you, to help in every way that I possibly can move to credible, reasonable, sensible, rehabilitation and support and assistance for those who are addicted. We are trying, as I can see in many of the bills that are being produced, to do what we think is best, but much of it needs more consideration. It needs better understanding. Today, we hear talking about a piece of legislation that I think the author of the legislation is absolutely sincere in what he would like to do. He is seeing drug addicted persons who have abused not only prescription drugs but all the way to heroin on the streets without jobs, laying in the alleys without support, without housing, no place to go, and that is what he is attempting to do. He is attempting to do everything that he possibly can to get them safe and secure places to live with the other resources that must go along with it, supportive resources in order to help them become the persons that they can be. But you cannot do this on the cheap. You cannot do this without understanding that rehabilitation costs money. So, while I absolutely applaud the attempt, I want to share with you that taking 10,000 vouchers from those who have been waiting in line for years--I am talking about single-family parents with their children who simply are praying and hoping that they can get a voucher so that they can get a decent place to live. I am not talking about drug addicted people, necessarily. I am talking about people, some of whom work every day on minimum wages who cannot afford the first and last month's rent to get into a place. I am talking about those who, even if they could find a place, they would be paying more than 30 percent of their income to have a safe and decent place. I am talking about those who have been living in rental units that really need more than just rehabilitation. They are dangerous places that people are living. They are places that still are not protected from wind and rain and all of those things that people should not have to experience trying to live in a decent place to live. I am talking about people who are living in apartments that the ceilings are falling in who are looking for a decent place. I am talking about people who call every day to check to see if in fact they are going to be the next person who is going to be allowed a voucher. I am talking about people who have been waiting 2 and 3 years and on and on and on. So I support the idea that the new population of opioid abusers can have a decent place to live and resources, but let's not deny the people who have been standing in line, who have been praying, who have been hoping for a decent place. Let's not take 10,000 vouchers in a so- called demonstration project. Really, we don't need a demonstration project. I can tell you, many folks in this House can tell you what they know and what they have experienced so that we can put together good, credible, sensible legislation. But it will cost some money. It is not about taking from one and giving to the other. The old people call that robbing Peter to pay Paul. We don't want to do that. We don't want to say to Ms. Jones with 3 kids out there waiting in line for 4 years, 3 years, 2 years, what have you: Sorry, we have a new population that we are going to serve. No, we are not going to vote for more money, for more resources. We are going to take from your opportunity. Sorry you have been standing in line all this long. So, Mr. Chairman, I want to be helpful to all of the folks who need our help. I understand the shock that many are going through who are experiencing this for the first time, but I want you to know about the many nights that I have gone to bed when I have heard about another death of someone who is addicted, who has not had a place to live, who has been on somebody's doorstep, who has been in an alley. I want you to know what I know and what I understand about that mother who has begged me to help find a bed in a unit, a rehabilitative unit that could be used. So this is not the way to do it, and this is not about creating new nonprofits with no experience, no background, to be able to implement this program. This is about understanding all the people who have struggled with these nonprofits, who begged for money, who begged for resources to deal with the populations who are basically dying from this addiction. So whether it is about the fact that there is not enough money here, or we should not be developing new nonprofits to do this because we have experience with our public housing entities that know how to do this, this is about us saying: Yes, we have a problem, and we are going to spend the money. We are going to put the time in on it to develop the good, credible legislation. We are going to be serious about it. We don't want to just look like we are trying to do something. We are going to be positive. We are going to be committed. We are going to do what it takes in order to help these people who are waiting and looking for just another chance in life. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think we should have a little clarity in what is being presented by my colleague about whether or not vouchers will be taken away from anybody. The fact of the matter is nobody thinks that vouchers will be taken away from anybody. They will never get the voucher. They are standing in line waiting for years to get Section 8 vouchers to be able to have a decent place to live. That means that you take 10,000 vouchers away from the people, and the families, and the children, who have been waiting in line all of this time and you give it to a new population of people. That is what this is all about. That cannot be denied, and that is a fact. I am sure that my colleague who is proposing this legislation will agree with me, the fact of the matter is, that person who has been waiting for so long will have to continue to wait, because the voucher that he or she could have gotten is going to go to someone else. Let me just talk a little bit about Mr. Barr's letter that he sent to the appropriators. First of all, I want to thank him for offering to send the letter. And I want to thank him for coming to me and asking me if I would sign on to the letter. What Mr. Barr is doing is--if I may correctly describe this--is having second thoughts about the fact that you need some money, you need some resources in this program. So the gentleman from Kentucky's letter to the appropriators is basically meaningless, because his own bill directly contradicts it. And I pointed this out to him as we had this discussion. The plain text of H.R. 5735 states, ``No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the requirements of this act and the amendments made by this act. Such requirements shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated.'' Mr. Chairman, you can't have it both ways. You can't support language that specifically prohibits appropriators from funding your demonstration and then turn around and ask the appropriators to provide funding. This just doesn't make good sense. That is why I had to say that I could not sign on with him on that letter, knowing what the language was in the legislation. So, if the gentleman from Kentucky wants funding for this demonstration, he needs to be consistent in his advocacy for that funding, and that includes petitioning his own leadership for a waiver of their rules preventing bills that cost money from being considered. I would be happy to join the gentleman from Kentucky in requesting funding for additional vouchers to support people with substance use disorders. But I cannot support this unworkable demonstration. And I cannot lend credibility to his efforts to distract us from the fact that his bill would take vouchers away from families in need, who have been standing in line begging, waiting, and praying for a decent, safe and secure place for them and their families to live. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, yes, Mr. Duffy is absolutely correct, I care about this issue very deeply, and I want to do the right thing. I want him to know that while he was talking about the 2.8 million vouchers, does he know that there are 5 million people who are in need of these vouchers? You cannot make the argument that there is more than enough to go around with all of these people standing in line. When they opened up the waiting list recently, just in Los Angeles alone, 600,000 people attempted to get access to these vouchers. This is about whether or not you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. Either you are willing to pay for your demonstration project, or you want to take away the opportunities of those who have been standing in line, and we are talking about families with children. You don't tell me what is going to happen to them because you won't increase the number of vouchers, and you don't want to put any money into it, so you have to show how you care. It is one thing for us to get up on this floor and talk and debate and explain what we would like to see happen, but it is another thing when we say that we are willing to put the resources that are needed to deal with the problem. I will just say that of the 2.8 million people waiting, 5 million people are in need, and the average waiting time is almost 2 years. So what are you going to do? You don't need a demonstration. We have enough information, we have enough research, and we have enough stories about what has happened for so many years and how so many people have died because they have not had resources available to them to deal with the problem. And, again, I am willing to spend as many hours as it takes to help you know and understand the history of this problem. It didn't just start with opioid abuse. It didn't just start with communities who never experienced this before. This has been going on for years and years and years. I join with Members in wanting to do something about it. But I say to Mr. Barr, it is going to cost some money, and we should not rob Peter to pay Paul. We should not take from those in need. We should not tell the people standing in line, Too bad, stand in line a little bit longer because we have a new episode that we have to deal with. Let's take care of everybody who wants to change their lives, everybody who wants to put behind them this addiction, everybody who is begging for just a second chance. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I am so pleased that Members on the opposite side of the aisle are just being introduced to this crisis. I am so pleased that they are just learning about addiction. I am so pleased that they are willing to talk about it. But I am not so pleased that they are not willing to spend any resources on it. I don't know if they understand that the average cost of a voucher annually is $9,500. Why can't they support that amount of money to deal with credible, decent housing for the very individuals that they say they are trying to give some support to. I don't know how much they know about addiction. And I don't know how much they know about the history of the war on drugs. Have any of them ever visited a drug rehabilitation project? Let me commend them to one that they need to know about. It is right here in Washington, D.C. It is known as N Street Village. Please go. I want them to learn about what they do, or what the costs are, and how they struggle for more and more resources to help more and more people. They cannot legislate. They cannot come up with programs without having an understanding of, and an appreciation of, what has happened in this country and the many people who have died, and the families who have suffered. It didn't just start now. The gentleman who just spoke talked about it is now a crisis. No, it has been a crisis for a long time. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.