Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill, which began as a must-pass reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration but has now become a Christmas tree for unrelated Republican priorities. Puerto Rico is on the brink of a humanitarian crisis following Hurricane Maria that is being exacerbated by Trump's and Congress' failure to adequately respond. Tens of thousands in Texas and Florida are just beginning to pick up the pieces following Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Yet, other than the small initial down payment of disaster aid we passed--which I might add Chairman Hensarling voted against-- Congress has yet to pass a single policy reform that will actually improve the lives of any of those who found themselves in harm's way. This is the first time in this Congress that we are debating a flood insurance policy change on the House floor. However, this is not a policy change that would address the resilience of the Flood Insurance Program, help families to recover, or improve our country's response to natural disasters. No. The Republican response to the catastrophic storms of these last 2 months is to muscle through the expansion of private flood insurance, which has long been sought by the insurance industry. Now, let me be clear. I don't oppose this policy. I voted for it last Congress and I voted for it when we marked it up in committee this year. But moving this bill at this time, while ignoring all the other policy responses needed but the Flood Insurance Program and the ongoing natural disasters in our country, is simply irresponsible. The NFIP will expire on December 8 of this year, and we still lack a credible plan to ensure that it is reauthorized for the long term. Therefore, I will oppose any and all efforts to break apart the debate on substantive reforms to the NFIP from the reauthorization debate we should so desperately be having. The bill before us today does absolutely nothing to address the stability of the NFIP, which is in jeopardy following a devastating series of catastrophic hurricanes across several States and U.S. territories. We know that we will need to increase the NFIP's borrowing authority so that policyholders from Harvey, Irma, and Maria can be made whole, but the chairman has no plan to deal with the debt, frequently telling those of us who have urged him to consider debt forgiveness to just forget about that idea. I have long called for Congress to forgive NFIP's debt, particularly because of the unsustainable burden placed on policyholders paying hundreds of millions of dollars a year just on the interest for the government to pay itself back. Flood insurance is already unaffordable. So why are we continuing to make it worse by saddling policyholders with interest on a debt that will never be repaid? We need thoughtful, comprehensive solutions to a long-term reauthorization that addresses the debt, affordability, mapping, and mitigation. That is not what we have before us today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, on August 26, Hurricane Harvey began a path of unprecedented destruction across southeast Texas. The historic levels of rainfall were so extraordinary that the National Weather Service had to add new colors to its map graphics just to record it. As of August 30, it was estimated that 24.5 trillion gallons of water had been dumped over Texas and Louisiana. Harvey is now being called the most extreme rain event in United States history. Year after year, the natural disasters that hit the United States are becoming more frequent and more severe. Democrats understand the root cause: climate change. It is long overdue for President Trump and the congressional Republicans to admit the truth. Quickly following the tragic news that Harvey was on a path to cause catastrophic flooding in Texas, President Trump pledged to help pass the necessary financial aid to begin the long recovery. But, of course, the President and Members of Congress all knew we had better not deny or delay funding for this very devastating natural disaster. The American people expected their government to quickly respond to Harvey. However, we must understand that there are other laws and policies that must be protected, laws that determine what the Congress can do and must do to assist our country with mitigation, preparedness, mapping, and affordable national flood insurance. The NFIP must be dealt with and must be understood. So Mr. Trump's previous record on the issue is appalling and is in direct contradiction to his latest pledge. Just days before Harvey made landfall, Trump repealed an Obama executive order that would have required the Federal Government to account for climate change so that infrastructure could be built to withstand catastrophic events. Trump also sent Congress a budget that cuts funding for programs that help us understand, prepare for, and recover from storms like Harvey. His budget slashes operations and funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's climate research, cuts $62 million from the National Weather Service, eliminates the Regional Coastal Resilience grants, guts Coastal Zone Management grants, and cuts $190 million from the National Flood Insurance Program's flood mapping program. Trump's budget would also cut $114 million from the Department of Agriculture's disaster assistance that would help farmers recover livestock, crops, and equipment that would be felt in Texas where many farms are currently under several feet of water. His budget also completely eliminates HUD's Community Development Block Grant and HOME programs, vital grant programs that serve as one of the first available sources of funding to help communities recover even before disaster relief funding can be appropriated from Congress. What is more, Trump's budget would have cut $876 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund, the very fund that he is now pledging billions of dollars of support for. So we are pleased that he learned after the fact. All told, Trump would cut billions of dollars for disaster preparedness and disaster relief programs. Of course, he also appointed a known climate change denier to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. So I, for one, am not surprised that this is where his priorities lie. The hypocrisy and shortsightedness do not end with Donald Trump. Let us remember that many House Republicans, including both Texas Senators, opposed disaster aid following Superstorm Sandy. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they are asking for billions of dollars in taxpayer support for their constituents. Of course, we should pass a disaster aid package quickly and without hesitation because it is simply the right thing and the American people expect us to do it. But just as we are now witnessing the sudden change of heart for disaster relief in certain Members of Congress, I hope that we will see a similar change of heart in response to the push of certain Republicans to unwind the National Flood Insurance Program.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must say, I am deeply disappointed by the sinister attempt being made here today to strip a critical Republican-led amendment from this appropriations bill that would thwart the will of overwhelming majorities in both Houses and undermine the work of the job-creating Export-Import Bank. As of the end of 2016, as many as 50 major transactions, with an aggregate value of nearly $40 billion, had piled up in the Bank's approval pipeline. And according to the Ex-Im Bank, if approved, these transactions would support more than 100,000 jobs in the United States. The longer we wait, the greater the risk that these pending transactions will be withdrawn and sourced by our foreign competitors and the greater the likelihood that jobs that would have otherwise supported here in the United States will move offshore. The chairman of the Financial Services Committee claims that striking this amendment would have ``no budgetary effect'' but this is hardly the case. President Trump's own fiscal year 2018 budget estimates that a fully functional Export-Import Bank would generate $587.7 million in excess funds in the next fiscal year.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose H.R. 3354, a bill that not only fails to make critical investments in our Nation's future, but also eliminates important protections for everyday Americans. As ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, I am particularly concerned that H.R. 3354 imposes such severe cuts on the Department of Housing and Urban Development that it will result in families losing their housing assistance and putting them at risk for homelessness. The bill also takes some of the worst provisions from the Republican's ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act that would return our economy to the reckless practices that caused the financial crisis. One provision takes away the authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to stop abusive practices by banks like Wells Fargo, which ripped off more than 3.5 million of its customers. Another provision repeals the Labor Department's commonsense rule that protects seniors from conflicted retirement advice from unscrupulous financial advisers. There are so many gifts to Wall Street, one would think Christmas came early. But it isn't Christmas, Mr. Chair. It is September, and we are in the middle of hurricane season. Our cities are literally under water, yet the Republican leadership has done nothing to prevent the National Flood Insurance Program from expiring at the end of the month. Republicans have also let us come dangerously close to defaulting on our debt and the obligations owed to servicemembers, veterans, seniors, and the most vulnerable among us. Just yesterday, 800,000 young Democrats were told by our President that their future is in the hands of a hostile Congress. We must oppose this bill so we can get to work on what Congress should really be doing.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I appeal the ruling of the Chair, and I seek time to debate the appeal.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I would like to continue to appeal the ruling of the Chair. I hardly think it is in order, and I would ask the Chair to rule the request by Chairman Hensarling as not in violation.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word about Mr. Hultgren, who just took up the previous bill, H.R. 3110, the Financial Stability Oversight Council Insurance Member Continuity Act. I enjoyed working with him. It was a wonderful experience. I think we can do a lot more of that. Mr. Speaker, having said that, I am pleased to rise today in support of S. 1616, legislation to award a Congressional Gold Medal to former Senator Bob Dole in recognition of his distinguished service to the Nation. In his younger years, Bob Dole made clear that he truly exemplified the best of the Nation's Greatest Generation. When his studies were interrupted by World War II, he enlisted in the United States Army, where he risked his own life to save a fellow soldier. In recognition of his brave service, which left him badly wounded by machine-gun fire and with a permanent disability, he was awarded two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star with an Oak Cluster, among other honors. Following his service in the U.S. Army, Senator Dole began a long and distinguished career in public office, serving first in the Kansas House of Representatives, followed by multiple terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1999, Dole was elected to the United States Senate, where he served for 27 years and rose to be majority leader before running for President. Over the course of his political career, Senator Dole developed a reputation as an outspoken and pragmatic leader who was willing to work across party lines to advance the health and welfare of the American public. For example, in speaking about the importance of Social Security and the need to protect Medicare for America's senior citizens, Dole said in a speech at the 1996 Republican National Convention: ``And I have learned in my own life, from my own experience, that not every man, woman, or child can make it on their own. And that in time of need, the bridge between failure and success can be the government itself. And given all that I have experienced, I shall always remember those in need. . . .'' In addition to working to safeguard important programs like Social Security and Medicare, former Senator Dole was also a strong advocate for the disabled, and he played a central role in passing the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Nation's first comprehensive civil rights law to protect people with disabilities from discrimination in employment, public services, and public accommodations. Although he was not elected President, as the nominee of the Republican Party, he made clear that he would not accommodate racial or religious intolerance, stating that if anyone had ``mistakenly attached himself to our party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion . . . the exits, which are clearly marked, are for you to walk out of. . . .'' After leaving the Senate in 1996, former Senator Dole continued to dedicate himself to a range of causes, particularly those aimed at helping those in need. For example, Senator Dole served as co-chair of the Families of Freedom Scholarship Fund, which raised more than $100 million for the educational needs of the families of victims of 9/11, and he served as the co-creator of the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, which aimed to alleviate child hunger. While Senator Dole and I have had our share of policy differences over the years, it was always possible to have a civil disagreement that didn't lead to disrespect. A true gentleman, statesman, and legislator, Senator Dole could debate the issues with the best of us, all while maintaining a good sense of humor. For all of these reasons, it comes as no surprise that the legislation before us today has already garnered the unanimous support of the United States Senate, and it is fitting that the House today is doing its part to give the highest honor this body can bestow to former Senator Bob Dole. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in quickly passing this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, 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, I would like to start off by thanking Representative Sinema and Representative Hollingsworth for working together to craft bipartisan legislation that will help smaller public companies raise the funds necessary to grow and thrive. Specifically, H.R. 2864, the Improving Access to Capital Act, would narrowly expand the relief that we provided in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, the JOBS Act, to allow public companies to raise money under Regulation A-Plus. Currently, Regulation A-Plus allows private companies to raise up to $50 million in capital by selling unregistered but freely tradable stock to the public as a quicker and less expensive alternative to a fully registered securities offering. Extending Regulation A-Plus eligibility to public companies would provide them with an additional efficient method of raising a small fixed amount of capital. To be eligible to use this faster and cheaper fundraising alternative, public companies must be up to date in their public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, public companies must comply with all of the other regulatory requirements in Regulation A-Plus, including SEC approval or qualification of the offering, disclosure of the offering information to investors, and limitations on sales per investor. Importantly, bad actors who have committed certain felonies, misdemeanors, or other misconduct within the past 5 years are disqualified from using Regulation A-Plus. These restrictions help ensure that investors in Regulation A-Plus offerings are informed about their purchases and protected from fraud. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 2864 for providing targeted relief to public companies that balances their need to raise capital with the protection of their investors. I remain concerned that the Financial Services Committee has adopted a piecemeal approach to private and public market regulation. Going forward, I hope that we thoughtfully review the securities laws to ensure that our legislative efforts appropriately incentivize companies to become public. Again, I want to thank the bill's sponsors, especially Ms. Sinema, for their work on this bipartisan piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2864, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank the cosponsors for their vision, for their work, and for the bipartisan effort that they so successfully put together. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), the lead sponsor of this bill.

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight Robert ``Ian'' Maloney, a May 2017 graduate of Georgetown Preparatory School and a newly accepted member of the Brown University class of 2021. Last year, I had the great pleasure of speaking at Georgetown Preparatory School about the call to serve and to give back to the community. I accepted the invitation to speak at that school because Ian reached out and asked me to do so. Ian is a remarkable young man whom I have known since his birth. Ian was President of the Black Student Association. He is also a member of the National Honor Society and a National Hispanic Scholar, and he is passionate about serving others and giving back. He is committed to social justice and drawing attention to the scourge of homelessness. Ian asked me to speak at Georgetown Preparatory School because he had made a promise to the school's Headmaster, Mr. Jeff Jones. Mr. Jones was the school's first African-American Headmaster and Interim President, and a leader who fostered diversity. At the time that Ian requested that I speak, Mr. Jones was awaiting a heart transplant at Cedars-Sinai Hospital in my Congressional District. Sadly, Mr. Jones would die two months after I spoke. However, several days before he had passed, he called to wish Ian continuing success in his studies and called on him to carry the torch and to continue to serve others. Mr. Speaker, Ian wishes to honor the call and the memory of his Headmaster, Mr. Jeff Jones. Ian is a very special young man, and I wish him success in his academic endeavors. I truly believe that he has a very bright future ahead and that he will continue to give back to his community and make a positive difference in the world.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair tell us why.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the 27th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is a day to reflect on how people with disabilities are treated in our society. Our President indicated to us what he thinks about people with disabilities long before he was elected when he mocked a disabled reporter. Mocking the disabled is rude and insensitive, and it sends a terrible message to our children. Who are the disabled people who were mocked that day? They are veterans who lost a limb or suffered a traumatic brain injury while courageously serving our country. They are children who were born with serious medical conditions like autism, Down syndrome, and cerebral palsy. They are victims of workplace accidents and car accidents. They are victims of mass shootings and terrorist attacks. They are senior citizens in nursing homes. They are our mothers and fathers, our brothers and sisters, our friends and neighbors, and our children. They might be with us today or they may be with us a year from now. They deserve to be treated with respect, and they deserve quality healthcare. Given that we already know about the attitudes that have been displayed against them, it should come as no surprise that TrumpCare would have a devastating impact on people with disabilities. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has scored several versions of TrumpCare. Most would cause at least 22 million people to lose their health insurance. The so-called repeal only bill, which repeals the Affordable Care Act and does not replace it with anything, would cause 32 million people to lose their health insurance. Even the so-called skinny TrumpCare would cause 16 million people to lose health insurance and increase premiums by 20 percent. When people with disabilities lose their health insurance, they cannot get affordable treatment for their medical conditions; and when healthy people lose their health insurance and then become disabled, they, too, will not be able to find affordable treatment for their injuries. Furthermore, when they try to find a new health policy, their disability will be considered a preexisting condition. TrumpCare cuts more than $700 billion from Medicaid. According to an analysis by the Center for American Progress, more than 15 million children and adults with disabilities rely on Medicaid for their health coverage and could lose it if TrumpCare became law. The President's budget would also have a very devastating impact on all people with disabilities. Trump's budget cuts $50 billion over the next 10 years from benefits earned by American veterans who are unable to work because of a service-connected disability. His budget cuts billions from Social Security Disability Insurance, which provides earned benefits to workers who become disabled after years of paying Social Security taxes on their earnings. His budget cuts billions from Supplemental Security Income, which protects vulnerable people with disabilities, including 1.2 million children who suffer from conditions such as Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, autism, intellectual disabilities, and blindness. His budget cuts funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by $113 million, jeopardizing special education services for students with disabilities. His budget cuts funding for housing for persons with disabilities by 20 percent. His budget eliminates the Limb Loss Resource Center and the Paralysis Resource Center, which cuts support for people with traumatic brain injuries by 67 percent and cuts funding for the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities by 26 percent. It even eliminates Special Olympics Education. In conclusion, people with disabilities deserve better. That is why we must raise our voices to support them, oppose these budget cuts that target them, and protect their healthcare. Stopping TrumpCare is not about politics. It is a matter of life and death, and this is especially true for people with disabilities.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am now prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, today we have heard Democrats speak about the importance of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule to stop forced arbitration clauses in contracts for consumer financial products and the harm that would result from this joint resolution to repeal the rule. Forced arbitration clauses severely limit consumers' legal rights and prevent groups of consumers from holding financial institutions accountable for wrongdoing. The Consumer Bureau's rule helps to ensure that financial institutions are held accountable and fully protects the legal rights of consumers, including servicemembers and veterans. The majority has shamefully moved to nullify the Consumer Bureau's good work in a move that ultimately enables financial institutions to get off the hook when they commit wrongdoing, with less redress for consumers. Studies have shown that forced arbitration favors big business and results in less compensation for American consumers who have been abused or defrauded, if they receive any at all. This resolution steamrolls over the Consumer Bureau's sensible rule without regard for the harm that will result for American consumers and families. This is also despite the broad support for the rule from consumer advocacy, civil rights, and faith-based groups, legal scholars, and advocates for servicemembers. Congress must not curtail the legal rights of consumers, must not repeal the Consumer Bureau's forced arbitration rule. Vote to protect consumer rights. Vote to fully restore the American principle of right to trial by jury. Vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 111. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that I keep hearing my colleagues talk about how fast consumers are taken care of under the arbitration rule. Yes, because they are getting railroaded. As I mentioned, they are in the back room without representation. These are people who have been forced to sign these arbitration agreements, not even knowing that they signed them. Most people who go out now to get a credit card or to get a loan of some kind, they are forced into these agreements and they don't even know it. They are shocked and surprised when they cannot join with others who have been ripped off in class action lawsuits. So don't pay attention to all of the information that you have received from the opposite side. Remember that the banks and big businesses win 93.1 percent of the time, not consumers. Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of consumers or are you protecting big business? Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a Member who is outraged by the attack on consumers by the opposite side of the aisle.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), a member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a senior member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the vice ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the Higher Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee.