Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 685, the so-called Mortgage Choice Act, which would roll back protections for home buyers, make mortgages more expensive, undermine Dodd-Frank, and undo the important work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As its title indicates, the Mortgage Choice Act would affect choice, but in the wrong way. It would invite a return to a recent time when hard-working Americans were choosing whether to pay for medication or their mortgage, a time when they were faced with choosing between sleeping at a homeless shelter or spending one more night in the car. These choices were and still are being made by many of those who suffered as a result of the financial crisis, a crisis that was caused in large part by predatory mortgages. During this time, lenders often piled on excessive upfront fees by exploiting the opaque pricing and sales system for settlement services, like title insurance, which too often left borrowers without the information necessary to shop around or negotiate for lower prices. They cared little about whether the borrower had the ability to repay the loan over the life of the mortgage because they raked in upfront fees at the point of origination. Just to make it clear, anyone who has bought a home, who has got involved with negotiating for a mortgage would understand very clearly what we are talking about. We are going to focus on title fees, but there are a lot of fees up front that would-be homeowners are asked to pay for, including appraisal fees and inspection fees. So during the subprime meltdown and the crisis that we had, we determined that there were many of the mortgage lenders, the originators, who were just piling on these fees. This is in addition to the downpayments they were making, and so they were making more money. Because they were making more money, this is what caused many of our homeowners to lose these homes, because they were paying too much up front and they were being gouged with these predatory loans. In response, the Dodd-Frank Act entrusted the CFPB with the responsibility of ensuring that lenders and their affiliated companies were restrained from charging excessive fees. What are we talking about? We are simply talking about mortgage lenders and originators who owned other companies like title companies, or who were affiliated with other companies like title companies. And why were they affiliated? They were affiliated, or they owned these companies, so that they could make more money, because these affiliated companies would mark up the price of these fees and, basically, kick back to the originator some money. One way the CFPB achieved this was through a standard known as a qualified mortgage, which, among other things, placed a 3 percent cap on upfront fees. What they simply said was, You can't just keep charging any old thing that you want to. It doesn't make good sense that people are ending up paying 5 percent, 6 percent and on and on in these upfront fees. So we are going to put a cap on for 3 percent of upfront fees. These 3 percent fee caps include those paid to affiliates. Don't forget, these are these companies that are owned by the originator, or affiliated with them. This 3 percent fee cap includes, again, those paid to affiliates of the lender for services such as, again, property appraisals, settlement services, and title insurance. It is these fees that pose the greatest risks to consumers since they invite lenders to steer borrowers directly to their affiliates without open competition and with higher prices. So, simply, what the originators were doing was saying, okay, this is who we are going to get you to pay money to for these services that you need in order to get this loan. They didn't ask you if you knew a title company. They didn't invite the independent companies in to compete. They just simply steered the borrowers into these affiliated companies. In the past, creditors have offered incentives like reduced office rent, bonuses, commissions, or other financial perks in exchange for business referrals. Though Dodd-Frank banned these type of kickbacks, some creditors are circumventing them by buying or creating businesses so they can profit by referring their customers to their affiliated service providers. It is worse than referral. They just write it up, and the borrower doesn't even know that they had an opportunity to shop around. Others, like J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo, recently settled cases of wrongdoing within the past year for engaging in a kickback scheme with an affiliated title company. But instead of strengthening this ban on kickbacks, today, this House considers legislation that would actually incentivize these cozy relationships which increase creditors' profits at the expense of consumers. In some cases, these referral financial incentives are as much as half of the premiums home buyers pay. Buying a home is a complex venture. How many among us who own homes have really ever shopped around for title insurance? I imagine very few. Consumers should not have to be worried that their service providers are colluding to scam borrowers. Instead, they should be competing to provide them the best prices. H.R. 685 would undermine the CFPB's definition of affiliated services by removing title insurance fees charged by affiliates of the lender from the 3 percent cap. As a result, creditors will actually be encouraged to direct borrowers to expensive affiliates, codifying a system of kickbacks in our laws. This is not only detrimental to consumers but to small businesses that provide unaffiliated title insurance. So what they are basically saying is, We don't like it that you have had reform in the law. We don't like it that you have discovered that these kickback schemes go on. We don't like it that you now know that some of these originators, these lenders, own some of these businesses. We want them to be able to charge as much in fees as they can get. Let them gouge, or let them simply write in companies that they know will pay them more money for getting this business. So we have said, in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that this should be limited to 3 percent. That is enough. You don't need to take more from the consumers. Title insurance is already an uncompetitive market, and State protections are often weak and, at times, nonexistent. This measure will, ironically, ensure even fewer choices for consumers because consumers rarely know that other options exist. As a result, they will often simply rely on what they are kind of forced to do or made to do, or the recommendations of their lender, who, under H.R. 685, can simply refer them to affiliated entities who can then charge excessive fees without regard for the 3 percent cap. Mr. Speaker, a diverse coalition, ranging from the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza to the Center for American Progress and the Center for Responsible Lending, have all voiced their opposition to this so-called Mortgage Choice Act. The Obama administration has pledged to veto the measure because it ``risks eroding consumer protections and returning the mortgage market to the days of careless lending.'' We need only reflect on the 2008 mortgage crisis to understand that lenders too often focused on profiting from upfront payments through points and fees, rather than taking care to originate loans whose value derives from long-term performance. I am alarmed at how short our memories have become. It has barely been 5 years since the worst of the crisis subsided, and we are already welcoming a return to the abusive practices that contributed to the subprime meltdown. This measure will drive up the cost of mortgages, limit competition, and ultimately hurt consumers, so I sincerely urge my colleagues to oppose it. Mr. Speaker and Members, I have spent hours with consumers begging for loan modifications, trying to save their homes. They didn't know what they were signing up for when they signed on the dotted line, for many of these mortgages were simply gouging them, simply telling them that they could get refis anytime they wanted. They didn't know that when they were told: Don't worry about how much money you make, we can fix that; don't worry about whether or not we are going to be able to not only refinance, but we can give you this for interest only; and on and on and on, with all of these exotic products. And they certainly didn't know about all of the fees that they were paying up front. They didn't understand that they should have had some options. They should have had some choices, but they didn't have; they didn't have because these lenders were just putting them into paying companies that they were affiliated with, that they were going to make more money off of. This is shameful. I don't know why we are spending our time in the Congress of the United States trying to gouge consumers and trying to put us back where we were with the subprime meltdown and the crisis that was created. We have a lot of things we should be attending to. There are a lot of concerns that our consumers have out there. Our consumers are concerned about jobs and job creation. They are concerned about pay equity. They are concerned about homelessness. They are concerned that we have the housing, to attend to those who have jobs that cannot afford to pay the price of rental housing. They are concerned that if they want to buy a home that they will be treated fairly, that they will not be gouged, that they will not be taken advantage of. We know that when you buy a home, you have a stack of papers this high to sign. We also know that if you are well off, you can get your lawyer, you can get your representatives to read through these papers and help you get the best mortgage. We know that Members of Congress know how to negotiate, know how to bargain, know how to get the best loans, know how to shop around; but not all of our consumers are that fortunate, not all of them are prepared, and they listen to what they are told by their lenders. I want to tell you, the business that we are involved in here with this bill where we are trying to say forget about that 3 percent cap, let these lenders charge as much as they can get, let them gouge the consumers--this is wrong. This should not be done by Members who are sent here to represent all of our constituents, all of our consumers, and more than that, the more vulnerable of them, those who don't have high-priced lobbyists in the Halls of Congress, those who can't even get their Members of Congress to return their telephone calls if they have a complaint. We should be here dealing with the real issues of the day, not using our influence and our time to simply fatten the pockets of those who would gouge our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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. My colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle keep telling us how everybody who would make money on the most vulnerable population is somehow suffering. They are suffering because somehow they are not able to make these loans because they cannot be guaranteed the profits that they want to get. Let me again just share some information with you. Clayton Homes, the largest U.S. mobile home manufacturer, as well as the two biggest mobile home lenders, 21st Mortgage Corporation and Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, are owned by Berkshire Hathaway, an amazingly profitable company whose shares trade for $215,000 each. Berkshire Hathaway profited to the tune of $19.87 billion, or 12,092 per share, in 2014. The CEO of Berkshire Hathaway is Mr. Warren Buffett, the third richest man in the world. Even though the CFPB's rule on manufactured housing was effective in January 2014, again, Clayton Homes profited to the tune of $558 million in 2014, up from $416 million in 2013 and $255 million in 2012. Why do we need to provide this industry with more regulatory relief when they are already thriving? Note that these profits come on the backs of some of America's lowest income households. In fact, 84 percent of the industry's customers make less than the U.S. median household income. Clayton, again, is a large conglomerate of companies operating under at least 18 names, constructing nearly half of the industry's new homes and selling them through its own retailers. Many consumers think they are shopping around, not realizing that it is just different dealers with different names, all operating under the Clayton umbrella. Let me just wrap this up by saying that this bill is absolutely a giveaway. It is my friends on the opposite side of the aisle deciding that it is more important to allow this industry to charge exorbitant interest rates and fees to this vulnerable population than it is to try and do something about reform. We went through a recession--almost a depression--in this country because of the way loan initiators came up with these exotic products. You want to take us right back to that kind of situation. I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. It is not needed, and it is absolutely predatory. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how much time we have left?

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker and Members, before the next Members rise to speak on this bill, I would just like to remind everybody that this amount of interest rate that they will be getting on these loans, should this bill pass, is 10 percent above the prime rate; and from 14 percent it could go up to maybe 18 percent. There is no Member of Congress who would pay that kind of interest rate on a home loan or manufactured housing or anything else, but we are asking the most vulnerable in our society that are targeted to pay this kind of entry rate in the interest of getting credit. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for me to correct statements that have been made more than once by the opposite side of the aisle about consumer protections. H.R. 650 would remove consumer protections afforded to borrowers of high-priced mortgage loans under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, as enhanced by Dodd-Frank, for manufactured housing loans that currently receive such protections. Those protections include: Prior to making a high-cost mortgage, the lender must receive written certification that the consumer has received counseling from a HUD- approved counselor or State agency. That would be out. Restrictions on loan terms for high-cost mortgages, including the loan payments currently only allowed in very limited circumstances; prepayment penalties banned; a limitation of due-on-demand features of loans; creditors banned from recommending default on an existing loan to be refinanced by a high-cost mortgage; no fees can be charged by services or creditors to modify or renew or extend a high-cost mortgage; late fees capped at 4 percent of past due payments and the pyramiding of fees banned; no fees for borrowers to receive a payoff statement; charges that qualify for points and fees cannot be financed into principal balance; a ban on issuing two loans in order to evade HOEPA coverage by splitting fees and rates. All of these are protections that would be eliminated. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for people to know that that letter that was read was back in 2011, and that was prior to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's very investigative reporting. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Yes, I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I thank the gentlewoman very much. I appreciate being given some time at the last minute. Mr. Chairman, the wealth gap and racial wealth gap have reached record levels, and alarming statistics tell the story. Mr. Chairman, 46.5 million Americans are living in poverty, and comparable numbers are even worse in the African American community and other communities of color. For decades, we have had policies and made funding decisions that have benefited only a few at the expense of the middle class and minorities. The Great Recession and subsequent years of budget cuts have only made things worse for these communities. While the Republicans' budget demonstrates their commitment to maintaining this inequality, the budget put forth by the Congressional Black Caucus today attempts to rebuild and restore what we lost, especially in the housing sector, which is why it has my support. First, the CBC budget retains a robust Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Congress created to protect all Americans from predatory loans that led to millions of foreclosures, many of which were in the African American community. The CBC budget also makes critical investments in affordable housing programs, including fully funding public housing and fully restoring Section 8 housing choice vouchers lost due to sequestration. The CBC budget would also invest much-needed resources to add over 20,000 new beds for the homeless across our country. Investments in these important rental and homeless assistance programs is especially important given the fact that we have nearly 8 million households in America for whom safe, decent, and affordable housing is not available to them. Put simply, the Republican budget would widen the wealth gap in this country; the CBC budget would help eliminate it. Further, the CBC budget strengthens our housing market, our financial system and economic stability as a whole. I urge that all Members of this House vote in favor of it and in favor of putting our country back on a sustainable economic path.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Van Hollen for his leadership on the Committee on the Budget. As ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, I would like to express my serious concerns about how this budget resolution undermines our financial stability, protection for American consumers, and the entire housing market. It is now 7 years since our country's financial system was rocked by Wall Street greed and predatory lending. All of our constituents bore witness to an economy where family members lost their jobs, friends were made homeless, and everyone's savings, no matter how modest, were depleted. In all, trillions of dollars of wealth vanished in the span of a few months. When some of the money returned, it was not shared equally. Democrats in Congress worked to prevent a repeat of this disaster by, among other things, putting in place the tools necessary to prevent bailouts of megabanks and creating an independent regulator solely tasked with defending consumers from financial harm. Rehashing failed policies, the Republican budget resolution would repeal these tools and bind the hands of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Republicans would return us to a system where a company like AIG would once again threaten the entire financial system. The Republicans would return us to a system where lenders can make predatory mortgages to some of the most disadvantaged communities, including communities of color, but that is not all. This budget resolution goes even further. It would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac along the lines of the failed PATH Act, a terrible piece of legislation rejected by everyone--housing advocates, realtors, mortgage banks, academics, and, I might add, a majority of Members in the House. Why do we all reject it? We fear it would be the end of safe mortgages like the 30-year fixed rate mortgage. We fear it would favor only the big megabanks, hurting community banks. We fear that it would further widen the wealth gap in this country. This budget resolution is built upon a flawed foundation that harms some of our most vulnerable communities. I urge that the Members of this House oppose the Republican budget resolution.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, this bill will provide an important and long overdue reauthorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act or NAHASDA. Through NAHASDA, the federal government provides housing assistance to Native Americans and Native Hawaiians in a way that is tailored to address their unique housing needs, while respecting their right to self-determination. These groups experience some of the poorest housing conditions in our country so it is very important that we reauthorize the programs within NAHASDA. As a supporter of the reauthorization of NAHASDA, I did not object to the bill before us today moving forward under suspension. However, as I have pointed out in the past, this bill fails to ensure certain basic protections for the communities that rely on NAHASDA--and as a result--I will oppose this measure. Despite my repeated objections, Republicans have refused to include a provision in this bill that offers protections for the Cherokee Freedmen. As many people know, the Cherokee Freedmen are the descendants of former African American slaves of the Cherokee, who are facing possible expulsion by the Cherokee nation. For the past several years, under the leadership of former Members including Carolyn Kilpatrick and Mel Watt, the Congressional Black Caucus has stood up for the rights of the Cherokee Freedmen. But Republicans have consistently refused to acknowledge this tragic history and do something to bring justice to this situation. And this bill is no exception. During the Committee markup, they rejected my amendment, which would have made NAHASDA funding to the Cherokee contingent on full recognition of the Freedmen as citizens of the Cherokee Nation. My position on this issue remains steadfast, and I cannot support continued silence in the face of such injustice. That is why I will not support this bill unless it grants the Freedmen the justice they deserve. I am also withholding my support from this bill because it contains a provision that would seriously undercut the central goal of providing affordable housing for low-income Native Americans. This bill would waive a long-standing tenet of affordable housing known as the ``Brooke Rule,'' which states that the maximum rent paid by assisted households must be no more than 30 percent of their income. The Brooke Rule is a basic safeguard that exists in the pubjic housing and Section 8 programs. It ensures that federally subsidized housing is affordable for the lowest-income households. By stripping away this basic safeguard, this bill would make low-income Native Americans vulnerable to unlimited increases in rent without any kind of hardship examptions in place. This is simply unacceptable. It is a basic purpose of NAHASDA to provide housing for low-income Native Americans, and this provision would seriously undermine that purpose. Republicans may not be concerned about the plight of the lowest-income Native Americans who rely on NAHASDA programs, but they are at the top of my concerns when it comes to this bill. Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank Ms. Moore, Mr. Heck and Mr. Kildee for their efforts to reach a bipartisan agreement on this bill. However, I cannot support this reauthorization bill in its current form for all of the reasons I have stated.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, today, I have introduced the addressing the wealth gap resolution which calls on Congress to recognize the wealth gap and the racial wealth gap as national economic crises and focus its efforts on their elimination. This country is facing the widest wealth gap since 1983. The statistics are alarming. Wealthy families make nearly seven times as much as middle class families and 70 times as much as lower class families. African Americans have 13 times and Latinos have 10 times less wealth than White households. White households have $100,000 more in retirement savings than African Americans and Latinos. The cause of the record-level wealth gap stems from a structural crisis that started well before the Great Recession. The recession hit, and the housing market collapsed and made everything worse. In the aftermath, middle-income families and people of color have had to endure income inequality, slow wage growth, skyrocketing student loans, and continued unequal access to quality education and barriers to the housing market. These are problems that widened the gap and require Congress to implement pragmatic solutions. We cannot sit idly by and expect things to change. This is why I am introducing the addressing the wealth gap resolution. The first step to resolving this problem is acknowledging that it exists, and I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join and focus on the goal of rebuilding wealth in America.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida for his leadership on this important issue. I applaud him, Leader Pelosi, and Whip Hoyer for their efforts to ensure we support policies that create American jobs and keep U.S. businesses competitive. I find the contrast with the bills we consider this week particularly striking as the out-of-touch Republican leadership wastes our time with measures that deny science and strip workers of critical rights. Mr. Speaker, I am in disbelief that we are still debating the future of the Export-Import Bank, which we know supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and levels the playing field so that American businesses, large and small, can compete globally. The facts underscore what is at stake. In fiscal year 2014, Ex-Im Bank approved more than 3,400 transactions with a total estimated export value of $27.5 billion. This support is estimated to have sustained 164,000 export-related U.S. jobs. Over the past 5 years, it is estimated that the Bank has created or sustained more than 1.2 million private sector jobs. Moreover, all this was accomplished as the Bank returned over $674 million back to the American taxpayers just last year. Over the past two decades, the Bank has generated a surplus of $6.9 billion for U.S. taxpayers, but for months a handful of extremists in this Chamber have refused to accept the numerous and widespread benefits provided by the Export-Import Bank to our economy. They have ignored these numbers as well as the diverse array of interests who support the Bank, such as the United States Chamber of Commerce; the National Small Business Association; the National Association of Manufacturers; labor unions, such as the AFL-CIO; and many others. Instead, they have decided to follow the talking points of extremist groups like Heritage Action and the Club for Growth. I find it ironic that Republicans are actively working to ensure this important engine of job creation closes its doors while also waging war with President Obama over the Keystone XL pipeline, which even the most inflated estimates say would create far fewer jobs than Ex-Im. However, I have been heartened to see a number of frustrated Republicans, some of them even Tea Partiers themselves, say enough is enough and have chosen to stand up for real workers and businesses rather than a handful of ideologues dictating policy from a Washington think tank. I applaud the 58 Republicans who courageously have come out against their leadership in favor of renewing the Export-Import Bank's charter. As we take an important vote that will bring Export-Import Bank legislation to the floor today, I ask those Republicans to once again show their courage, show their leadership, and show your constituents who rely on the Export-Import Bank for jobs and economic growth that you are willing to do what is best for them and not what is politically expedient. Democrats want to provide certainty for the businesses and workers who rely on the Bank, and that is why I, along with Mr. Heck of Washington, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, and Whip Hoyer of Maryland, recently introduced legislation to reauthorize, reform, and reenergize the Export-Import Bank. The measure takes a sensible approach to renewing the Bank, extending its charter for 7 years, increasing its lending authority to meet the needs of U.S. exporters, and modernizing the Bank's programs to better serve small- and medium-sized businesses. I couldn't be prouder of my democratic colleagues, 189 of whom joined as cosponsors just a few days after being introduced. Such widespread support sends a strong message to America's manufacturers, businesses, and workers that Democrats are united in preserving an institution that for decades has helped this Nation create jobs and grow the economy; and it makes clear that if those supportive Republicans were to join us, this Congress could pass an extension of the Export-Import Bank's charter today. Mr. Speaker and Members, this is the right thing to do for our workers and for our businesses and for our Nation. Let's stand up for what is right.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, there are only 3 days until the Department of Homeland Security shuts down, forcing more than 50,000 TSA airport security screeners and tens of thousands of Customs and Border Protection officers to work without pay. Many of these dedicated public servants work at Los Angeles International Airport, LAX, which is in my congressional district. They screen the passengers and examine the cargo to keep the airports secure. LAX is the sixth busiest airport in the world and third busiest in the United States. In 2013, LAX served more than 66 million passengers and processed more than 1.9 million tons of cargo with a value of over $91.6 billion. The security of LAX is critical for the people of Los Angeles and the entire country, and the public servants who work hard every day to keep our airports safe deserve to be paid for the work that they do. Let's fund DHS now. I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 861, the clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill that would keep the Department open so it can carry out its mission of keeping the American people safe.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Let's do it.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, as cochair of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I know how devastating this disease can be for patients, families, and caregivers. The task force works on a bipartisan basis to increase awareness of Alzheimer's, strengthen the Federal response to the disease, and provide assistance to Alzheimer's patients and their caregivers. I am proud to lead the task force, along with my returning cochair, Congressman Chris Smith, and incoming cochairs Michael Burgess and Chaka Fattah. Alzheimer's is a tragic disease affecting millions of Americans, and it has reached crisis proportions. There is no effective treatment, no means of prevention, nor even a method for slowing the progression of the disease. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 5 million Americans are living with Alzheimer's disease as of 2013. This number is expected to almost triple to 14 million by the year 2050. The cost associated with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia are also growing at an unsustainable rate. A recent RAND study of adults ages 70 years and older found that the total economic cost of dementia in 2010 was estimated to be $109 billion for direct care alone. That is higher than the cost of both heart disease and cancer. Furthermore, when the cost of informal care is included, the total cost rises to between $159 billion and $215 billion. We must act now to change the trajectory of this disease. The bipartisan-supported National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease calls for a cure or an effective treatment for Alzheimer's by the year 2025. Reaching this goal will require a significant increase in Federal funding for Alzheimer's research. Last December, I joined together with task force cochair Congressman Chris Smith to call for a $200 million increase in funding for Alzheimer's research in the President's budget for fiscal year 2016. However, while the President's budget did recognize the importance of Alzheimer's research, it only increased funding by $51 million. This year, I plan to work with my colleagues on the task force to make certain Congress appropriates robust funding for Alzheimer's research to meet the urgent need. I also plan to reintroduce three bills to expand the available resources for Alzheimer's research and assist patients, families, and caregivers. First, I will reintroduce the Alzheimer's Caregiver Support Act. This bill will authorize grants to public and nonprofit organizations to expand training and support services for families and caregivers of Alzheimer's patients. With the majority of Alzheimer's patients living at home under the care of family and friends, it is important that we ensure these caregivers have access to the training and resources needed to provide proper care. Second, I will reintroduce legislation to reauthorize and improve the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program, a small but effective Department of Justice program that helps local communities and law enforcement agencies quickly identify persons with Alzheimer's disease who wander away from their homes and safely reunite them with their families. This program is very valuable. It is a valuable resource for first responders. More importantly, it protects vulnerable Alzheimer's patients and brings peace of mind to their families. Several years ago, I offered an amendment to continue funding for this program, which cost only $1 million for the year. The following year, I called for, and received, a doubling of the funding for this important program. Since then, I have made sure this program gets funding every year. I am not happy with the amount of the funding. We need to do more, and we have to fight more beyond 2015 into the 2016 budget to make sure that we get more money because it is desperately needed. Finally, I will reintroduce the legislation to require the U.S. Postal Service to issue and sell a semi-postal stamp, with the proceeds helping to fund Alzheimer's research at the National Institutes of Health. This would encourage concerned individuals to get involved and contribute to Alzheimer's research efforts, just as many have done in the case of the popular and successful Breast Cancer Research semi- postal stamp. Our Nation is at a critical crossroads. The situation requires decisive action to search for a cure and protect the millions of Americans currently living with Alzheimer's disease. Together, we must take every possible action to improve treatments for Alzheimer's patients, support caregivers, and invest in research to find a cure for this dreadful disease. Once again, I want to thank John Garamendi, my colleague from California, whom I have worked with for many, many years, for again organizing yet another night Special Order.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Thank you so very much. John Garamendi, I would like to thank you not only for allotting me this time this evening, but I would like to thank you for your commitment to educating on this issue and to helping our colleagues to understand that we must focus on this issue and that we must do more to support research. You are indeed a leader. This certainly is not the first time that you have organized one of these evening meetings on this, and I thank you for the work that you are doing.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Well, thank you so very, very much, Mr. Garamendi, again, for your leadership and for affording our Members the opportunity to have shared their experiences because all of what we learn as we serve as caregivers who happen to be relatives and friends, that information is going to be very valuable to our researchers. Because of you, we are going to be able to get those stories out. Thank you so very much.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I thank the gentlewoman for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 720, the Gerardo Hernandez Airport Security Act of 2015. I would like to thank Congressman John Katko, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security of the House Committee on Homeland Security, for reintroducing this bill. I was proud to join him as an original cosponsor. I would like to thank Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul, Ranking Member Bennie Thompson, and our Subcommittee Ranking Member Kathleen Rice for supporting this bill and bringing it to the floor for a vote. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill was originally introduced last year in response to the horrific November 1, 2013, shooting incident at Los Angeles International Airport in my congressional district. This bill is named in honor of Gerardo Hernandez, the Transportation Security officer who was killed in the line of duty on that tragic day. As we debate this bill, we offer our deepest condolences to the family of Gerardo Hernandez, and we honor all of the TSOs, police officers, and other first responders who risked their lives to stabilize the situation and protect the public during that terrible incident. Following the LAX shooting incident, Congress conducted several hearings on the incident, including a field hearing in my district on March 28, 2014. These hearings revealed serious security lapses which interfered with response efforts, such as emergency phones and panic buttons that did not work properly, problems in coordination between various police and fire departments, and incompatible radio systems. These security failures are unacceptable. The Gerardo Hernandez Airport Security Act requires the Department of Homeland Security to conduct outreach to airports to verify that they have working plans to respond to security incidents, including active shooter incidents, acts of terrorism, and incidents that target passenger screening checkpoints like the one where Officer Hernandez was killed. It is imperative that major airports like LAX have state-of-the-art emergency response systems. The safety and security of our Nation's airports, and of all of the workers and travelers who pass through them, is of paramount importance. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send it to the President's desk.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time that has been allotted to me. Thank you very much, Mr. Cummings. I rise to oppose H.R. 50, an anticonsumer deregulatory bill that would stop rulemaking by our Nation's financial overseers dead in its tracks. In 2008, we witnessed the worst financial crisis since 1929, which halted lending to small businesses, left millions without a home, and pushed countless Americans into personal bankruptcy and ruin, after which my colleagues and I in Congress worked diligently to put in place serious and comprehensive safeguards to prevent another collapse. Nevertheless, today House Republicans are suffering from selective amnesia when they push this legislation to undo financial reform. Indeed, this bill, H.R. 50, places significant administrative hurdles on our regulators, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Certain provisions require our regulators, who are tasked with protecting consumers and investors, to conduct onerous, industry- friendly, cost-benefit analysis and to submit their rules for review to the Office of Management and Budget. This hurts their ability to act independently and in the best interests of the public. In addition, this bill would arm special interests with a time-tested weapon to delay and kill reform, the opportunity to challenge our cash- strapped regulators in court on every rule. But this is the ultimate point of the bill: to make regulating everything from securities, fraud, payday loans, credit cards, insider trading, and derivatives that much harder. Most concerning is that Republicans want to pay for the cost of their new burdens by depriving the one regulator charged with protecting our Nation's consumers of tens of millions of dollars. Mr. Chairman, this is just the latest in a never-ending effort to unravel the important protections for consumers and taxpayers this Congress put in place following the worst crisis in a generation. With our economy still recovering from the $14 trillion financial crisis, with families in my own district and probably yours still struggling with foreclosure and unsure how they will be able to make ends meet in retirement, we simply cannot undermine fundamental reforms or the agencies enforcing them.