Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Republican Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2015. This bill drastically underfunds critical transportation and housing programs.

The bill's cuts to the TIGER program are particularly egregious. TIGER, formally known as Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, is a competitive grant program that creates jobs by funding investments in transportation infrastructure.

The Republican bill cuts TIGER from the 2014 level of $600 million down to a mere $100 million in 2015. Moreover, the bill includes restrictive language that limits TIGER grants by excluding public transit, passenger rail, bicycle, and pedestrian projects.

Public transit is an essential part of a modern transportation system. A previous TIGER grant helped the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to accelerate the construction of the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor, a light rail project that will reduce traffic congestion and improve transportation service in my district.

Under the bill's restrictive language, this innovative project would never have qualified for a grant.

TIGER needs to be expanded, not restricted, not cut. The President requested $1.25 billion for TIGER in fiscal year 2015 in order to create jobs and modernize our Nation's transportation infrastructure.

Earlier this year, I sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee urging support for the President's request, and 144 Members of Congress signed my letter.

I urge my colleagues to strike the restrictive language in this bill, expand the TIGER program, and invest in a transportation system for the 21st century.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that will continue to ensure that the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Multifamily staff remains locally based, connected to communities and on the ground to serve as the eyes and ears of lawmakers.

Specifically, this amendment would prohibit HUD from using any of the funds appropriated by this bill for the Multifamily Housing transformation initiative, which is designed to relocate asset management staff and to restructure HUD's Multifamily field offices nationwide.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would effectively stop HUD from closing any of the offices where asset management staff are currently located.

When HUD announced its plans for a major restructuring of Multifamily field offices nationwide, I was deeply concerned. Under the plan, HUD will go from 50 Multifamily offices down to 12, with only five of them being designated as ``regional centers.'' The shortcomings of this plan are not more obvious than in my home district, where a decision was made to relocate the Los Angeles field office--one of the busiest hubs in the country. If undeterred, this plan would close the Los Angeles office, uproot its entire staff, and relocate its operations to another regional

center, which would now be responsible for more than double its current workload and would be facing the daunting task of serving 73 million people in 14 States across 1.8 million square miles.

HUD promises that this plan will achieve significant savings without impacting program delivery. However, after careful review, I remain skeptical that HUD will be able to deliver on this promise. I join advocates, industry stakeholders and affected employees in expressing my continued, serious concern over the implications of this reorganization, and my concerns are numerous.

First, HUD's plan does not seem to acknowledge the critical importance and value of having staff who are living and working in the communities they are serving. There are significant differences among local housing markets, and an awareness of each region's unique characteristics is essential to the work of the Multifamily Housing office.

Second, reorganization would adversely affect the delivery of services by reducing the staff's ability to effectively respond to unique local concerns and to remain connected to community leaders. Staff would have less interaction with owners and managers, and responsive walk-in assistance would be eliminated for thousands of people who rely on Multifamily offices.

California was one of the hardest hit States by the financial collapse, and too many families suffered from the subsequent wave of foreclosures. With our housing market still struggling to recover, we cannot afford to undercut what little progress we have made with a radical overhaul of HUD's infrastructure.

I, for one, am still struggling to understand how this plan will save money while also preserving the quality of services delivered, and I have yet to receive satisfactory answers from HUD regarding my concerns. That is why I have been--and I remain--a vocal opponent of HUD's Multifamily transformation in its entirety. Today, I am urging HUD to more carefully consider the details and full implications of its plan.

Although this amendment only addresses some of my concerns and would not stop the transformation altogether, it would codify the agreement between HUD and appropriators to keep asset management staff on site and to leave all existing Multifamily offices open. Moreover, it reflects language that just passed the Senate last week. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``aye'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of H. Res. 573, condemning the abduction of female students by armed militants from the terrorist group known as Boko Haram in northeastern provinces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

I am outraged by the abduction in April of over 270 innocent schoolgirls who were taken from their boarding school in Borno State, Nigeria. My thoughts and prayers remain with

these students and their families as we seek their immediate safe return.

I was horrified to watch Abubakar Shekau, the leader of the extreme Islamist group Boko Haram, admit in a video message he was responsible for this horrendous act. It was painful to hear him refer to these young innocent girls as ``slaves'' and threaten ``to sell them in the market.''

According to media reports, Boko Haram has destroyed many Nigerian schools and killed dozens of students. Boko Haram continues to show an immoral disregard for the most fundamental of human rights, thus we must do all we can to aid in the student's safe return.

No family should have to fear their children could be abducted and placed in the human trafficking market to be sold, raped or killed. Boko Haram has to be stopped and their leader Abubakar Shekau must be apprehended and brought to justice. The Nigerian government should use all means necessary to find the girls and return them to their families.

I am encouraged that the U.S. government is already providing counterterrorism support, logistics, technical expertise and training to Nigerian investigators in this effort. I am glad Nigeria and four neighboring countries will share intelligence and border surveillance to find the students as we must combine our efforts to ensure their safe return. Additionally, I encourage the Nigerian government and leadership to strengthen efforts to protect children who are seeking an education as no student should fear for their life in an effort to further their education. We must work swiftly in an effort to find the girls and assure their safe return to their families.

I have joined my colleagues in sending a letter to President Obama urging the Department of State to use every avenue possible to assist in the immediate recovery of the missing girls and to support the welfare and safety of all women and girls in Nigeria. I urge our international partners to join with us until the girls are safely reunited with their families and Boko Haram is brought to justice.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California, Congressman John Garamendi, for the time, and I congratulate him for organizing this evening's Special Order Hour on Alzheimer's Disease in preparation for Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month (June).

As the Co-Chair of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I know how devastating this disease can be on patients, families, and caregivers. The Task Force works on a bipartisan basis to increase awareness of Alzheimer's, strengthen the federal commitment to improving the lives of those affected by the disease, and assist the caregivers who provide their needed support. I am pleased that Congressman Garamendi has decided to take an active role in the work of the Task Force.

Alzheimer's disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States. One in nine Americans age 65 and older has Alzheimer's, and one in three Americans age 85 and older suffers from this disease. Furthermore, these numbers will grow substantially in the coming years. The Alzheimer's Association estimates that more than 7 million Americans over age 65 will have Alzheimer's by the year 2025. Every 68 seconds, another person in the United States develops Alzheimer's.

Caregiving for patients with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia is especially difficult. More than 15 million Americans provide unpaid care for a person with dementia. Caregivers include spouses, children, and grandchildren. Caregivers face a variety of challenges, ranging from assisting patients with feeding, bathing, and dressing, to helping them take their medications, managing their finances, and making legal decisions.

Last year, I introduced two bills to address the needs of patients with Alzheimer's disease, their families and caregivers. The Alzheimer's Caregiver Support Act (H.R. 2975) authorizes grants to public and non-profit organizations to expand training and support services for families and caregivers of Alzheimer's patients. The Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program Reauthorization Act (H.R. 2976) helps Alzheimer's patients who wander away from their homes and are unable to tell people in the community who they are or where they live. Both of these bills have more than 30 bipartisan cosponsors, including Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ), my friend and fellow Co-Chair of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease.

Finally, I am working hard to pass H.R. 1508, a bill to provide for the issuance of an Alzheimer's Disease Research Semipostal Stamp. This bill was originally introduced by now-Senator Ed Markey, prior to his election to the Senate, and now has more than 40 bipartisan cosponsors. It requires the U.S. Postal Service to issue and sell an Alzheimer's Disease Research Semipostal Stamp. These stamps would cost more than regular postage stamps, with the extra funds going to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to search for new treatments and a cure for Alzheimer's disease. Participation by individual postal patrons would be voluntary, and only those who choose to buy the Alzheimer's stamp would pay more for postage. This would be similar to the popular and successful Breast Cancer Research Semipostal Stamp.

Once again, I thank my colleague from California for organizing tonight's Special Order. I look forward to coordinating the activities of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease more closely with him as we rededicate ourselves to Alzheimer's research, treatment and caregiver support so that we can help all of the patients and families affected by this tragic disease.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues to honor the 60th Anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education, a decision which was a major step toward education equality in the United States, and launched a Civil Rights movement that was a turning point for our country. I am reminded of heroes like Justice Thurgood Marshall, James Meredith, the Little Rock Nine, the lawyers who fought in the courtroom, and the many civil rights activists who risked their lives to fight for equality. But while the decision changed the law of the land, it didn't immediately change the reality of education inequality in America.

Chief Justice Earl Warren gave the opinion of the Court, stating ``In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.'' Thus, we see the Court firmly establishing the critical role education has on a child's success.

Even during the time directly following the court decision, all states and localities did not follow the precedent set by the ruling. This played out in national news across the country and was clearly seen at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas when a group of black students, known as the Little Rock Nine, was blocked by the National Guard from entering the school, under orders from then Governor Orval Faubus. Additionally, in the second Brown case, commonly referred to as Brown II, Chief Justice Earl Warren urged school districts to implement the principles promptly and with ``all deliberate speed.''

Over the years, various federal and state laws and initiatives have been introduced in an effort to improve education, yet today, there is still more work that can be done to ensure that every child has equal access to a world-class education. Sixty years later, we are still fighting for access to affordable early childhood education and higher education, and also for the reduction of dropout rates. Additionally, the school-to-prison pipeline is not merely a theory, but is a reality for many of our students across the country and is hindering them from access to educational opportunities. We must take a multi-faceted approach to remedying education as we prepare our students to enter the workforce in our global economy.

Even those who are educated and are entering the workforce have a tough road ahead of them. The gender pay gap is a harsh reality of the day in which we live. This is not reflective of equity, thus we must do all we can to ensure our students have the tools needed to enter the workforce as qualified individuals and be able to fully seize opportunities.

On this important anniversary, let us remember the words of Justice Thurgood Marshall, who argued this case as a NAACP chief counsel, ``None of us got where we are solely by pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps. We got here because somebody . . . bent down and helped us pick up our boots.'' Today, let us never forget the message of Brown as we work to ensure equal access to education, a strong workforce, and an open door to opportunity for all.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise to support H.R. 3584, a bill that permits credit unions insured by private companies access to the Federal Home Loan Bank system. Today, there are 132 credit unions with approximately $13 billion in assets that cannot access additional liquidity for mortgage credit but for a statutory obstacle requiring credit unions to have Federal insurance. With membership, privately insured credit unions will be able to offer their members mortgages at more affordable rates and other products, which, in turn, helps many communities across the country.

In the past, some Members raised concerns that the home loan banks should only serve federally insured institutions, but I believe that those concerns have been largely addressed with

the adoption of several helpful amendments both before and during the committee markup of this bill.

Mrs. Beatty, for example, worked with Mr. Stivers to address some of the concerns of the Federal credit union regulator. In addition, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) offered two amendments to better protect the Federal Home Loan Bank system against a bank run among privately insured credit unions.

All that being said, these credit unions and their private insurer fared remarkably well during the last financial crisis even as many of their federally insured counterparts failed. As a result, these credit unions helped bolster many communities through the economic downturn.

So I would like to thank the sponsors of this bill, Mr. Stivers as well as his Democratic cosponsor Mrs. Beatty, for all of their efforts to work across the aisle to assist community financial institutions and their members.

I support the adoption of H.R. 3584, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), the coauthor of H.R. 3584.

Madam Speaker, I simply ask for support for this important legislation, and I commend both Mr. Stivers and Mrs. Beatty for the wonderful job that they did in providing the kind of leadership that brought both sides of the aisle together. I would simply ask for support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker and Members, I rise in support of H.R. 2672, the CFPB Rural Designation Petition and Correction Act. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) for working with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) to introduce this bipartisan legislation.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has recognized the challenges rural communities with limited access to banking services face and are appropriately reconsidering how to designate rural counties.

However, some large counties can have both large urban centers and rolling farmland within their borders, preventing them from being considered rural. This measure would direct the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to establish an application process so that a lender who lives or does business in a county that does not meet the rural definition can still apply to serve

as a rural lender under the CFPB's qualified mortgage rule.

While balloon payments were a feature of many of the risky and predatory loans that ended in financial disaster for American families, there are some specific places and times when they may make sense, especially in rural communities.

I am pleased that this legislation is narrowly tailored to ensure the kinds of institutions that would be allowed to make these loans are truly community banks--small institutions that play an active role in their communities, with personal knowledge of their customers and their needs.

As we have learned from flood insurance reform, applying map-based standards uniformly across the diverse geography of the U.S. is incredibly challenging. This legislation would ensure that in areas that may not fit the standard, but where common sense shows them to be rural, the local community would have input into the process.

I also want to acknowledge the CFPB for acting very quickly in the face of the feedback it received on the rural definition it initially proposed, making certain that credit continued to flow to borrowers by offering a 2-year waiver for all small creditors during the process of re-proposing its rural definition.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a cosponsor of H.R. 2672.

Madam Speaker, I would simply like to ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I would like to commend Mr. Hinojosa and Mr. Barr, and I would also like to commend Mrs. Capito and all who have worked so well together to ensure that we pay attention to the problems of rural communities, and this bill certainly does that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4386, the Money Remittances Improvement Act, offered by the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a member of the House Financial Services Committee and a cochair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Representative Ellison has worked diligently to get this important bill to the floor for some time, and I thank him for that. I am also grateful to Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today.

H.R. 4386 is a commonsense measure that will strengthen Bank Secrecy Act examinations of the nonbank financial institutions that lack a Federal regulator by permitting the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, known as FinCEN, to rely on examinations already conducted by State supervisory agencies where they meet Federal standards.

This straightforward change will make better use of limited State and Federal resources and will ensure that the wide range of nonbank financial institutions, currently subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service as delegated by FinCEN, will be subject to more consistent and effective oversight.

In addition to furthering our national security interests, the enhanced regulatory coordination and robust oversight of nonbank antimoney-laundering compliance provided for in this bill will make it easier for lawful and well-regulated nonbank institutions, such as money service businesses, to provide remittances and other essential financial services.

Access to remittances is particularly important in States like Minnesota, Ohio, Washington, and California, which are home to diaspora communities from the east African nations of Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Sudan, Somalia, and elsewhere.

For family members living in fragile states, remittances sent from the United States often provide an essential lifeline during difficult periods of drought famine, conflict, and economic disruption.

In an environment where banks and credit unions are understandably eager to reduce risks of all kinds, this is exactly the type of legislation we need. By strengthening oversight of nonbank money transmitters and other nonbank actors, this bill will help increase the confidence banks and credit unions rely on in determining whether to provide the account services that nonbank institutions need to stay in business.

It will also do so without diluting the important risk-based due diligence requirement banks and credit unions are subject to under the Bank Secrecy Act.

Appropriately, current law requires that banks and credit unions take steps to ensure that their nonbank customers meet core Bank Secrecy Act compliance obligations, including recordkeeping and reporting requirements, ongoing monitoring for suspicious activity, and training for employees to ensure they are familiar with their obligations under the law.

While banks, credit unions, and their executives must be expected to meet obligations under the law, we must also do more to provide them with the tools necessary to access compliance risk, distinguish between good and bad actors. To strengthen our national security, promote a more sound financial system, save taxpayers money, and provide fairness and relief to immigrant communities across this Nation and their families around the globe, I urge all Members of the House to vote in favor of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), the sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I would like to thank all of those who have worked on this legislation.

This is a fine example of how you take a rather difficult and complicated problem and work through ways by which you can ensure security and that lawful actions are continued in order to make sure that the banking laws are being recognized and being honored and still do something for those people who are dependent on these remittances.

I yield back the balance of my time and ask all of my colleagues for their support on this bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Congressional Black Caucus's budget alternative to the extreme Republican-led Ryan budget. Congressional Republicans have offered up a budget that continues their legislative reign of terror completely undermining our Nation's future by protecting the wealthiest.

The CBC has put forth a ``real'' budget that finds responsible ways to reduce our Nation's deficit and recommits the Federal Government to eradicating poverty. In Los Angeles County, where my district is located, we have the highest poverty rate among all of the Californian counties. The CBC budget works to help districts like mine by making a $500 billion investment over three years into jobs to accelerate our Nation's economic recovery and put Americans back to work.

Many Californians find it difficult to make ends meet without the support of Federal safety net programs. Our budget strengthens and protects the social safety net by restoring cuts to the SNAP program, extending emergency unemployment insurance and increasing economic opportunities through targeted investments in education, infrastructure, affordable housing, domestic manufacturing, small businesses, and scientific research.

Mr. Chair, it is clear that the Republican Leadership is not serious about putting our Nation back on the track to prosperity. It is time for a change. Therefore, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the right thing and make a true investment into our Nation's future by voting for the Congressional Black Caucus's budget alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply saddened by the loss of my dear friend OV Smith, who died on March 14th at the age of 99. I had the pleasure of knowing OV for more than 30 years. We became friends while I served in the California State Assembly and she was working to educate members of the Assembly about the needs of persons with developmental disabilities.

OV Smith dedicated her life to caring for the developmentally disabled. For more than 40 years, she welcomed them into her home while also taking them to church on Sundays, traveling with them on cruises and other trips, and accompanying them to activities in the community. OV founded several organizations in Los Angeles. She helped these groups to initiate public policy through the legislative process and educate caregivers on how to care for and develop their clients.

In 1970, Ms. Smith founded OV's Willing Workers for the Mentally Retarded, which provides day care, social development and educational services to developmentally disabled persons. This was the first organization of its kind in California that provided extensive and comprehensive services.

She also founded the Society of California Care Home Operators (SOCCO), which trains caregivers and connects them with the legislative process so they can acquaint themselves with the law and become advocates for the developmentally disabled. Finally, OV helped found the South Central Los Angeles Regional Center (SCLARC), which contracts with the State of California to coordinate services for the developmentally disabled.

Her courage to confront the establishment, knowledge of the law, and commitment to initiate change gained the respect of lawmakers, agency officials, and the overall community. She had been recognized by many organizations and sought out for her insights. Her motto ``These are God's people, and we are responsible for them'' bespoke the true heart she put into advocating for people with developmental disabilities.

OV Smith will be sorely missed by everyone who was touched by her graciousness. We all benefitted from her commitment, vision, and caring heart. My thoughts and prayers are with all of her family and friends during this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3307, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act.

Today, I am pleased to lead the Democratic Party in delivering this message to the thousands of Americans who are facing unaffordable flood insurance premiums: relief is on the way.

As we committed to many months ago, Democrats have worked to fix this problem from the moment we heard about the unintended consequences of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act.

Mr. Speaker, because I am the Waters of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act, I felt a responsibility to make sure that we deal with the concerns that were coming to us from our constituents all over this country. The rate increases were unimaginable. So Democratic lawmakers in the House and the Senate took action, spearheading bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate and garnered the support of a majority of the House of Representatives.

Today, we have worked in good faith with Republican leadership to achieve a measure that isn't perfect but that will provide real relief to the thousands of families currently facing unaffordable premiums.

I believe this House measure strikes an important balance, addressing affordability concerns, bringing accountability to FEMA, and protecting the stability of the National Flood Insurance Program. The legislation ends dramatic increases caused by events such as property sales and restores grandfathered rates for those who played by the rules and built their properties according to code.

For families hit by unaffordable premium increases, this bill provides important relief in the form of a refund.

I am proud of the dramatic improvements to this bill that were made by the Democratic Caucus. These include reasonable limitations on rate increases that one property can experience, including those newly mapped into flood zones. We have ensured that when FEMA engages in the process of remapping, it actually works with communities to make sure it is being done accurately. We have made FEMA more accountable by requiring it provide clear and accurate information to anyone who may be affected by a change in policy.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would not have come together without strong support and participation from the Democratic Party. I would like to thank Leader Pelosi and Whip Hoyer, as well as Senator Mary Landrieu and Representative Cedric Richmond for their leadership, and the leadership of so many Democratic Members across the country, which was critical to taking this bill over the finish line. I applaud them. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Let me just say a word of thanks to someone very special on this, Mr. Eric Cantor, who weighed in and did everything possible to work this out in a way that we could all be comfortable with. I am pleased for the opportunity I have had to work with him. I also thank Mr. Grimm. We started this out when others believed that we could not do anything about it. Having said all of that, we have come together to do something good for the people of this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) who has worked so hard on this bill, who serves on the Financial Services Committee and has been intimately involved with it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond), one of the coauthors of the bill that we put together to deal with this issue who has been working very hard on it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), who has spent

an awful lot of time working on this issue with all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New York, Representative Maloney, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Representative Lynch, who is a member of the Financial Services Committee and is also the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census, and I thank him for his hard work in putting this bill together.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey, Representative Pascrell, and I thank him for his input on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

The Florida delegation, both Democrats and Republicans, has been absolutely magnificent in helping to get us to this point, and I thank Representatives Castor, Hastings, Buchanan, and all of those from the Florida delegation for all of the work they have done.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, Representative Garamendi, who has been advising us that we really do have to make changes to the National Flood Insurance Program, and I thank him for his work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon, Representative Blumenauer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Nydia Velazquez, a member of the Financial Services Committee.

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I am very proud and very pleased about this bipartisan effort to fix a serious problem in this country. As a matter of fact, we should all be pleased because it is said by the media and others that we cannot work together. This is a time when we can demonstrate that we really do care about the citizens of this country and we recognize the problems that were created by the Biggert-Waters bill.

I said earlier that my name was on that Biggert-Waters legislation, and I certainly worked in a bipartisan effort to try and do the right thing, and, of course, some day we would like to move all of these subsidies to actuarial rates.

We have unintended consequences in Biggert-Waters, and we have set out to fix them. So I want you to know that Mr. Grimm, Mr. Richmond, Mr. Cassidy, and Mrs. Capito all have worked very hard to make sure that we addressed the concerns of our constituencies.

Let me tell you, with this bill we are removing certain rate increase triggers, the reinstating of grandfathering, lower rate increases, refund of excess premium charges to homeowners, affordability study and framework; added to that, working with the bill that the Republicans brought to the floor and Democrats added to it, individual property rate increase caps, affordability goal, rate increase protection for newly mapped properties, mapping protections, consumer protections, protections of small businesses, nonprofits, houses of worship, and residences.

Mr. Speaker and Members, again, this is a bill that will address the concerns and the outcry of our constituents, some of whom were experiencing 500 and 600 percent rate increases. I tried to work with the chairman, and I was disappointed that Mr. Hensarling saw differently. He does not support this bill, and he said so. Mr. Neugebauer and Mr. Hensarling said they had come up with other ways to deal with it. I never saw any of that. Nobody ever tried to relate to the fact that I was outreaching to try and get Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Neugebauer, and others who had a different opinion to come and work this out and do what we could for our constituents.

So, I am very pleased that we had Members on the opposite side of the aisle who insisted that their constituents deserved protection and that they

deserved support. Working with their leadership and Mr. Cantor working with our leadership, with the Democrats on this side of the aisle, we have come up with something that is extremely important and effective.

Now, I must say to both sides of the aisle, we have continuing work to do. This is not a permanent fix on this. What I discovered was none of us knew enough about FEMA. We have been crying for years about remapping. We don't really know how it works. We don't know the discretion that they have in making some of these decisions. We have got to spend the next few years really learning FEMA, how it works and how it makes decisions. We should never get into this kind of a situation again because we simply have allowed them to do what they do without us being involved. They don't report to us on a yearly basis, as I would like to have them do.

So this is an opportunity for us not only to fix this problem at this time but to focus on the fact that we have got oversight responsibility that we have got to carry out to make sure that we are dealing with these issues in a way that makes good sense.

So, again, I am very proud, and I am very pleased with this bipartisan effort. I welcome the opportunity to have been able to work with some Members from the opposite side of the aisle that I had not worked with before. I think I learned a lot about them, and they learned a lot about me. I am so thankful that our leadership gave me the latitude to say go and do everything possible working with the opposite side of the aisle to get this problem fixed. So they have not only supported me, but they have supported all of the Members on our side of the aisle who have said to them that this may be one of the most important fixes that we will do this year.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3193, legislation that would gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that has been a critical and effective advocate for our Nation's consumers. Today's vote is just the latest chapter in a relentless Republican attack on consumer protection.

Since opening its doors in 2011, the CFPB has gone to bat for those who have been subject to the deceptive practices of unscrupulous financial institutions. Though it has been immensely successful, Republicans have tried to undercut it in every way possible.

Mr. Chairman, in just over 2 years, CFPB's enforcement actions have resulted in over $3 billion being directly refunded to more than 9.7 million consumers and servicemembers.

The CFPB has ensured that all consumers have fair and transparent access to consumer financial products and services. It has written important mortgage rules that prevent lenders from engaging in the risky and irresponsible practices that led to the collapse of the housing market and fueled the 2008 global financial crisis; and it continues to go after industries and institutions that, for years, have not been held accountable for abusive and deceptive practices.

The CFPB ensures that the tens of millions of consumers who interact with large consumer reporting agencies, debt collectors, payday lenders, and nonbanks originating mortgage loans have an advocate in their corner.

In fact, in fiscal year 2013, the CFPB was a party in 13 enforcement actions related to deceptive marketing, unlawful debt collection, discrimination on the basis of age, unlawful charging of fees, and fraudulent mortgage relief schemes, among other violations.

Since the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau opened its doors, more than 269,000 individual consumer complaints have been received, and it has stood up for our Nation's Active Duty military who so greatly serve us, returning more than $12.5 million to them under the Military Lending Act.

Just yesterday, CFPB announced a lawsuit against a large for-profit college chain, accusing it of preying on students by pushing them into high-cost loans, very likely to end in default.

But my friends on the other side of the aisle don't believe that we should have a consumer advocate in government. They would prefer that these unscrupulous actors continue to take advantage of consumers without interference.

The simple fact is that H.R. 3193 would accomplish this goal, obstructing the CFPB's ability to protect consumers from deceptive marketing, unlawful debt collection, lending discrimination, overcharge fees, and other illegal activity. The bill does so by undermining CFPB's leadership, ending its autonomy, and tying its funding to Congressional appropriations, among other ways.

In fact, Republicans have brought this bill to the floor claiming a cost savings, but they know that the only way a savings is realized is by slashing the budget of the CFPB, the sole agency charged with consumer financial protections.

But that is not all. The provisions included in this measure would eliminate the position of the CFPB director in favor of some five- member commission that would increase bureaucracy--encouraging, inviting--and encumber its ability to take action on behalf of consumers. It would water down the CFPB's rulemaking authority by lowering the bar for overturning its rules.

Many of the amendments offered today would make this bill even worse. For example, the measure offered by Congressman DeSantis would repeal the Bureau's exclusive rulemaking authority, dispersing responsibility for protecting consumers among the same regulators who failed miserably in this task in the run-up to the financial crisis.

It is striking to listen to my friends on the opposite side of the aisle talk about the importance of consumer protection and then push a measure that is an obvious attempt to completely undermine and obstruct the CFPB's ability to protect consumers, students, seniors, and servicemembers.

If holding the Bureau accountable to its mission to protect American consumers truly is a Republican's goal, then why are we considering a bill which is strongly opposed by more than 100 organizations with long records of standing up for the interest of consumers?

I would urge my colleagues to oppose this damaging measure so the CFPB can continue its outstanding work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Representative Lynch, who is a member of the Financial Services Committee and who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, Representative Heck, who is a

member of the Financial Services Committee and who has paid a lot of attention to this issue.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Chair, I am waiting for additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), the chief deputy whip who also serves on the Financial Services Committee and is cochair of the Progressive Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have one speaker on the way.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations.

I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to, once again, reiterate my strong opposition to this harmful legislation which will weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency created to protect consumers and defend them against bad actors and practices throughout our financial system.

Just in case we are losing sight of what this Bureau is all about, we have many citizens out there who are the victims of false advertising. People advertise something. They advertise a price. They advertise a product. They go to buy the product. It is not there. It costs more money.

Debt collectors, how many of our citizens have been harassed by debt collectors, calling them in the middle of the night, asking for information, and charging them with things they have never been involved in?

Don't forget those payday loans. Poor people run out of money, go to a payday lender, get charged 500 percent for a payday loan.

What about those private postsecondary schools where all of those students who are trying to get an education are forced into getting loans, are encouraged to get loans, get ripped off, don't learn anything, can't get a job?

What about those mortgage lenders who tricked all of those people into mortgage loans and they end up losing their homes? What about discrimination against the aged? What about what they did to our good men and women who served in different branches of the military for all of us and got ripped off by payday lenders?

This is what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is all about. I don't know how anyone could think that we shouldn't have protection for our consumers. Our consumers are finding out that, finally, we have something.

They are calling our telephone number, (855) 411-2372, to get some help. They are going to our Web site, www.consumerfinance.gov. Over 289,000 citizens have gone to this www.consumerfinance.gov Web site. They have called this telephone number, (855) 411-2372, because, finally, they have a bureau that is paying attention to all of the rip- offs, all of the fraudulent advertising, all of the overcharging of fees, all of what they did not have protection from in the past.

We realized, at some point in time, that all of our regulatory agencies that were supposed to be paying attention were not. Now, we have protection.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I will take a moment just to respond to the gentleman from Virginia who seemed a little bit disturbed that we would claim that they do not care about consumers. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, sir, and because of the way that the Republicans have opposed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the manner in which we have described today that you have attempted to dismantle this Bureau, the way that you have tried to deny it having a strong Director, for all of those reasons, it is absolutely clear that you do not wish to have a Bureau that protects our consumers.

And so when we make these charges, we make them because we have proof. We have the information, we have the actions, and we have all that you have done to demonstrate that you really don't want a Bureau to protect the consumers of this country.

The fact is that Americans want banks to be regulated in order to prevent the kind of economic catastrophe that we are recovering from to this day. Because Republicans haven't been able to repeal the Dodd- Frank Act, you have focused on making it impossible for the agencies to enact the rules required by the Wall Street reform bill. Your new strategy is to prevent our regulators from functioning by saddling them with burdensome and duplicative cost-benefit requirements.

Let's take a moment to talk about the cost of the financial crisis. The United States Department of the Treasury measured the cost of the financial crisis at $19.2 trillion in loss of household wealth and 8.8 million in lost jobs. Communities of color were hit particularly hard, losing over 50 percent of their household wealth. Millions of borrowers have been foreclosed upon, and millions more remain underwater and struggling to stay in their homes to this day.

A report by the Government Accountability Office on the cost-benefit analysis of the Dodd-Frank Act stated:

If the cost of a future crisis is expected to be in the

trillions of dollars, then the act likely would need to

reduce the probability of a future financial crisis by only a

small percent for its expected benefit to equal the act's

expected cost.

Beyond all of this, this amendment is a solution in search of a problem. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is already required to perform cost-benefit analysis on its rules and evaluate impacts on small businesses. The CFPB has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to minimizing the impact of its rules on small banking institutions and small businesses.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was designed with one goal in mind: we were giving consumers a fair shake in the marketplace by making sure they finally had a regulator who was on their side. The CFPB is the only agency with the expertise and the mission to focus on developing trends in the consumer finance marketplace, identify abuses, and stop them before they lead borrowers into financial ruin.

Prior to the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, consumer financial laws were supposed to be enforced by cooperation amongst all of the regulators. But as we now know all too well, safety and soundness concerns time and again trumped those of consumer protection, leading to the system where all of the regulators were responsible and none of them were accountable.

It was precisely this inattention to consumer protection that allowed the crisis to boil up under regulators' noses, leaving American families to foot the bill. Fortunately, Congress learned the lesson that strong protections for consumers are essential to maintaining a stable and sound economic foundation.

Upon passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, this House finally had put a cop on the beat with exclusive authority to issue sensible rules that protect every American. We are confident that the CFPB will continue to work diligently with prudential regulators to make sure their rules are consistent with the safe and sound operations of banks, ensuring that both rulemaking and enforcement authorities reside exclusively with the CFPB and will increase confidence in consumer markets and also ensure certainty for businesses and financial institutions.

Returning to the broken model that existed before the crisis just doesn't make good sense. So I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman and Members, we have had discussions with Members on the opposite side of the aisle about protection for our consumers. We have heard them tell us everything about people should have choices. They can go and hire their own lawyers, they can go into court. They can do all of these things. The fact of the matter is, government does have the responsibility to protect consumers. This is a government of laws and rules that we put together for businesses. We allow businesses to operate in certain ways, but we cannot allow them to run roughshod over consumers.

Like I said, prior to Dodd-Frank, that is, the reform, we had nobody looking out for consumers. We had our financial services agencies of government saying that their real job was for safety and soundness, not for consumer protection. So we have had news media, we have had nonprofit agencies, we have had groups getting together trying to address all of these abuses, all of these problems all by themselves. Well, guess what? Now we have a cop on the block. It is your government. This consumerfinance.gov Web site is there for all of our citizens. This telephone number, (855) 411-2372, is there for our consumers to call, and while you are calling the Bureau, call your elected officials also and ask them why they don't stand up for you, why they are on the floor of Congress advocating against your right to have protection from all of these kinds of abuses. Enough is enough.

Americans consumers are losing dollars every day because of crooks and schemes and thieves and on and on and on, and now you get rid of the very agency that would protect them from all of these schemes? I am so happy that we have reform. I am so happy that now the American people can rely on their government to come to their aid.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is the House Democrats who are required to take the important action to protect our Nation's well- being. Today, most House Republicans will once again refuse to stand behind the full faith and credit of the United States, threatening an economic catastrophe for all Americans.

When Republicans pushed our Nation to the brink of default last year, refusing to increase the debt limit, businesses, large and small, began to cut back by slowing spending and hiring. Consumer confidence fell faster than at any other time since the financial crisis in 2008. Potential home buyers didn't buy homes. But despite these warnings, House Republicans still want to push us to default, and the consequences would be disastrous.

The value of our 401(k)s and IRAs would plummet, significantly hurting those saving for retirement. For consumers, a default would make credit cards, mortgages, and student and automobile loans all more expensive. Default would lead to a U.S. credit rating downgrade, making it harder for new businesses to hire new employees and our cities and States to finance schools, hospitals, roads, and bridges.

Mr. Speaker, the American people cannot afford another round of Republican recklessness. Everyone from Wall Street CEOs to conservative economists agree: we need to honor our debts.

I and my Democratic colleagues will once again do what is necessary. I urge the Republicans to put Americans before ideology and support this legislation to raise the debt ceiling.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for allowing me to take some time to be on this floor to plead with my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle to join with us in support of our middle class citizens who now have their homes at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I plead with the opposite side of the aisle to join with what is a bipartisan piece of legislation, a bicameral piece of legislation, legislation that was passed out by the Senate that would correct the unintended consequences of the Biggert-Waters Act.

Why am I so passionate about this? First of all, I was a coauthor of the Biggert-Waters Act. It was a bill that we got together on where we tried to reduce the debt that we are confronted with, providing assistance and subsidies to our homeowners.

Many of our homeowners, as you know, across this country are put at risk. Their homes are destroyed through natural disasters. We have to be available to them through this kind of insurance program, the National Flood Insurance Program.

So we have the Senate, we have Republicans, we have Democrats who have all joined in with us to do something very simple: delay this for a time period. Delay this for 4 years so we can get on FEMA, and FEMA can get it right.

FEMA messed up the Biggert-Waters bill. We said, You have to do an affordability study. They did not do that. We said, You have to get your mapping and your remapping right. They have not done that. We said, Get a credible database. They have not done that.

We have got to correct FEMA. There is no reason why people should be having their premiums increased by 500

percent. This is wrong. We can do something about it. Don't stand in the way of coming to the assistance of American citizens who depend on us in their time of trouble.

Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker and Members of Congress, we should not have to even debate this any further. It is outrageous that we have learned what we have learned about the failed implementation of FEMA with the Biggert- Waters plan and that we will not do something about it.

Let me just say this: I joined with Mrs. Biggert, and we tried to reform the National Flood Insurance Program. We went about it in a way that we thought would make it possible for people to be able to afford--to pay for--the National Flood Insurance Program and not in a way that would cause them to lose their homes. It passed through this House. It passed through the other body. It went out to FEMA. What did FEMA do? It did not do what we instructed it to do. First of all, we said: Have a study on affordability. The second thing we said was: Look at the way you do mapping and remap it. We encouraged them to get good data to be able to do this work.

They have failed us, and they have failed the citizens of this country. Not only have they failed the citizens of this country, but middle class people in this country--homeowners--are now about to lose their homes. A California family is facing a flood insurance premium increase from $1,700 per year up to $22,000 per year--an increase of over

1,100 percent. I have traveled around the country. I was down in Louisiana. We have Members across the country who are representing Florida and New York and California, on and on and on. They are begging this Congress to do something about these unintended consequences.

I was coauthor on the Biggert-Waters bill. I know what we attempted to do. These unintended consequences are just that. It should not be happening this way. This is not a partisan bill. This is a bill that has got support from Democrats and Republicans. You heard the previous speaker talk about 183 Members on this bill. The Senate passed it out with flying colors, and now it is on us. What are we going to do? Are we going to allow middle class families to lose their homes because FEMA has not done its job and has not done it correctly? Are we going to allow these families to be put out of homes that they have lived in for years because now, with these increased premiums, they can't sell them? This is unconscionable. We can do better than this. I can go on and on and tell you about the families and the letters we have received.

It is time for the House of Representatives to consider this legislation. We must address this problem now before one more family suffers from increased premiums, depressed home prices, or the inability to buy or sell their homes. Bring it to the floor. I have talked with the chairman of our committee. I would like everybody to address concerns to the chairman and get this bill to the floor so that we can help our homeowners and our constituents.