[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 8, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H97-H101]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2003

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 11) to extend the National Flood Insurance Program.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                 H.R. 11

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Flood Insurance 
     Program Reauthorization Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension.--The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 1309(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)(2)), by 
     striking ``December 31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     2003'';
       (2) in section 1319 (42 U.S.C. 4026), by striking ``after'' 
     and all that follows through the period at the end and 
     inserting ``after December 31, 2003.'';
       (3) in section 1336(a) (42 U.S.C. 4056(a)), by striking 
     ``ending'' and all that follows through ``in'' and inserting 
     ``ending December 31, 2003, in''; and
       (4) in section 1376(c) (42 U.S.C. 4127), by striking 
     ``December 31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall be considered to have taken effect on December 31, 
     2002.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to alert my colleagues that this is not the Ohio 
State resolution. That comes next.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on this legislation, and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

[[Page H98]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, today we consider a bill I have introduced to 
reauthorize the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood 
Insurance Program, which expired on December 31. Joining me in 
cosponsoring this legislation are 31 other Members of Congress, almost 
equally divided between Republicans and Democrats.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and I have been in 
contact with our counterparts in the Senate, who are in agreement with 
us on the need for immediate reauthorization of this important program. 
This is an important, noncontroversial, bipartisan bill that demands 
our attention so Americans will be protected from disaster and flood 
losses.
  Despite last minute efforts to remedy the situation, authorization 
for the NFIP expired at the end of last year. The current continuing 
resolution, which extends fiscal year 2002 baseline funding through 
January 3, 2003, does not extend the NFIP authorization. Until the NFIP 
authority is reauthorized, FEMA cannot issue or renew flood insurance 
policies and cannot borrow funds to cover claims that may arise.
  Realtors, homebuilders, mortgage bankers, and other real estate 
professionals in every one of the 20,000 communities covered by the 
NFIP are deeply and rightly concerned by the fact that real estate 
contracts cannot go to closing until this program is reauthorized. 
Countless small businesses, as well as current and prospective 
homeowners, are gravely concerned.
  I have been in touch with the regulators and asked that they oversee 
loans during this period to make sure no profiteering takes place as a 
result of a 1-week lag in the program. We need to make sure that 
consumers are protected during this period.
  By including language in this bill to make the reauthorization 
retroactive to January 1, 2003, we intend for there to be no gap in 
this authority, and for all program activity to occur in a seamless 
manner. Further, it is our intent that any actions taken to renew or 
enter into new policies would be treated as if the authority were in 
effect, and that the NFIP pay any claims that may have arisen during 
this time, or any policies renewed or made effective during this 
period.
  Though there are some who had wanted us to pass a 5-year 
authorization of the NFIP, our bill opts to reauthorize the program for 
1 year only. This is in deference to those Members who have sought to 
make changes to the flood insurance program in order to prevent costly 
repetitive loss claims.
  With approximately $200 million being spent on an annual basis on 
repetitive flood loss properties, it is important that we in the 
Congress work with the administration to promote greater fiscal 
responsibility for the program. The Committee on Financial Services 
held a valuable hearing on this issue during the last Congress, and I 
expect we will revisit the subject with another hearing this year.
  I want to thank our good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank), as well as our counterparts in the other body and the FEMA 
staff, for their leadership on this issue. The NFIP is an important 
program that protects 4.4 million property owners with $623 billion in 
insurance coverage. It is critical that we reauthorize the program 
without further delay.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important measure so we can get 
it to the President this week.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for 
yielding time to me, and thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Financial Services for their work together in bringing this important 
legislation to the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), my Long Island colleagues, 
joined me in writing to the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) 
and to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) last month asking 
that this bill be among the first the House considers this year. We did 
so because the program is absolutely vital to our region's homeowners.
  Long Island, Mr. Speaker, is indeed an island. To the south we face 
the Atlantic Ocean and to the north the Long Island Sound. As a result, 
many in our communities depend upon the National Flood Insurance 
Program to protect and finance their homes. The program lapsed on 
December 31, resulting in essentially a halt to all real estate 
transactions on Long Island's shores until the program was 
reauthorized. The lapse has exposed homeowners, lenders, and the 
Federal Government, through the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, to catastrophic and uninsured losses in the case of a 
major weather event.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a straight reauthorization of the National Flood 
Insurance Program through the end of this year. It has the strong 
support of the Committee on Financial Services. People on Long Island 
and around our country need this program.
  I want to thank the Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Oxley), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank), for their leadership on this issue, and for bringing this bill 
to the floor in such a timely fashion. I look forward to the 
President's expeditious signature on this matter at the earliest 
possible moment.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
legislation. I am very pleased to say that it is a 1-year extension, 
only because it is important that we address the reforms that are 
necessary for our own constituents and for some of the very important 
matters brought to us by the managers of the National Flood Insurance 
Program and FEMA.
  During most of my time here in Congress, I have been working on 
reform legislation for the flood insurance program. I would say it is 
overdue. With Mr. Kennedy from Massachusetts, we often tried to make 
some reforms. We were successful in part. In recent years, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and I have been working on this 
subject. We have reintroduced legislation today.
  We were happy to work with Mr. Bentsen, the former Member from Texas, 
and we look forward to working with all Members, such as the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), who has played a key role and has had a 
great interest in this subject. This is important legislation which the 
chairman has identified for work this year, so I hope their input will 
come to us.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I rise in strong support of the legislation and 
urge its passage.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak 
on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the Chair and ranking member for moving this 
forward expeditiously. It is important. I appreciate their commitment 
to look at the long term.
  My colleague the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) has been 
working on this for some time. It is a critical program for the lives 
and livelihood of many people around the country. It is a good example 
of how the Federal Government can step in and help work with local 
communities to lessen the impact that disasters have on people's lives 
and property.
  However, as we look at this reauthorization we must indeed look at 
the big picture, because the Federal Government can do a much better 
job of providing the right signals and incentives for individuals, 
communities, and State governments to act responsibly. Unfortunately, 
some aspects of our disaster policy on the national level are 
themselves a disaster, including a dominant structural model for flood 
plain and flood management that has a serious number of problems.
  Despite spending over $40 billion in the last 40 years on flood 
program management to reduce flooding, we have actually seen flood 
losses increase to

[[Page H99]]

an average of $8 billion a year, six times what it was before the 
program was enacted 40 years ago. Forty percent of the payments go to 2 
percent of the property.
  We have a serious problem of repetitive flood loss. I have often 
cited an example of one home in Houston, Texas, with an assessed value 
of less than $115,000 that has received over at least 16 losses 
totaling over $806,000. It is an example of a program that needs to be 
corrected.
  Flood losses are only going to get more expensive as global warming 
leads to more extreme weather events. The world's largest banks and 
insurers are already estimating that the cost of financial losses from 
events such as this summer's devastating floods in Central Europe and 
in India will be $150 billion over the next 10 years.

                              {time}  1500

  Our national flood policy often encourages development and rebuilding 
in places with a predictably high risk of future catastrophic loss. It 
also fosters an unsustainable reliance on the Federal Government. That 
is why the Bush administration in one of their first actions upon 
taking office identified flood insurance reform as one of the areas 
that could both help the environment and save money. It is an area of 
reform that was identified by the Clinton administration and James Lee 
Witt, a FEMA director that we all worked with.
  I am pleased to join with my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Bereuter), in co-sponsoring the Two Flood and You Are Out of the 
Taxpayer Pocket Act that would reauthorize the program until the year 
2007. I will not go into the details other than to say it is the sort 
of heavy lifting in terms of legislation that will actually unite the 
administration, environmentalists, people who are fiscally 
conservative, people who care about being able to make sure that we do 
not encourage people to put themselves in harm's way.
  I appreciate speaking in support of this bill today and look forward 
with working with people in this Chamber on important reform 
legislation that can be a source of pride for this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me recognize the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for their 
excellent work on a very important subject, and we appreciate their 
input.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Kelly).
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, in September of 1999, most of the east coast was hit 
hard by Hurricane Floyd. There were 66 known deaths, 48 in North 
Carolina, three in New Jersey, two in New York, six in Pennsylvania, 
four in Virginia, two in Delaware and one in Vermont. Ten States were 
declared Federal disaster areas as a result of Hurricane Floyd. These 
10 States needed support. In the aftermath of the storm, 4,582 
individuals registered for Federal assistance in my home State of New 
York alone.
  The insurance for this kind of storm risk is priced far too high for 
the average homeowner. The Federal Government passed the Federal Flood 
Insurance Program in 1968 to provide homeowners in communities which 
meet certain requirements. In return for coverage, a community adopts 
and enforces a set of floodplain management ordinances to reduce future 
flood risk for new construction in floodplain areas.
  This program is critical to communities across the country which are 
threatened by potential floods. This is not a perfect program; but it 
is something that we need to do, and we need to do it now. It was 
essential to the recovery of the community in my area of New York in 
1999, and it has helped thousands of families nationwide to rebuild 
their lives after floods. When you see a natural disaster, the pictures 
of a natural disaster on television or in the papers, flooded homes, 
flooded schools, flooded churches, this is the money that helps those 
folks reclaim their communities and reclaim their washed-out lives. 
Many members believe that this Federal Flood Insurance Program should 
be reformed, and I support that. I am confident that the Committee on 
Financial Services will consider Federal flood insurance reform 
legislation in this Congress.
  However, today we are not here to debate reform of the program. Today 
we are here to ensure that the program can continue for 1 additional 
year to provide retroactive coverage for those days which have already 
passed since the authorization expired. December 31st the flood 
insurance expired because of an oversight in the last continuing 
resolution. Without this legislation, homeowners are going to be unable 
to purchase homes in areas threatened by an occasional potential for 
flooding. This can harm people and it can harm communities and could 
cause further harm to the economy. So today we need to pass this 
legislation and I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to join in this support of the bipartisan support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to applaud the chairman's Ohio State 
Buckeyes. Way to go, Buckeyes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).
  (Mr. KANJORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise, of course, in support of this 
bill today; but I want to call my colleagues' attention to the fact 
that this has happened a little too often in this House. We allowed 
unemployment compensation to lapse giving a tremendous Christmas 
present on December 28 to 800,000 unemployed people in this country. 
The House of Representatives did not think it was important enough that 
they could have security.
  Now we have allowed this bill to lapse by failing just to schedule a 
bill that passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Some failure of 
leadership.
  Last year I participated in the disaster insurance bill, and for a 
full year it lagged where technical defaults and failures of commercial 
building occurred because we had some attempt by the White House or 
others to attach on tort reform.
  As a Member of Congress, I think our first responsibility is to our 
constituents. And technically, we have put people in technical default 
of their mortgages with our failure to act last fall.
  Now, I think all of our colleagues will support this bill. They would 
have supported it last fall. Why did we have to have tens of thousands 
or hundreds of thousands of people in the United States receive letters 
from their insurance carriers that they were in technical default?
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  MR. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, just for a clarification, the last day of the 
107th Congress, the Senate passed a bill, sent it over to the House. We 
brought it up on unanimous consent, and it was objected to by your 
side. Just for the record, I wanted to point that out.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I had been asked as the 
ranking member designate and had no objection to it. So I do not know 
exactly what the procedure was. We had been told there was an objection 
on the part of the Republican leadership. We had been willing to 
approve it.
  When I was consulted by the Democratic leadership, I said for this 
extension we should go forward. So I do not know, this is a different 
version than I had heard. We had been informed that there was an 
objection on the Republican side.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, all I can say is I am 
not aware of what objections were made; but this was perfunctory and 
should have been performed before we adjourned the last session of the 
last Congress. It is almost farcical.
  Do you realize in my district alone thousands of senior citizens have 
received letters that they are no longer insured? They are elderly, in 
their seventies, their 75th, 80th year and they are completely 
discombobulated with the idea that this Congress would be so

[[Page H100]]

callous as to not respond to their needs. Just as the 800,000 
unemployed people are discombobulated today knowing that they do not 
know when their next unemployment check will come because we failed to 
extend it before we went home.
  Quite frankly, I do not care whether it is a Republican problem or a 
Democratic problem. I do not think this is a party problem. This is a 
traffic cop problem for the leadership of this House, and the 
leadership of this House rests on the Republican control. And I am just 
calling your attention to it as a Member without partisan feeling.
  We cannot afford to allow this to happen in the future. We passed a 
bill that a bank cannot issue a mortgage on any residence in the United 
States that is in a flood zone unless they have flood insurance. So 
technically we were prepared and have for the last 7 or 8 days barred 
and put into technical default anybody wanting to mortgage or transact 
residence sales in the United States for the last 7 days. This is 
ridiculous. This is important.
  If you really analyze, we have cost insurance companies, we have cost 
residences and we have cost constituents across this country millions 
of dollars and great anxiety for nothing. And all I am urging is let us 
not have this happen again. This should not be a matter of politics, 
should not be a matter of who controls the leadership of either side, 
either body of this House. This is responsible legislation that should 
have been passed in the last Congress. We failed to.
  We have the force also in this legislation for unemployment 
compensation. It is awfully nice for us to argue over the issues of 
that question for all this time; but our constituents, 800,000 of them 
across America, do not know whether or not they will be able to buy 
groceries this week. That is unacceptable in the United States. And I 
am only speaking for our average constituents and calling the attention 
of that to the Members of the House. We cannot continue to allow this 
to happen.
  This should, and I predict will, pass unanimously. I cannot imagine 
any Member of the House of Representatives that is opposed to giving 
flood insurance to the American people. So why are we making it a 
ridiculous thing here 7 days late to come forth with a piece of 
legislation where there has been a hiatus and technical defaults all 
over this country, interrupting commerce, interrupting construction, 
interrupting all kinds of things when our economy is hurting? And we 
are saying we are being responsible as a body? I think not.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my chairman and my ranking member 
for finally putting this piece of legislation in a timely way here 
before the floor on this first legislative day. I think it is 
important. I urge all my colleagues on the Republican side and the 
Democratic side to support this legislation unanimously. It is 
something important, and it means a great deal to an awful lot of 
Americans to maintain their homes with some sort of security.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the National Flood 
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act that would extend for one year 
the four basic authorities contained in the National Flood Insurance 
Act
  As many of my colleagues may already know, virtually all residential 
and commercial mortgage transactions on properties located in flood 
zones came to a halt on January 1, 2003.
  The Senate did attempt to address this problem in the closing days of 
the 107th Congress. The House, however, regrettably failed to consider 
the Senate-approved bill before the 107th Congress adjourned.
  We must now, as a result, take quick action on this legislation in 
the House in order to minimize disruptions to homeownership and to 
protect our already struggling economy.
  I am pleased therefore that the leadership has scheduled this 
legislation for a vote early in the 108th Congress.
  This lapse in coverage has already resulted in significant confusion 
for all parties with an interest in the National Flood Insurance 
Program. Moving quickly on this bill will help to abate these problems.
  From my perspective, it is also of the utmost importance that this 
bill retroactively reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program.
  In January 1996, the Susquehanna River and its tributaries in 
Northeastern Pennsylvania exceeded their banks and caused considerable 
flooding. Mother Nature may cause similar flooding in Pennsylvania or 
elsewhere before we can complete our work in Washington in the coming 
days.
  I am therefore pleased that this bill would protect homeowners in the 
interim by making these changes effective as of December 31, 2002.
  In closing, we should protect homeowners and businesses from 
financial losses by not allowing the National Flood Insurance Program 
to lapse into an extended legal limbo.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for his leadership in 
bringing this before the House today.
  I feel like it is like election time again. It is rather interesting. 
Nobody is arguing reform is not necessary. Reform is necessary. But we 
are talking about global warming. We are talking about senior citizens. 
They will be losing Social Security next thing we know if this bill 
drags on more than 5 more minutes.
  And leadership, it is amazing, I think about the bills this last year 
that we voted out of this House that sat on the Democratic leader's 
desk in the Senate that went nowhere, and yet today we blame leadership 
on this side of the aisle as the problem for everything that occurred 
in this Nation.
  The fact is that 20,000 communities in this Nation are covered by the 
national flood hazard law. In January alone there will be 400,000 
households either seeking insurance or seeking to reinsure their home 
based on an existing policy. And if this does not occur today, that 
will not happen. That is dangerous and I applaud our chairman for 
making sure that that is going to happen today; but to sit around and 
complain about all the ills of society based on what we are trying to 
resolve and fix today is unreasonable on this floor.
  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac represent 85 percent of the secondary 
mortgages that are in this Nation. Dealing with the other lenders that 
are out there, they are prohibited by law from making a loan or 
reloaning to a home if people do not have an existing insurance policy. 
Now, lenders are forced, if people cannot provide a policy, to put a 
forced policy on a home.
  Now, I applaud the gentleman for his concern for seniors; but 
understand if we do not do this, they will pay double or triple the 
price for insurance than they would pay in the open market if a lender 
is forced to place that insurance company on a home for a person on a 
fixed income or anybody who has a mortgage out there.
  If you do not have an existing loan today and you are trying to get 
one from Fannie Mae, they have given you until January 15 and they will 
not place loans after that, unless at that point in time they put a 
forced insurance loan on your house itself; and that forced policy, 
again, is two to three times the normal price that you would pay on the 
market today.
  We have a problem before us. We have an issue that can be dealt with. 
I would encourage an ``aye'' vote in dealing with this issue that 
should be dealt with and should have been dealt with last year. Nobody 
is arguing that. I believe reform will occur this year, but for the 
next 12 months this has to occur to allow the open marketplace to 
continue as it has in the past.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to the former 
speaker. I hope he did not want to indicate that I am either opposed to 
the passage of this legislation or suggest that it will not be very 
successful or will not be needed. Because I certainly do not want him 
to leave the floor with that impression.
  I just want to make sure the record is very clear. This bill did not 
have any major objection, to my knowledge, on the floor at all. It was 
held up because of other tactical reasons for other legislation passed 
by the Senate that did not want to be considered by the leadership of 
this House after the Senate passed the bill.
  I think that is unacceptable as a policy in this House. I am in favor 
and I will ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as you 
do, that we should impose this immediately in the

[[Page H101]]

legislation; and if we have other things to do, let us have our 
committee hold hearings to find out what has to be done. But we should 
not penalize, jeopardize and put into such an anxiety state the 
American people. I just want the record to reflect that.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for yielding me the time, and Mr. 
Speaker, it is nice to see you in the Chair.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill to reinstate the 
National Flood Insurance Program. It is widely known by the acronym 
NFIP. I am relieved that it has come to the floor because it is 
important that it is passed. It is important for many reasons.
  Because it did expire on December 21, it would affect 400,000 
American homeowners because they will be without coverage by the end of 
the month. So timeliness is important and it is legitimate to say that 
this thing could have been taken care of before we left last year. So 
that is why I am saying I am relieved that it is coming up today.
  For those who own property in flood-prone areas, flood insurance is 
really essential. It is a must and the consequences of the lapse in 
this program are serious. New policies cannot be issued, and without 
coverage perspective home buyers may not be able to close on a home. 
Many of us have closed on a home and we know that there are many parts 
of that closure. This is an essential piece if someone lives in a flood 
zone.
  Policies cannot be renewed for homeowners whose policies expired 
after December 31st, and they could be liable for damage, even if they 
paid their premiums. That is not such a great deal.
  Finally, the NFIP will not be able to borrow money to cover claims. 
So this has to pass, and I do not think that there is anyone that is 
opposed to it, but we really did not have to come to this point of 
anxiety.
  My constituents have a special association with this coverage. That 
is because we suffered severe flooding in 1998 in the last El Nino, and 
hundreds of homes were flooded, many millions of dollars in damage. We 
can ill afford to be without this flood insurance today.
  I want to urge every single person in this House to vote for this. It 
should be unanimous. It should be bipartisan. The American people 
deserved to have this taken care of before we left, but as I said, I am 
relieved it is on the floor now. Let us get this thing done. Let us 
send it to the President to have him sign it into law. The American 
people deserve the backing of this kind of insurance coverage and 
cannot afford to be without it.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 
time. I will be brief.
  I am pleased that we were able as the first legislative effort this 
year to have the Committee on Financial Services bring forward a 
bipartisan bill that is going to be accepted unanimously. There will be 
differences on some ideological issues, and I look forward to our being 
able to debate those in a civil fashion, and I think it is important to 
note the differences on some issues will in no way interfere with our 
ability to work together in a cooperative way on the great bulk of 
issues that are not ideological and not partisan.
  So I, as my first act as the ranking minority member, am grateful to 
the chairman for giving us a chance to come forward this quickly in a 
bipartisan fashion.
  I do want to note that there is one unsung hero in this act and it is 
an unsung hero that is actually criticized and is unusually in the 
position of a hero, and that is an entity called the Federal 
Government. It has become very popular in America today to denounce 
government.
  The people who talk about less government generally are applauded, 
and we are told that we have to get the government to stop interfering 
with the private sector, but we are here bringing forward a bill that 
will be passed unanimously because there are some important issues in 
this society which the private sector cannot do by itself. If there was 
not a National Flood Insurance Program, we would have serious 
difficulties.
  I should add that I agree with those who spoke earlier, the gentleman 
from Nebraska and the gentleman from Oregon, about the need for reform. 
That is why I was pleased that the gentleman from Ohio took the bait, 
and I was glad to agree with him in resisting a longer authorization. 
This is a 1-year authorization, precisely so that we can as a committee 
work on the kind of reforms that will be both environmentally and 
fiscally sound that this program can have.
  Whether it is reformed in one way or not, it will remain an example 
of the government coming to the aid of the private sector in dealing 
with an important national need that the private sector by itself 
cannot deal with. It is not an entirely government enterprise either. 
It is an example of private/public sector cooperation, and on that 
grounds I am glad to have it.
  I would also add just for the historical record, I have the 
Congressional Record from the last day. At least on the last day of the 
session in November, no unanimous consent request was made. So I do not 
see any record that anybody here objected to it, but the important 
issue is we are bringing forward this bill. I believe it is going to 
pass unanimously, and it is certainly my commitment and I know the 
chairman's to begin a process this year so that we can within a few 
months come forward with a bill that will have a longer and reformed 
authorization, and I will be glad to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  In closing, let me thank my good friend from Massachusetts, the new 
ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, for his 
cooperation in this area.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of reauthorizing 
the FEMA Flood Insurance Program. Yesterday, I introduced a similar 
piece of legislation, HR 215, and I am very thankful to Chairman Oxley 
for bringing this important bill to the floor so that America's 
homeowners can have the flood insurance many of them desperately need.
  I represent a district in southeast Louisiana, a region that is very 
prone to flooding, perhaps one of the most flood-prone areas in our 
country. Nearly all of southeast Louisiana falls in flood zones. So, a 
lapse in this program would be devastating to commerce in Louisiana. 
Without the flood insurance, banks will not lend mortgage money to 
prospective home buyers or owners in designated flood zones. Also, any 
home buyer that was set to close after January 1 would suffer delays 
without having the required flood insurance coverage.
  Living under the constant threat of a flood--much less actually 
experiencing one--is devastating enough mentally and physically without 
families having to worry about how to recover financially in the 
aftermath. With the passage of the important legislation, the real 
estate market will be able to move forward, and millions of homeowners 
will be assured they are covered in the event of a catastrophe. I thank 
the House for considering this today, and I urge a yes vote.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 11.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________