[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.
____________________