[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 27, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H4604-H4617]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 891 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4973.

                              {time}  1511


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4973) to restore the financial solvency of the national 
flood insurance program, and for other purposes, with Mr. Bonilla 
(Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier 
today, amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 109-530 offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) had been disposed 
of.


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 109-530.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H4605]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 5, line 24, strike ``and''.
       Page 6, line 4, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 6, after line 4, insert the following:
       (E) the extent to which eligibility standards for pre-FIRM 
     properties were inconsistent and resulted in disparities in 
     coverage among such properties.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very 
much. I thank the Speaker, and I thank this extraordinary effort on 
behalf of my amendment.
  My amendment includes a provision to the Government Accountability 
Study on the status of the National Flood Insurance Program before the 
changes that will be in effect with the enactment of this Act.
  This amendment seeks to identify any inconsistencies in eligibility 
standards for coverage.
  As I said earlier, this is an enormous step toward helping homeowners 
get out of poverty when they lose everything. Insurance is just that.
  I thank Mr. Baker, I thank Mr. Oxley of the full committee, Mr. Frank 
of the full committee, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. 
Waters, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Ney. This had to be a 
yeoman's task of bipartisan effort. And all of my other colleagues on 
the jurisdiction.
  And might I just add, I thank Mr. Frank for including my eminent 
domain amendment in previous legislation on this issue dealing with 
Katrina, but the overall question of flooding. This bill develops an 
appropriate reform on the demands on flood insurance in times of 
natural disaster, such as what we saw with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  The Government can serve a crucial role in the ability of our Nation 
to be resilient to natural disaster. This program, for instance, 
provides for properties located in low to moderate risk areas to be 
eligible to purchase flood insurance policies for premiums as low as 
$112.
  With FEMA being led by a new director, and knowing that under 
Homeland Security, a committee that I sit on, that we want to reform, 
we want to make this system work for those who have experienced a 
disaster, then this legislation is a step toward making it work.
  In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program in 
response to the rising costs of taxpayer-funded disaster relief for 
flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused by floods. The 
NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available in communities 
that agree to adopt and enforce the floodplain's management ordnances 
to reduce future flood damage.

                              {time}  1515

  The NFIP is self-supporting for the average historical loss year. 
This means that, unless there is a widespread disaster, operating 
expenses and flood insurance claims are financed through premiums 
collected.
  According to a RAND Corporation study conducted for the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, nationwide about 49 percent of single 
family homes in special flood hazard areas are covered by flood 
insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program. In the South and 
West, the percentage is higher, about 60 percent. However, outside of 
the high-risk areas there is a steep drop-off in coverage. Only about 1 
percent of homeowners purchase flood insurance in these low-risk areas.
  We can see by what is happening in this region, in the Maryland, 
Washington, Virginia region, that we need to have a sensitivity to the 
need for flood insurance because we cannot predict the weather. My 
district in Harris County had only a 25 percent market penetration 
rate, which means that only one in four households was covered with a 
flood insurance plan. Given the extent of damage and flooding from 
circumstances as extreme as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and as common 
as our recent storms last week, this rate is unsustainable for my 
constituents and others around the Nation.
  As we all know, many Members of Congress have been fighting to make 
their constituents whole, and so we know that it has been important to 
understand what happened.
  It is important to remember that often residents will not receive 
Federal aid for flooding in the disaster area, but, on average, 
households can receive $700 from organizations such as the Red Cross, 
but this amount is clearly not enough.
  So this particular amendment requires the GAO to establish the extent 
to which eligibility standards for pre-FIRM properties were 
inconsistent and resulted in disparities in coverage among such 
properties and their owners. That can be a narrow and selective study 
so we can have this as part of the larger report. The intent is to 
discover whether or not the application of eligibility standards 
remained consistent and, if not, whether some homeowners who should 
have been eligible for flood insurance did not receive it.
  We hope with this amendment that the GAO study will be able to answer 
the following question: Has there ever been a case where someone should 
have gotten insurance but did not?
  A small, isolated selection of cases will help bring about this very 
important data and add to this legislation and add to the studies that 
are necessary to make hard-working homeowners and others who desire the 
American dream to be made whole in the face of terrible disasters.
  With that, I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  My amendment includes a provision to the Government Accountability 
Study on the status of the national flood insurance program before the 
changes that will be in effect with the enactment of this act. This 
amendment seeks to identify any inconsistencies in eligibility standard 
for coverage.
  First, let me say that I applaud Mr. Baker, Mr. Frank, and my other 
colleagues on committees of jurisdiction who developed a bill that 
appropriately addresses the demands on flood insurance in times of 
natural disaster, such as what we saw with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 
The government can serve a crucial role in the ability of our Nation to 
be resilient to natural disaster. This program, for instance, provides 
for properties located in low-to-moderate risk areas to be eligible to 
purchase flood insurance policies with premiums as low as $112.
  In 1968 Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 
in response to the rising cost of taxpayer-funded disaster relief for 
flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused by floods. The 
NFIP makes Federally backed flood insurance available in communities 
that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to 
reduce future flood damage. The NFIP is self-supporting for the average 
historical loss year. This means that unless there is a widespread 
disaster, operating expenses and flood insurance claims are financed 
through premiums collected.
  According to a RAND Corporation study conducted for the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), nationwide about 49 percent of 
single-family homes in special flood hazard areas (SFHAs) are covered 
by flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program. In the 
South and West the percentage is higher, about 60 percent. However, 
outside of the high risk areas there is a steep drop-off in coverage. 
Only about one percent of homeowners purchase flood insurance in these 
low risk areas.
  My district in Harris County, Texas, had only a 25 percent market 
penetration rate, which means that only 1 in 4 households was covered 
with a flood insurance plan. Given the extent of damage and flooding 
from circumstances as extreme as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and as 
common as our recent storms last week, this rate is unsustainable for 
my constituents, let alone for their local governments.

  It is important to remember that often, residents won't receive 
Federal aid for flooding or other natural disaster damage if the area 
is not declared a disaster area. On average, households can receive 
$700 from organizations such as the Red Cross--but this amount clearly 
won't cover the full cost of the damage.
  Nationwide, flash flooding is the leading cause of weather-related 
deaths in the U.S.--approximately 200 deaths per year.
  Implicit in the reforms established in this bill, however, is the 
need for an honest and transparent government process. My amendment 
contributes language to the GAO study analyzing the pre-FIRM (Flood 
Insurance Reform and Modernization Act) properties and mandatory 
purchase requirements for natural 100-year floodplain and non-Federally 
related loans.

[[Page H4606]]

  Specifically, my amendment requires the GAO to determine the extent 
to which eligibility standards for pre-FIRM properties were 
inconsistent and resulted in disparities in coverage among such 
properties and their owners. The intent is to discover whether or not 
the application of eligibility standards remained consistent, and if 
not, whether some homeowners who should have been eligible for flood 
coverage did not receive it. With this amendment, I hope the GAO will 
be able to answer the following question: Has there ever been the case 
where someone should have gotten insurance, but didn't?
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support 
effectively reforming the National Flood Insurance Program.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment on 
this side.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Me, too.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentlemen, both, and in fact, Mr. Chairman, with great appreciation for 
both of you for this deference to me today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Matsui

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 109-530.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Ms. Matsui:
       Page 29, after line 2, insert the following new subsection:
       (e) GAO Study of Low-Income Discount.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study of potential methods, practices, 
     and incentives that would increase the extent to which low-
     income families (as such term is defined in section 3(b) of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b))) 
     that own residential properties located within areas having 
     special flood hazards purchase flood insurance coverage under 
     the national flood insurance program. In conducting the study 
     the Comptroller General shall analyze--
       (A) the feasibility and effectiveness of providing such 
     coverage to low-income families at rates that are discounted 
     from the rates at which such coverage is otherwise provided, 
     the amounts by which such rates should be discounted to 
     ensure that coverage is affordable to such families and to 
     encourage purchase of coverage by such families, and the 
     effects of such discounts on the national flood insurance 
     program; and
       (B) the extent to which residential properties occupied by 
     low-income families would be affected by expanding the 
     mandatory purchase requirements of the national flood 
     insurance program to the areas included in the national flood 
     insurance program rate maps pursuant to section 1360(k) of 
     the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101(k)), 
     as amended by subsection (a) of this section.
       (2) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit to the 
     Congress a report setting forth the conclusions of the study 
     under this subsection not later than 12 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment directs the GAO to study potential 
methods, practices and incentives that would increase the degree to 
which low-income property owners living in high-risk locations 
participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.
  I am joined in offering this amendment by two of my colleagues from 
Texas, Representative Gene Green and Ruben Hinojosa. I thank them for 
supporting this amendment. This is an important issue for our 
districts, but I think this is an equally important issue for Congress 
to consider.
  Most of the amendments we are considering address the impact of the 
pending updates of our national flood maps on property owners.
  It is difficult to craft a policy or an approach when you are missing 
the correlative information. In this case, the revised flood maps.
  We will reauthorize NFIP in 2008. Anticipating the degree to which 
these new maps will affect low-income property owners' participation in 
the National Flood Insurance Program is a good and necessary first step 
toward writing that legislation.
  I want to take this opportunity to begin to address the needs of low-
income individuals who live in the floodplains or in high-risk flooding 
areas now.
  This amendment will ensure today's legislation will provide us with 
the information required to plan for the future of the flood insurance 
program. This is responsible and forward-looking policy, and I hope my 
colleagues will be able to support our amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. I am not going to claim opposition because we support the 
amendment. I would just say to the gentlewoman, we are pleased to 
accept her amendment.
  Ms. MATSUI. Thank you.
  I have two additional speakers to speak on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. 
Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Matsui/
Hinojosa/Gene Green amendment to H.R. 4973.
  I want to thank my colleagues, Congresswoman Matsui and Congressman 
Gene Green, and their staff for collaborating with me on this 
amendment.
  This amendment will protect the ability of low-income individuals to 
purchase a home once the 500-year plain mapping section of this 
legislation has been completed.
  Should it occur in the future, mandating flood insurance coverage for 
all those that fall in the 500-year floodplain map will add an 
additional burden to low-income individuals throughout the United 
States that might make them unable to afford a home.
  I hasten to note that, in all likelihood, the majority of the United 
States will fall within these new borders. Such insurance requirements 
will tip the scale in the wrong direction, and low-income individuals 
will lose their home-buying power and be once again penalized more than 
those most fortunate in America.
  This amendment's study will help ensure that low-income individuals 
receive the help they need when the 500-year floodplain maps are drawn.
  I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my other 
colleague from Texas who is cosponsoring, Mr. Gene Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from 
California and my colleague from Texas for working with us on this 
amendment.
  I rise in support of the Matsui-Hinojosa-Green amendment to the Flood 
Insurance Reform Act. The amendment addresses an issue that I have been 
concerned with for a very long time.
  Our district has a per capita income of $12,000 per year, with over 
20 percent of the residents in poverty. Over one-third of our 
households are worth less than $100,000. Many of these households are 
senior citizens on fixed incomes.
  These families and households know the dangers of flooding in the 
Houston area. They want to protect themselves, and we recently had 
severe flooding with hundreds of homes with several inches of water.
  Some Members in Congress act like it is the victim's fault when their 
houses flood, but these critics do not realize that many people did not 
move to the floodplains, the floodplains are moving to them.
  When we redraw the flood maps, thousands of people are suddenly 
required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in flood insurance. If 
they not afford to pay, they sometimes lose their mortgage and their 
house, or when it floods, they can lose all of their property.
  It is not fair to evict low-income people from homes that they have 
been making payments on for years. It would also not be fair to deny 
Federal disaster assistance to seniors who

[[Page H4607]]

could not afford the flood insurance when they suddenly were required 
to have it.
  The 100-year floodplains in Houston and Harris County and across the 
country, at least our area, have been expanding rapidly. Many of my 
constituents have been living outside the floodplain for decades. This 
year they are going to be suddenly redrawn into the 100-year floodplain 
and required to buy flood insurance.
  I believe they should buy flood insurance, and we should encourage 
low-income people to voluntarily buy flood insurance, also. However, 
when we are going to impose a new Federal financial burden on low-
income folks who have managed against the odds to own their own home, I 
think we should keep those premiums affordable.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would support this amendment so we 
could actually have the study.
  This legislation is going to increase the rate of premium increases 
from 10 percent to 15 percent, due to the recent losses to the program.
  In return, I think it should also show compassion to low-income 
homeowners who may be threatened with the loss of their home due to a 
new flood insurance rate map.
  Unfortunately my bill that was redrafted as an amendment to this 
legislation to provide a discount to low-value homes was not accepted.
  As a result, I ask Members to support the Matsui-Hinojosa-Green 
amendment to require the GAO to determine the best ways to increase 
flood insurance participation for low-income homeowners, both in 
voluntary and mandatory programs.
  When we reauthorize the NFIP again in 2008, we will need to address 
this issue, because we do not want the Flood Insurance Reform Act to 
become the Low-Income Homeowner Eviction Act.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  We direct GAO to report this study to Congress no later than one year 
after enactment of this legislation, but I want to make so clear, the 
sooner we have this report the better.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank you and my colleagues from Texas for your 
support on this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. MATSUI. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will just say that it 
would certainly be my intention and I think that of whoever the 
successor is to my friend from Ohio will be next year to take this 
seriously; that is, this is a study that will not simply languish.
  I think it has been indicated there are some concerns about the 
impact of a fully fiscally responsible program on people, low-income 
homeowners, and that will be helpful as we try to work out an approach 
to that.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Ruppersberger

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 109-530.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Ruppersberger:
       Page 29, line 16, insert before ``issue regulations'' the 
     following: ``in plain language using easy to understand terms 
     and concepts,''.
       Page 29, line 20, insert before ``revise any'' the 
     following: ``in plain language using easy to understand terms 
     and concepts,''.
       Page 30, line 2, strike ``and''.
       Page 30, line 11, strike the final period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       Page 30, after line 11, insert the following new paragraph:
       (4) include in each standard flood insurance policy a one-
     page description of the policy using plain language and easy 
     to understand terms and concepts.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  First, let me say that this amendment is very direct and simple. All 
it does is require the FEMA director to use plain language and easy to 
understand terms when issuing regulations and revising materials and 
publications for policyholders regarding insurance coverage in standard 
flood insurance policies.
  This issue hits very close to home for me and several Members of the 
House. On September 18, 2003, Hurricane Isabel made landfall at the 
Outer Banks of North Carolina as a Category 2 hurricane. Over the next 
24 hours, the hurricane moved across southern Virginia, into Western 
Pennsylvania and Maryland. The storm surge in the Chesapeake Bay area 
surrounding Baltimore was 6 to 8 feet above normal levels.
  Even though Isabel was only a Category 2 when making landfall, the 
hurricane was directly or indirectly responsible for 50 deaths, 
including 7 in Maryland. The hurricane caused approximately $410 
million in insured property damage in Maryland alone, with the number 
even higher when including uninsured property damage.
  In my district alone, several hundred of my constituents lost their 
homes and everything they owned due to the flooding.
  People who lost everything have to pick themselves up and try to 
rebuild if they can. Many hurricane victims thought they had the right 
insurance and were covered for these losses. They were wrong.
  Hundreds who thought they were covered discovered that they did not 
have the proper coverage. They thought they understood their policies 
and what they were covered for. They did not.
  It was the technical nature of the policy documents and materials 
that were provided to these people that led to their confusion.
  My amendment seeks to remedy this situation so that, in the future, 
flood insurance policyholders will have a better understanding of what 
exactly their policy covers. We need to do that. We need to do what we 
can to make it crystal clear to policyholders what they are signing up 
for.
  My amendment will not rebuild houses or levees, but it is my hope 
that this amendment will help people better understand their policies 
and the National Flood Insurance Program so they are better prepared in 
the future. Our constituents deserve it, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are 
prepared to accept the amendment on this side.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Jindal

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in House Report 109-530.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Jindal:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 20. ELIGIBILITY OF PROPERTY DEMOLITION AND REBUILDING 
                   FOR MITIGATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 1366(e)(5)(B) of the National Flood Insurance Act 
     of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c(e)(5)(B)) is amended by inserting 
     after ``flood risk'' the following: ``, or the demolition and 
     rebuilding of structures located in such areas to at least 
     Base Flood Elevation or any greater elevation required by any 
     local ordinance''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Hurricanes Katrina and Rita impacted hundreds of thousands of 
individuals and caused billions of dollars in

[[Page H4608]]

damage to public and private property. However, in the greater New 
Orleans area, directly in the path of the hurricane, Hurricane Katrina, 
63 mitigated private residences survived the hurricane and did not 
flood despite being surrounded by properties receiving 3 to 4 feet of 
water from levee breaches.

                              {time}  1530

  In 2004, these properties were demolished and rebuilt in place to 
higher code-compliant standards under an authorized pilot program for 
mitigation of severe repetitive-loss properties. It is estimated that 
total benefits to the Nation of mitigation grants between mid-1993 and 
mid-2003 yielded $14 billion in savings at a cost of $3.5 billion, 
presenting an overall benefit-to-cost ratio of 4.0.
  Despite clear cost savings stemming from predisaster mitigation 
efforts, FEMA has failed to include intrinsic project eligibility 
criteria from its widely successful 2004 severe repetitive-loss pilot 
program into its national Flood Mitigation Assistance grant program. 
Many communities are interested in buying out repetitively flooded 
properties, but other communities and property owners are interested in 
measures that retain affordable housing and private ownership.
  The list of eligible activities under FEMA does not include 
demolition and rebuilding, and FEMA has interpreted this omission as a 
statutory limitation, despite language that allows approval of other 
activities not explicitly described in the National Flood Insurance 
Reform Act of 1994.
  My amendment is fairly straightforward. It merely clarifies that 
demolition and rebuilding should be a mitigation option available under 
the regular Flood Mitigation Assistance program. The demolition and 
rebuilding option is specifically allowed under the Severe Repetitive 
Loss Program created by the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 and FEMA 
has interpreted the difference to mean it cannot approve the measure 
under FMA. This creates unnecessary confusion, restricted options at 
local government levels, and a waste of taxpayer money.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JINDAL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. JINDAL. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
support.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield, I am 
perfectly prepared to offer support subsequent to the thanks. Sequence 
doesn't seem important.
  Mr. JINDAL. I thank the gentleman, and I want to thank the chairman 
and the ranking member for their work on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).
  The amendment was agreed to.


       Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in House Report 109-530.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SECTION 20. SAMPLING METHODS FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE.

       Section 1345 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4081) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) Sampling Methods for Quality Assurance.--In selecting 
     the cases and claims for operational reviews and claims re-
     inspections regarding the national flood insurance program 
     under this title, the Director shall use a statistically 
     valid probability sample whose results can be generalized to 
     the entire population of reviews and claims from which the 
     sample is drawn and whose sampling error can be 
     quantified.''.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I want to thank the Financial Services Committee under Chairman 
Oxley, Representative Baker and Representative Ney, and their 
leadership in taking aggressive action to address the long-term 
financial security and management of the National Flood Insurance 
Program.
  After Hurricane Isabel struck my district in 2003, I have watched as 
many of my constituents have struggled to rebuild their lives. My heart 
goes out to all those along the gulf coast as they face the monumental 
task of rebuilding as well.
  I still have concerns with oversight policies of the National Flood 
Insurance Program. Thousands trust and rely on their flood insurance to 
restore property destroyed by flood waters. However, many have been 
disappointed to find that the claims adjustment process is unfair and 
inadequate.
  Although the NFIP falls under FEMA, the majority of flood insurance 
policies are sold and administered by private insurance agencies. Most 
of the management and oversight functions have been contracted to the 
Computer Sciences Corporation, CSC. As a result, billions of dollars in 
policyholders' premiums and, ultimately the borrowing authority of the 
United States Treasury, pass through a few hands.
  I believe that lack of oversight by FEMA has resulted in mismanaged 
and underpaid claims. A 2005 GAO study highlighted FEMA's oversight 
failures, stating that FEMA did not use a statistically valid method 
for sampling files to be reviewed in monitoring and oversight 
activities. As a result, FEMA cannot determine the overall accuracy of 
claims settled for specific flood events or assess the overall 
performance of insurance companies and adjustors in fulfilling their 
responsibilities to the NFIP.
  This amendment is in line with GAO's recommendation and would direct 
FEMA to utilize a statistically appropriate sampling method for claims 
reviews and quality assurance purposes. I offer this amendment to 
improve the oversight of the National Flood Insurance Program.
  My constituents, flood victims in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, 
Texas, and Florida, and the American taxpayer deserve it; and I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment and 
congratulate the gentlewoman on her foresight and her amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentlewoman would continue to 
yield, we also find the amendment very acceptable.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


       Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in House Report 109-530.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 20. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR FILING PROOF OF LOSS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1312 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4019) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) Payment.--'' before ``The 
     Director''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Filing Deadline for Proof of Loss.--
       ``(1) In general.--In establishing any requirements 
     regarding notification, proof, or approval of claims for 
     damage to or loss of property which is covered by flood 
     insurance made available under this title, the Director may 
     not require an insured to notify the Director of such damage 
     or loss, submit a claim for such damage or loss, or certify 
     to or submit proof of such damage or loss, before the 
     expiration of the 180-day period that

[[Page H4609]]

     begins on the date that such damage or loss occurred.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding any deadline established 
     in accordance with paragraph (1), the Director may not deny a 
     claim for damage or loss described in such paragraph solely 
     for failure to meet such deadline if the insured demonstrates 
     any good cause for such failure.''.
       (b) Applicability.--Subsection (b) of section 1312 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as added by subsection 
     (a)(2) of this section, shall apply with respect to any claim 
     under which the damage to or loss of property occurred on or 
     after September 18, 2003.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Hurricane Isabel struck the eastern United States in 
September of 2003, one of the worst disasters in Virginia history. The 
financial damages exceeded $1.5 billion. Winds destroyed homes, knocked 
down trees and power lines, leading to massive power outages. Large 
storm surges flooded homes and properties across eastern Virginia, 
Maryland, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
  Many residents in my district, the First District of Virginia, are 
still struggling to rebuild following Hurricane Isabel which struck 
them in 2003. Some are still living in FEMA trailers. Many have been 
shattered to learn that flood insurance won't cover their losses.
  I have spoken to many misled policyholders who had their claims 
mismanaged by the National Flood Insurance Program. Claimants were 
reportedly pressured to sign adjustors' proof of loss within 60 days of 
the flood, even though they believed that the adjustors had 
underestimated both the scope of damage and the associated cost of 
repairs to their properties.
  My amendment would extend the proof-of-loss filing deadline to 180 
days and should not be used as a technical basis to deny a claim, and 
make it retroactive to September 18, 2003 to provide much-needed relief 
for Isabel victims.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, once again, I am prepared to accept the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentlewoman will yield, we also 
accept the amendment.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in House Report 109-530.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 20. RATES FOR PROPERTY AFFECTED BY FEDERALLY FUNDED 
                   FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.

       Section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4015) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(g) Effect of Flood Control Projects.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, in any case where a flood control 
     project constructed with Federal assistance causes a property 
     to become at greater risk for a flood than before the 
     construction of the project, the chargeable rate for the 
     property shall be--
       ``(1) the rate that the Director would have prescribed 
     under subsection (a) if the flood control project had not 
     been constructed; or
       ``(2) in the case of property that would not have been 
     considered part of a flood-risk zone prior to construction of 
     the flood control project, zero dollars.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment for the 
purpose of bringing equitable treatment to people who have 
inadvertently been made subject to the National Flood Insurance Program 
by the unintended consequences of a Federal flood control project.
  This amendment protects families who have been included in a flood 
zone due to the completion of a Federal flood control project in 
Southern California. I have seen this situation firsthand, where 
homeowners were required to purchase flood insurance, even though the 
home in which they reside and have lived in for decades has never been 
subject to flood insurance before.
  Ironically, this new flood insurance obligation came after the 
completion of a massive flood control project within sight of their own 
home. The Santa Ana River Mainstream Project is a multi-billion dollar 
Army Corps of Engineers flood control project in California's Orange 
and San Bernardino Counties. As a consequence of this Federal project, 
new flood maps were redrawn. These redrawn maps designated hundreds of 
households to be at risk of flooding which were not previously so 
classified. Many of these fixed-income residents cannot readily afford 
the newly required flood insurance and must choose between the new 
costly insurance and other necessities of life.
  This downside, of course, does not diminish the tremendous good that 
has come from this and other flood control projects. In my district 
alone, the Santa Ana River Mainstream Project has made thousands of 
families safer and guarded billions of dollars' worth of homes and 
other properties from damage and destruction, all of this achieved by 
the Army Corps of Engineers on time and under budget. So I applaud the 
Army Corps' dedication and professionalism and would like to thank them 
for a job well done. Those people in the floodplain have seen their 
insurance bills eliminated or reduced.
  That said, it is still important not to accomplish something good for 
many at the expense of a small, yet significant, part of our community. 
As I have said, for some local people, upon completion of the flood 
control project, their flood liability inexplicably shot sky high. My 
amendment addresses this unfortunate and unintended consequence.
  Under my amendment, homeowners not included in a flood zone prior to 
a Federal project but who become included in a Federal flood zone 
because of that project will be issued flood insurance at no cost to 
them. Households that were included in a flood zone prior to a Federal 
project but are put at greater flood risk because of the project will 
be provided flood insurance at a price formula that was in place before 
the Federal project was completed.
  This is the least we can do to help these people out, making them 
whole, due to their suffering from a Federal project, especially when 
we realize that their neighbors enjoy the benefits of this Federal 
project in the form of lower or no insurance premiums and end up with 
safer houses and safer homes.
  Mr. Chairman, we shouldn't be making a small group bear a huge burden 
in order to accomplish something good. My amendment will prevent the 
unintended harm done to a few as a result of a flood control project 
aimed at helping many. So I ask my colleagues to support this fairness 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  First, to the extent there is an issue here, it is being addressed in 
the wrong place, that is, if we have decided to get benefits from the 
Federal flood insurance program, any cost that accrues from that ought 
to be part of the flood control program. That is, it does not make 
sense from the budgetary standpoint to give a hit to the Federal flood

[[Page H4610]]

insurance program because of a Federal flood control program.
  That is what this amendment does in this structure, that is, we pay 
for the Federal flood control program over here, and that will result 
in some people under this amendment now getting Federal flood insurance 
and not paying anything for it. It will, therefore, undercut our 
efforts to make the Federal flood insurance program a fiscally sound 
one.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Do you think if we have imposed a liability on 
someone, and they have not in any way contributed to that, that we 
should then----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, the gentleman misses my point 
entirely. I was talking now, assuming that point, as to where the 
compensation should come from. I do not think it is reasonable to 
charge the Federal flood insurance program. We have problems with 
Federal flood insurance.
  If in fact the gentleman wants to pursue that principle, it ought to 
be with regard to the financing of the flood control programs. That is, 
if as a consequence of flood control there is going to be this problem, 
I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to charge the Flood 
insurance program with it.
  The second thing I would say is that the gentleman talked about 
people on fixed incomes. Several times today in the amendment by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and an amendment that was going 
to be offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), the question of 
some special consideration for lower-income homeowners has come up. I 
am all in favor of that. I think we should go forward with that. I 
think we ought to be looking at some kind of relief for lower-income 
people, and I would include those who will be affected this way and 
others.
  But where we are talking about people who are quite prosperous, the 
Federal flood control programs are done for a good reason; and it may 
be, by the way, that while, yes, you, as a result of the Federal flood 
control program have some more costs, you may also get some benefits. I 
don't think you can do a general principle in that. You may benefit.
  But the main problem I have is this: the result of this amendment, if 
adopted, would be to weaken the principle of the fiscal balance and 
integrity of the flood insurance program.

                              {time}  1545

  It would say that people would get flood insurance who were at risk 
of flooding and either pay nothing for it or pay far less than they 
should be. I hope this amendment is defeated.
  I would then be glad to join the gentleman in talking to the 
committee of jurisdiction, to say when you are doing a flood control 
program take this into account, and maybe you want to put some funding 
into that. But I do not want to weaken the fiscal integrity of the 
flood insurance program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about establishing policy here. This 
is not the government's money or the program's money. We are talking 
about the people's money. The money comes directly from people's 
pockets. I personally think a lot of people out there will personally 
resent being called affluent or what you hinted at, more affluent 
people.
  Let me note for my colleague many people affected by this are lower-
middle-income people who live in trailers and the like. Why should we 
have these people pay a hefty penalty in order to help other people? 
All they know is that the Federal Government has established policies 
that end up costing them, perhaps the money they need for their 
children, perhaps the money they need for their grandchildren.
  These are the policies we are establishing for a small group of 
people. That is unfair, and we should not condone those policies.
  This will not put at risk the insurance program. It will make it 
fairer, and it will mean in the future that these things will have to 
be taken into consideration instead of just robbing some small group of 
citizens.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ 
minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, the gentleman totally misrepresents my 
argument. I didn't say everyone was affluent. I said, in fact, that 
those who are of low income ought to get the relief here, as they 
should elsewhere in the program. But some will be affluent. The point, 
however, is this.
  If you give some people flood insurance for free, as this amendment 
would do, then everybody else who gets flood insurance pays for it. The 
flood insurance program is supposed to be self-financing, so it will 
result in increases in flood insurance premiums.
  The gentleman said, if it is going to impose costs, that should be 
taken into account. That was precisely my original point. The costs to 
people who will now have a flood insurance obligation ought to be taken 
into account when you do the benefit/cost analysis of the flood control 
program. But that is not what happens.
  Under the gentleman's amendment, we have two separate processes. You 
decide to do flood control; and then, having done flood control, if 
that results in some people having to pay flood insurance, the flood 
insurance program gets stuck with it. It has nothing to do with the 
financial side of flood control.
  I agree we should look at that but from the same source the flood 
control programs come in. Telling everyone who now pays flood insurance 
premiums that they will be subsidizing these people is also an 
unfairness.
  As the gentleman said, if you start this principle of I was here 
first and then the flood came, I don't know how extendable that would 
be. I think it is a mistake to set the precedent that some people will 
get flood insurance for nothing.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my final 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just note we have a chance to undo a grave 
injustice here. Some people, yes, have large homes. Some people have 
small homes who have been done this injustice.
  It is wrong, it is unjust to take money from people and force them 
into a flood insurance program when they had bought their property 
based on totally different circumstances and we have changed the 
circumstances on them. This is not fair.
  We have a chance to rectify it now. We can sit here and argue what 
budget it should come out of. That doesn't do them any good.
  We need to try to rectify the situation for hundreds of homes in my 
area where the homeowners bought property knowing that it was not under 
flood risk, and we, through our actions, put them in jeopardy.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining 
for me?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Forty-five seconds remain.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for the remaining 
time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. This is not a unique circumstance. What is happening 
is that, when you have a situation where development that might be 
federally financed, it might be a freeway project, it might be 
something in a military base, it might be something in a flood control, 
that changes the circumstance that results in people being in a flood 
plain.
  Mr. Frank's point is that, regardless of the program, are you going 
to have the Federal Government somehow pay, are you going to stick four 
million flood insurance premium payers to pay the cost of the military 
or of the Corps of Engineers or of the road project? His point is, you 
shouldn't stick four million innocent flood insurance premium payers.
  If you want to set a standard that the Federal Government will pay 
for these, then go ahead and do that. Finance it separately, but don't 
stick innocent people who have flood insurance..
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California Mr. Rohrabacher).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending

[[Page H4611]]

that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Pearce

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in House Report 109-530.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Pearce:
       Page 9, line 6, strike ``and Transition.--'' and all that 
     follows through ``Effective date''.
       Page 9, strike line 13 and all that follows through page 
     10, line 15.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Flood 
Insurance Reform and Modernization Act, H.R. 4973.
  Chairman Baker's bill make some great strides in helping insure the 
stability of our Nation's flood insurance system, yet, like most 
legislation, there is room for improvement. For that reason, I am 
offering an amendment that helps insure the National Flood Insurance 
Program has the resources it needs to cover all its costs.
  We have a duty to find savings wherever possible to make sure the 
National Flood Insurance Program has sufficient resources to cover all 
its costs by phasing out subsidies for pre-FIRM nonresidential 
properties, vacation and secondary homes. The committee has already 
agreed that these subsidies are a luxury we can no longer afford. I 
agree with the committee's premise that these subsidies should be 
eliminated.
  However, I believe that we can go further and eliminate these 
subsidies now. We should not wait another half decade to restore fiscal 
responsibility to the program. When the next flood strikes, how will we 
explain to those who have lost everything that help is tight because we 
are still subsidizing someone's vacation home? In the wake of the 
Katrina disaster, with the flood insurance program facing liabilities 
of between 23 and $25 billion, why should we continue to subsidize 
flood insurance for vacation homes? My amendment will inject $335 
million into the flood insurance program next year.
  While the committee predicts that their phase-in saves $1.5 billion 
from 2007 to 2016, I respectfully submit that the Pearce amendment will 
save much more much sooner. While I respect my chairman's commitment to 
phasing out these subsidies, I believe we can and should, for the good 
of the program, eliminate them now.
  I hope my colleagues will join me supporting this amendment to 
eliminate those costly subsidies and help bring the NFIP back into 
sound fiscal condition.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we debated earlier an 
amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey, which as adopted would put 
residential properties into the phase-in. This would take 
nonresidential properties and second homes out of the phase-in.
  I believe it would be a mistake and could result in a severe economic 
shock to a number of communities. We are talking about, in the bill, 
accomplishing the goal that this amendment accomplishes.
  The question is, how quickly do you do it? We have a phase-in to full 
actuarial rates at 15 percent a year. For some individuals who may own 
an isolated second home, that is one thing. We have many communities in 
this country where the basis of their economy is second homes, vacation 
homes and also facilities that service vacation homes. To immediately 
raise all the insurance rates on all of those properties in that 
community seems to me to subject them to an economic shock which is 
unwise.
  The 15 percent rate, we think, is an unreasonable one. We are talking 
about a period of years, 5 or 6 years, before you get to the full 
amount.
  But that is the issue. Do you go to these communities, and, again, we 
do have, and that has been one of the issues here, people who bought 
under certain assumptions, people who paid for property figuring a 
certain amount. Vacation homes is one thing. People brought commercial 
properties. People figured out, okay, I bought this property. This is 
how I am going to make my living. How can I make money on this? What is 
the cash flow?
  And the insurance premiums are a part of it. To increase those 
insurance premiums in 1 year, without a phase-in, could threaten the 
viability from small businesses, small business people who have been 
careful about calculating their risk.
  We have given them the 15 percent increase. There was obviously 
resistance to that. There were people in shoreline communities and 
vacation communities and elsewhere who don't like the notion of getting 
to actuarial soundness.
  But to do it without any phase-in at all, to do it overnight, is a 
problem, not just for the second homes, and maybe people are less 
sympathetic to people's vacations, but with noncommercial property 
small business owners. You are talking about a significant, immediate 
significant increase in the insurance of small business owners. That 
seems to me an unwise thing for us to do when we can get there a little 
bit slower but get there with the phase-in.
  I would remind people that, even with the phase-in, the Taxpayers 
Union, Citizens Against Government Waste support this bill. I do not 
think it is a mistake for us to be gradual, not taking forever, 5 or 6 
years, in hitting business owners, small business owners with a very 
significant increase in their flood insurance.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, as I listen to the arguments of the other 
side, I would just note that the people in the Second District of New 
Mexico generally average under $30,000 a year net income; $70,000 would 
buy most homes in the Second District of New Mexico. To explain to 
those people why they are subsidizing vacation homes on coastlines, 
many times they are seeing on TV the same reports that I am seeing that 
someone with a 4 or $500,000 home gets to rebuild it multiple times. It 
is very difficult for me to explain that to my constituents. Just 
understand and appreciate the gentleman's argument that it could 
provide a severe economic impact.
  Frankly, to tax the lower income people of the rest of the country to 
avoid those impacts seems to me that we are making choices that are not 
ours to make.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first, you don't get 
$500,000. There is a cap.
  Secondly, we do agree that people should reach to full actuarial 
amounts. It depends on when.
  Third, I would say, every time something comes up, there are cost 
subsidies.
  People in my district don't grow much corn or much wheat, and we pay 
some subsidies. There are people who don't have any public 
transportation, and they do.
  This is one country. The government is not a supermarket where you go 
in and pay for only exactly what you buy off the shelf. There is some 
joint effort.
  But the other problem is the gentleman from New Mexico has not 
described his amendment completely.
  What about small business people, he says, second homes and other 
properties? You have that problem with people who have businesses. What 
do you do with smaller businesses, people who have brought businesses 
in these vacation areas who are trying to make a living and who made a 
calculation based on insurance? What about them? These are not 
necessarily fat guys. What do you do to them when you immediately and 
without any phase-in at

[[Page H4612]]

all give them what could be a very significant increase in their 
insurance?
  So that is the problem that we have. That is where we have the 
difference with our friend from New Mexico, not simply with regard to 
the second home but to the businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, you have heard the gentleman from 
Massachusetts speak against this amendment. He highlights his interest 
in preserving a phase-in period included in the underlying bill. I have 
the utmost respect for him, but I must disagree.
  At a time when the flood insurance program system is facing record 
borrowing and interest payments, we have the responsibilities to remove 
luxuries from the program.
  The final point we should make is simple. This amendment will result 
in an additional $335 million in premium payments to the flood 
insurance program. This will help preserve the financial stability of 
the program and reduce the burden on taxpayers. This is a good 
amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, there are two aspects that 
have to be considered, one, the impact on vacation communities. It is 
not only wealthy people. You are talking about the businesses, the 
hotel owners, the small business people, the restaurant owners, the 
rooming house owners. They would get a heavy impact here. Cumulatively, 
if you affect all the commercial property in one of these areas, then 
you will also affect the whole area.
  The economic impact on small business people and on entire 
communities of a 100 percent overnight significant increase in 
insurance is not something we ought to be inflicting on people. The 
phase-in is reasonable. They should be getting actuarial rates but at a 
reasonable pace.

                              {time}  1600

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Michigan

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in House Report 109-530.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mrs. Miller of Michigan:
       Page 24, after line 6, insert the following:
       ``(5) Great lakes flood level study.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     completion by the International Joint Commission of The Upper 
     Great Lakes Study, the Director shall request the Corps of 
     Engineers to complete a new inundation map for areas 
     surrounding the upper Great Lakes and their interconnecting 
     channels to assist the Director in the development of maps 
     identifying 100- and 500-year flood inundation areas for 
     those areas.
       ``(B) Requirements.--The Director shall request the Corps 
     of Engineers, in completing new inundation map under 
     subparagraph (A), to--
       ``(i) utilize data and findings from The Upper Great Lakes 
     Study by the International Joint Commission, including any 
     changes to the International Joint Commission's Order of 
     Approval at St. Mary's River; and
       ``(ii) accurately show the flood inundation of each 
     property by flood risk in the floodplain.
       ``(C) Validity of study.--The Director shall take such 
     actions as may be necessary to ensure that the maps completed 
     pursuant to the request under subparagraph (A) are valid and 
     appropriate for use for purposes of the national flood 
     insurance program.
       ``(D) Completion of study.--In making the request under 
     subparagraph (A), the Director shall request that the Corps 
     of Engineers complete the new inundation map not later than 
     18 months after the date of the completion of The Upper Great 
     Lakes Study by the International Joint Commission.
       ``(E) Limitation of elevation increases.--The Director 
     shall not increase the base flood elevation in any community 
     surrounding the upper Great Lakes and their interconnecting 
     channels until the Corps of Engineers completes the new 
     inundation map pursuant to the request under subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(F) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(i) The term `upper Great Lakes' means Lake Superior, 
     Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Lake Erie.
       ``(ii) The term `interconnecting channels' means the St. 
     Mary's River, St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, the Detroit 
     River, and the Niagara River up to Niagara Falls.''.
       Page 24, line 7, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       Page 24, line 18, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as 
I might consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has the potential actually to impact 
millions of property owners, millions of them, property owners that 
live on, near or around the Upper Great Lakes, which is essentially 
everything in the Great Lakes Basin upstream from Niagara Falls. So 
Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, 
and then the rivers of Saint Mary, the Saint Clair River, the Detroit 
River and the Niagara River.
  Mr. Chairman, FEMA is currently engaged in doing what the Congress 
directed them to do, and that is to update and to modernize flood maps 
across the entire Nation. And I certainly recognize that with new 
technology, we can and we should update the maps to convert them into a 
user-friendly digital format which will account for property 
development and growth as well as changes in topography. So I certainly 
want to make clear that I support authorizing funds so that this 
important work continues.
  However, I do believe that property owners on the Upper Great Lakes 
are being treated unfairly by this process, because I can show over and 
over and over again how these property owners, who very rarely flood 
nor have the potential to flood, are actually being abused by the 
National Flood Insurance Program. Just those in the current floodplain 
are already paying in substantially more in premiums than they will 
ever, ever receive in claims out. And now FEMA wants to include more. 
And they want more.
  Mr. Chairman, I would submit that if any private insurance company 
was trying to get away with this, the State insurance commissioners in 
the Great Lakes States would be revoking their licenses to sell 
insurance. Let me just give you one example: in regards to FEMA's 
proposal for remapping in the Great Lakes region they are basing 
raising the base flood elevation an additional 14 inches, they say to 
accurately reflect the risk of flooding.
  But this is predicated on data from 1988. This was 2 years after the 
absolute high recorded rate levels for the Great Lakes ever. And during 
that time, none of the new properties FEMA is talking about bringing 
into the floodplain actually flooded, nor was it in danger of flooding.
  Since that time, in Lake St. Clair alone, the lake levels have 
dropped over 3 feet and they are now, it is now almost 5 feet below the 
current flood elevation. And most importantly, if you really want to 
look at historic averages, the lake level has only changed an average 
depth of less than 6 inches per year. Yet, if FEMA goes ahead with 
their proposal, the new base flood elevation will be 6 feet above the 
current lake levels. And for the lake levels to rise that much, I think 
that the polar ice caps would probably have to melt next year. And I 
don't believe even Al Gore is predicting something like that.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment simply asks for FEMA to do no more harm, 
to keep their status quo on the Great Lakes property owners and base 
their new maps on updated data.
  My amendment would require that the Army Corps of Engineers would

[[Page H4613]]

have to wait until they have the results of a 5-year study, which is 
currently being undertaken by the International Joint Commission, the 
IJC. I believe they are 2 years into their 5-year study. This will be 
the most comprehensive lake level study completed. And certainly we can 
all agree that using sound science when literally hundreds of millions 
of dollars are about to be assessed against American property owners is 
the most prudent course of action. I would urge my colleagues to 
support the Miller amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonner). The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman.
  I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Part of 
what I find a little ironic is the notion that these flood levels will 
never increase for the lakes. I have heard already in the last 24 hours 
here in Washington, D.C. as people say, ``my basement has never flooded 
before''. Welcome to the world of flood management.
  The Gentlewoman referenced global warming. We don't know where we are 
going in terms of melting the ice caps. But the point is, we don't have 
to get that far into the future and invoke former Vice President Al 
Gore.
  We are not treating anybody unfairly under the mapping program. The 
National Flood Insurance Program is a voluntary program. If a community 
really feels that the building insurance requirements are too 
burdensome, they don't have to participate. Participation in the NFIP 
and its requirements is not a malicious financial burden on 
communities. It is a privilege that provides the community with the 
resources it needs to protect itself from floods.
  This amendment would have the effect of delaying the implementation 
of flood maps meant to protect communities and having Congress 
intervene. And I, with all due respect, think our record in approving 
projects, we just heard from Mr. Rohrabacher, that actually increased 
flooding, is not a very strong record. For us to sit in judgment and 
second guess the experts, I think is wrong. It would be a terrible 
precedent.
  Congress should not be involved with determining flood maps. FEMA 
determines base flood elevations using widely accepted statistical 
engineering analysis. Artificially preventing flood elevations from 
going up would be the same as underestimating flood risks and leading 
people to build homes that are not safe and putting Congress's stamp of 
approval.
  There is no such thing as zero risk. A property in the 100-year 
floodplain has a 96 percent chance of being flooded in the next hundred 
years without global warming. The fact that several years go by without 
a flood does not change that probability. For example, water levels in 
the Great Lakes fluctuated. In 1986 the Great Lakes hit their highest 
levels in recorded history. This could happen again.
  Raising the base flood elevations will not impact homes that were 
built before a revised map was issued. Nothing in the regulations 
requires a pre-existing home to be upgraded simply because a new map 
with a higher base flood elevation is produced. Only new buildings and 
substantially improved buildings that are started after the new maps 
become effective will be impacted.
  We have heard after Katrina hit people were shocked. They didn't 
think they would be affected. We found out that we haven't done enough 
to include wide enough areas. This amendment would be a tragic and 
unnecessary step backwards.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the arguments 
opposed to my amendment. I did not say that we never thought that the 
lake levels would ever rise or that we would flood. Obviously, I think 
there are a lot of factors that go into the lake levels rising. You 
have factors that are manmade, like the Chicago diversionary canal. You 
have got the Sault Locks. You have got the St. Laurence Seaway. The 
biggest factor has nothing to with man, and that is God. God makes the 
lake levels go up and down, I think.
  But I would say this: I think this is an issue of financial fairness. 
I really do believe that. And the brutal reality is that FEMA actually 
needs more money to pay for all these flood insurance claims that they 
have had in recent years. Let me just cite this statistic, and let me 
ask anyone to tell me with a straight face that it is fair and 
equitable: between 1978 and 2002, there were 10 States that received 
more in claims than what they paid in policies, in fact, over $1.5 
billion more. And the average premium for policyholders in those States 
was $223.
  Michigan, on the other hand, paid almost $120 million more into the 
program than it received back in claims. Yet the average premium for 
our policyholders was $260. And this is a common element in all of the 
Great Lakes States, the same States that are paying year after year 
after year, decade after decade, much more than others. And I think 
they are being taken advantage of by the flood insurance program.
  Again, I would urge my colleagues to support the Miller amendment. 
This is a good bill. I think my amendment makes a good bill better.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 of the remaining 2 
minutes.
  The fact that Michigan has paid in more than they have received, or 
that 10 States have paid in more than they have received during the 
last 20 years is irrelevant. The point is that it is a flood insurance 
program. And some years you are going to get more; some years you are 
going to get less. And you don't look at it over a 10-year or a 20-year 
program.
  We make it as fair as we can, and we look at the probabilities. We 
need to update all of the floodplain maps so that we minimize any 
fluctuation. If everybody who was upset that they got back less than 
they paid in was monkeying around with updating the maps, then the 
system would be more and more out of whack and there would be more and 
more inequity.
  What we should do is allow FEMA, the Corps of Engineers, to do their 
job, to update all of the maps and make it fair. Make no mistake, make 
no mistake; if a tremendous flood comes, people are going to want their 
help now, and they will understand why they paid a little more at 
another time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and I reserve the 
right to close.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired, so the 
gentleman is recognized to close.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to say, as I said 
before, we are running here a national program. And if it becomes 50 
separate State programs or a couple of thousand separate county 
programs, you lose the insurance principle.
  And it is also the case, and I understand that there are programs 
into which Massachusetts pays more than it gets back. Under Medicaid, 
we get a lower percentage of reimbursement than other States do. We 
have public transportation and we benefit. But we don't have much that 
is subsidized agriculturally.
  I think the notion that every State can have a balance sheet 
destroys, the Articles of Confederation embody that principle, but not 
the Constitution.
  You cannot run a national program based on need, based on response to 
situations on a nationwide basis if you have this kind of a balance 
thing.
  So I agree, we should be pushing FEMA to do the right thing; but if 
we begin to pick and choose based on one State, you know, we will have 
a situation where every State will be looking to make money and none 
will be paying in, and pretty soon there won't be anything left.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment. 
It is important that the record here today reflects that FEMA is 
proposing to revise base flood elevations using flawed methods and old 
data.
  In my home state of Michigan, FEMA has proposed raising the base 
flood elevation, significantly in some areas. While FEMA should work to 
keep flood maps up-to-date, indeed updating these maps is one of the 
purposes of

[[Page H4614]]

this bill, it must do so in a responsible manner, utilizing accurate 
data. Unfortunately, that has not been true in this case.
  FEMA's proposal for base flood elevations in Michigan is based on a 
study that is 18 years old. More to the point, the last year of data 
included in this 1988 study of Great Lakes water levels is the same 
year that the Great Lakes hit historic highs. Since then, water levels 
in the Great Lakes have fallen to historic lows. These elevations, 
which determine who is required to purchase flood insurance, need to 
reflect the actual risk of flooding. Commonsense, let alone science, 
should tell us very clearly that the risk of flooding is lower today 
that it was 18 years ago when this study was completed.
  Right now, the International Joint Commission, or IJC, is conducting 
a comprehensive study of Great Lakes water levels that will be 
completed in 2010 or 2011. This study will take a more realistic view 
of factors affecting lake levels, including increased population, water 
consumption, environmental changes and higher flow through the Great 
Lakes system.
  This amendment would require FEMA to use the more up-to-date and 
accurate data that the IJC study will provide. I am not arguing that 
Great Lakes states like Michigan should not have their flood maps 
updated, or that there should be some fixed ratio between premiums paid 
and damage claims received. What I am saying is that the revised flood 
maps should use the best data available, rather than 20-year old data 
that does not reflect the true flood risk.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is about reforming and improving the National 
Flood Insurance Program. In doing so, we must signal to FEMA that they 
must be responsible in setting these flood elevations. In Michigan, 
FEMA is proceeding on the basis of bad data, and that's going to lead 
to bad policy.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan 
will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 14 by Mr. Rohrabacher of California.
  Amendment No. 15 by Mr. Pearce of New Mexico.
  Amendment No. 16 by Mrs. Miller of Michigan.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


              Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 98, 
noes 327, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 322]

                                AYES--98

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bilbray
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Culberson
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Nadler
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rehberg
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiahrt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--327

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Olver
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Abercrombie
     Cannon
     Carson
     Evans
     Johnson, Sam
     Ortiz
     Strickland

                              {time}  1641

  Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi and Mr. SULLIVAN changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SHUSTER, POE, HALL, SODREL, GILLMOR, FOSSELLA, BOOZMAN, 
TIAHRT and GALLEGLY and Mrs. KELLY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Pearce

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Pearce) on which further proceedings

[[Page H4615]]

were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 76, 
noes 347, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 323]

                                AYES--76

     Akin
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bilbray
     Blackburn
     Burgess
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cooper
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jenkins
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kolbe
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Marchant
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McMorris
     Miller (MI)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Sodrel
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Wu

                               NOES--347

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Abercrombie
     Bishop (UT)
     Cannon
     Carson
     Evans
     Johnson, Sam
     Ortiz
     Strickland
     Sullivan


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 
2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1648

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Michigan

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan 
(Mrs. Miller) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 120, 
noes 304, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 324]

                               AYES--120

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Bradley (NH)
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Davis, Tom
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Feeney
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Green (WI)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Northup
     Obey
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryan (WI)
     Schakowsky
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--304

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte

[[Page H4616]]


     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Abercrombie
     Cannon
     Carson
     Evans
     Johnson, Sam
     Lewis (CA)
     Ortiz
     Strickland


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 
2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1657

  Mr. CONYERS and Mr. BURTON of Indiana changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bishop of Utah) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bonner, Acting Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4973) to restore the financial solvency of the national flood insurance 
program, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 891, he 
reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by 
the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416, 
nays 4, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 325]

                               YEAS--416

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--4

     Higgins
     Inglis (SC)
     Rohrabacher
     Tancredo

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Abercrombie
     Cannon
     Carson
     Evans
     Garrett (NJ)
     Johnson, Sam
     King (NY)
     Markey
     Ortiz
     Shuster
     Strickland
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1719

  Mr. FLAKE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

[[Page H4617]]

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________