[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.
____________________