[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 145 (Thursday, September 27, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H10947-H10952]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1045
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3121, FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND 
                       MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2007

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 683 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 683

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3121) to restore the financial solvency of the 
     national flood insurance program and to provide for such 
     program to make available multiperil coverage for damage 
     resulting from windstorms and floods, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
     except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, 
     modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
     original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 
     five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further 
     amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except 
     those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules. Each further amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     further amendments are waived except those arising under 
     clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 3121 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

                             Point of Order

  Mr. DREIER. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of the 
rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. DREIER. I raise a point of order against consideration of the 
resolution because it violates clause 9(b) of House rule XXI, which 
states that it shall not be in order to consider a rule or order that 
waives the application of clause 9(a) of House rule XXI, the earmark 
disclosure rule.
  The rule waives the application of the earmark disclosure rule 
against the amendment printed in part A of the committee report. The 
amendment is self-executed by the rule and, therefore, evades the 
application of clause 9.
  I doubt that the self-executed amendment contains any earmarks; 
however, there is no statement in accordance with rule 9 that it does 
not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. DREIER. I look forward to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from California makes a point of order that the 
resolution waives the application of clause 9(a) of rule XXI. It is 
correct that 9(b) of rule XXI provides a point of order against a rule 
that waives the application of the clause 9(a) point of order.
  Clause 9(a) of rule XXI provides a point of order against a bill or 
joint resolution, a conference report on a bill or joint resolution or 
a so-called ``manager's amendment'' to a bill or joint resolution, 
unless certain information on congressional earmarks, limited tax 
benefits and limited tariff benefits is disclosed. But this point of 
order does not lie against an amendment that has been ``self-executed'' 
by a special order of business resolution.
  House Resolution 683 ``self-executes'' the amendment recommended by 
the Committee on Financial Services modified by the amendment printed 
in part A of the Rules Committee report. Because clause 9(a) of rule 
XXI does not apply to such amendment, House Resolution 683 has no 
tendency to waive its application, and the point of order is overruled.
  The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous 
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise 
and extend their remarks on House Resolution 683.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 683 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and 
Modernization Act of 2007, under a structured rule. As the Clerk 
reported, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the 
Committee on Financial Services.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill, except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule also makes in order 
a substitute reported by the Committee on Financial Services modified 
by the amendment in part A of the Rules Committee report as an original 
bill for the purpose of amendment. The self-executing amendment in part 
A would ensure that the bill complies with the new PAYGO requirements.
  The rule makes in order the 13 amendments printed in the Rules 
Committee report, with each amendment debatable for 10 minutes.
  As yesterday's debate in the Rules Committee demonstrated, Members on 
both sides of the aisle are focused on getting this bill to conference 
and onto the President's desk, and this bill reflects that consensus.
  As a Representative of a district in a floodplain, I understand the 
need for a healthy flood insurance program. My hometown of Sacramento 
is the most at-risk river city in the Nation. Whenever I talk about our 
efforts to improve Sacramento's level of flood protection, I also 
mention the importance of flood insurance. If you live behind a levee, 
you should have flood insurance. And the Federal Government has the 
responsibility to promote this kind of coverage.
  I also recognize that to accomplish this, we need a healthy and 
robust national flood insurance program. That is why legislation we 
debate today, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act, is so 
significant. Through this legislation, we will meet our 
responsibilities, we will ensure coverage is available to those at 
risk, and we will educate those same individuals as to the benefits of 
flood insurance. This bill, which was reported out of the Financial 
Services Committee by a bipartisan majority of 38-29, takes us in that 
positive direction.
  In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the deficiencies in the 
program were laid bare. What remained was a program $25 million in debt 
with a questionable future. It is imperative that we rebuild and reform 
the Federal flood insurance program.
  For many Americans, owning insurance to protect against a flood is 
more valuable than coverage in case of fire. That is because homes in a 
designated special flood hazard area are almost three times as likely 
to be destroyed by a flood as by fire, and this is a case for almost 
three-fourths of all homes in Sacramento. This is an important program 
that must be reformed to ensure its long-term stability and solvency.
  The bill we are considering today makes reasonable reforms and lays 
the foundation for a stronger and improved flood insurance program, and 
for that I would like to thank Chairman Barney Frank and Chairwoman 
Waters for their leadership on the bill.

[[Page H10948]]

  This bill takes important steps to modernize the flood insurance 
program. It raises maximum coverage limits to keep up with inflation. 
It provides new coverage for living expenses if you have to vacate your 
home. And it also provides optional coverage for basements and business 
interruption coverage for commercial properties. These are all positive 
steps that will allow the program to continue to provide peace of mind 
to those impacted when a flood occurs.
  In moving forward, Congress is also making the flood insurance 
program sustainable. The bill tightens enforcement of purchase 
requirements and adds subsidies on vacation homes, second homes, and 
businesses. While these actions may not be popular, this will help 
invigorate the program in the long run.
  In addition to helping homeowners, this measure will also benefit 
taxpayers nationwide by preventing insurance companies from putting 
their liability on the Federal Government at the expense of the 
American public.
  By identifying flood hazards, managing floodplains via land use 
controls and building requirements, and providing insurance 
protections, this essential program reduces flood loss expenses to the 
Federal Government, saving taxpayers an estimated $1 billion a year.
  This measure provides much-needed reforms to restore solvency to a 
program that has faced unprecedented financial strain in the wake of 
the 2005 hurricanes. This bill increases accountability of federally 
regulated lenders by imposing stricter penalties on those lenders that 
fail to enforce mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements on 
mortgage holders. This takes our country in the right direction by 
encouraging individuals to purchase flood insurance, while also 
addressing the needs of the program.
  I would also like to express my sincere thanks for Chairman Frank for 
working with me this past year on issues that I believe make this a 
stronger overall bill. I appreciate the chairman including my 
legislation, the Flood Insurance Community Outreach Grant Program Act 
of 2007, in this bill.
  This grant program works. A little over two years ago, with the 
support of a $162,000 FEMA grant, my local flood protection body, the 
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, conducted just a flood insurance 
outreach initiative. SAFCA reached out to more than 45,000 NFIP 
policyholders in the American River floodplain with impressive results. 
After a year, 74 percent maintained their flood insurance policies. Of 
this group, 43 percent now carry preferred risk flood insurance. 
Preferred risk policies provide property owners who are protected by a 
levee or other flood mitigation method with full flood insurance at a 
reduced price. Because of their lower price, these preferred-risk 
policies have a higher level of policy retention.
  To put this success in perspective, FEMA more than recouped its 
investment. SAFCA exceeded its target for policies retained more than 
20 times over, adding millions to the flood insurance program's bottom 
line.
  Extending these grants to other floodplains will only strengthen and 
build the solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program.
  In short, I truly believe we must encourage greater participation in 
NFIP rather than providing loopholes for people not to participate. On 
that note, I would also like to thank the chairman for including 
language that authorizes a study for future participation of low-income 
individuals who live in a floodplain. We have an obligation to make 
sure that everyone has an opportunity to be insured and has access to 
affordable flood insurance. This is an important issue that I look 
forward to working on with the chairman, the committee, and many of my 
colleagues in further addressing this policy issue.
  I think it is important that we continue to modernize our flood 
insurance program. I am pleased that the committee kept the amendment 
from last Congress' flood insurance bill, language that simply asks 
that FEMA utilize emerging weather forecasting technology as they 
update our national flood maps. Moving forward, we must make the 
investment in weather forecasting technology so that we have the tools 
to adjust to the changing climate. FEMA needs to be prepared to utilize 
this technology as it becomes available to us. We must ensure that FEMA 
has the highest quality information when it works to determine the 
level of risk for vulnerable geographies. This policy initiative takes 
us in a positive direction.
  Finally, the bill we are debating today is a vital tool to be used 
after a flooding incident occurs. We need this bill; however, I want to 
close by saying that flood insurance is one piece of what should be a 
national comprehensive flood protection approach. Congress must 
continue to provide the tools and policy for prevention. We must 
continue to provide the funding for our flood protection infrastructure 
projects, and we must continue to provide the authorization for the 
projects that provide the protection for our communities.

                              {time}  1100

  With these policies of prevention in place, it will make communities 
safer and reduce the likelihood of our communities having to utilize 
their flood insurance policies.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and 
final passage of the underlying Flood Insurance Reform and 
Modernization Act of 2007.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise again today in strong opposition to 
this unnecessarily restrictive rule that completely closes down the 
legislative process to every single Republican amendment that was 
offered in hopes of bettering this bill before the Rules Committee. 
This modified closed rule is being offered by the broken-promise 
Democrat majority, is wrong on both process and on policy.
  Yesterday evening, in the Rules Committee, the place where democracy 
goes to die in the House of Representatives, the chairman of the 
Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) stated that he welcomed debating any substantive amendment so 
long as the committee did not make in order multiple amendments with 
similar goals. Despite the chairman's wishes to allow for a fair and 
open debate on substantive amendments to this bill, Rules Committee 
Democrats, once again, instead chose to further solidify our 
committee's growing reputation as ``the graveyard of good ideas'' in 
the House of Representatives by rejecting five times each time, along 
straight party lines, attempts to improve this rule by including 
substantive amendments offered by Republicans.
  Chairman Frank also testified that no amendment had been offered to 
the legislation that reflected the administration's opposition to this 
legislation, an inaccurate statement that I would like to clear up. 
First, my good friend from Georgia, the gentleman, Dr. Tom Price, 
electronically submitted a timely amendment to this bill that dealt 
with the substantive concerns raised by the administration. Dr. Price 
was then turned away from the Rules Committee and denied the 
opportunity to even offer this amendment when the paper copies reached 
the Rules Committee door 5 minutes after the arbitrary deadline that 
was set by the Rules Committee staff.
  Next, Mr. Speaker, when it became obvious that the Rules Committee 
was going to silence Dr. Price, my good friend and Texas colleague, 
Congressman Jeb Hensarling, modified one of his amendments to address 
the substantive concerns over the addition of wind coverage to the 
National Flood Insurance Program that he shared in common with Dr. 
Price and President Bush. Unfortunately, Mr. Hensarling, too, has been 
shut out by this rule.
  Despite numerous campaign promises by the highest-ranking Democrats 
in the House to run the most transparent, open and honest House in 
history, this Democrat majority has once again provided the House with 
the rule where none of this would be available.
  Out of 26 amendments offered to this legislation, not one of the 
seven Republican amendments offered is made in order under the rule. It 
can't be for lack of time. There is simply no good reason to rush 
reauthorization for this legislation which doesn't even expire until 
next year. And the Democrats certainly found time enough to provide 13 
Democrat amendment sponsors enough time to come to the floor to try

[[Page H10949]]

and change this legislation. It can't be because these Republican 
amendments are not substantive. The Hensarling and Price amendments 
would have addressed the most substantive and contentious part of this 
legislation: the inclusions of wind coverage into a flood insurance 
program. However, the Democrat majority, once again, decided that 
political expediency is more important than allowing the 
representatives of half of this country to be heard. I wish I could say 
that I was surprised by the Democrat leadership allowing politics to 
triumph over policy or fair procedure. Unfortunately, this is precisely 
what we have come to expect from the new broken-promise Democrat 
majority.
  What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill's real-world impact is 
as bad or worse as the process that brings us here to the floor today. 
It would expand the flood program to include a new risk before the 
effects of this policy have even been studied. Both the GAO, the 
Government Accountability Office, and the Congressional Budget Office, 
the CBO, have reported to us that the program is already not 
financially sound. That means that, as the program exists that the new 
Democrat majority wants to put in place, we already know that it is not 
financially sound. And the addition of this new and untested liability 
threats to derail much of the much-needed reforms of this program, 
while vastly increasing taxpayer exposure for losses from natural 
disasters unrelated to flooding.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. I oppose its exclusion of every 
single Republican amendment that was offered to improve it in the Rules 
Committee. I oppose the raw, political gain represented by the ill-
conceived underlying legislation that puts our National Flood Insurance 
Program in jeopardy. Most of all, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the new earmark 
loophole, uncovered last night, that provides the broken-promise 
Democrat majority with yet another opportunity to waive their already 
loose earmark rules on every bill as they see fit.
  While this new development made here to the strict letter of the 
smoke-and-mirrors earmark rule the Democrats rushed sloppily through 
the House at the beginning of the Congress, it certainly does not meet 
the spirit of that rule either. I encourage all of my colleagues to 
join me in opposing this rule, particularly Chairman Frank, who argued 
so eloquently for the inclusion of substantive amendments so that the 
new rule can be passed that would finally keep the Democrat promise of 
openness and inclusion alive.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the Rules 
Committee made 13 amendments in order that we believe will benefit the 
discussion and debate on this very important issue. I would like to 
point out that three of these amendments were, in fact, bipartisan 
amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday I went to the Rules Committee to offer an 
amendment to this bill that would have given the people of Michigan and 
other Great Lakes States fundamental fairness in the Federal flood 
insurance program. Unfortunately, the Democrat majority on the Rules 
Committee did not allow the people of Michigan to have their case heard 
on the floor of this House. I want to stress what I do understand about 
this bill; that this is an insurance program and that some will pay 
more than they take out, and that the idea is to have a broad spectrum 
of the Nation share the risk of natural disasters.
  But when it comes to States like Michigan and the Federal flood 
insurance program, the people of my State are repeatedly being sucked 
dry by a mandated program that forces so many property owners into 
floodplains and into the program when they never, or almost never, 
flood. The net result is that Michigan property owners, by far, pay 
much, much more than their fair share.
  Recent hurricanes, of course, have depleted FEMA funds. The Federal 
Government appropriately has stood up to help these States recover. But 
now the Federal flood insurance program is looking for even more money. 
And people in Michigan, where natural disasters are rare, are being 
forced to kick in more than their fair share.
  I would say this, if it is the policy of the United States Government 
to continue to encourage property owners to live in areas that 
repeatedly suffer from natural disasters by offering heavily subsidized 
insurance, then we should just set up a fund for that purpose. We 
should not have property owners, like people that live in my State of 
Michigan, carry the burden of that policy. In fact, water levels in our 
magnificent Great Lakes are at historic lows. If you believe in the 
climate change theory, those levels are going to continue to fall. Yet 
property owners currently in floodplains are faced with increased 
premiums, and new maps will force even more homeowners in areas where 
we have never seen a flood into this plan. One thing about Michigan is 
that, instead of other States where they actually look up at the water, 
in Michigan, we look down at the water.
  I would certainly agree that FEMA needs to do what Congress has asked 
them to do, to update the maps utilizing satellite and digitized 
elevation. They need to use the new technology. But we should base 
elevations on sound science. That is not being done now. Currently, the 
baseline for the FEMA plan is based on 1986 lake levels, which was at a 
time of historically high lake levels; 20-year-old data is what they 
are going to base this on now. I would simply suggest that we wait 
until the International Joint Commission, the IJC, completes its very 
extensive and exhaustive study that they are currently doing of the 
lake levels. I think they are now into the third or fourth year of a 5-
year study. Then FEMA will have sound science to use on which to base 
their floodplain maps.
  Mr. Speaker, because the Rules Committee would not allow my amendment 
to be heard, I intend to vote against this rule. I urge all of my 
colleagues to also oppose the rule. I will also be recommending to our 
Governor in the great State of Michigan to consider options that are 
fair to the residents of the State of Michigan, like self-insuring or 
actually opting out of the Federal flood insurance program.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, once again, in line with what we have 
stated earlier, that the 13 Republican amendments, which were presented 
to the Rules Committee, of course, there were others that were rejected 
because they were 1 or 2 minutes late, need to be discussed. The Rules 
Committee voted on a party line not to let them be on the floor today. 
But our Members represent important not only States, but important 
districts and important ideas. Another one of the persons who was 
denied the opportunity to have his amendment to be made in order is 
here with us today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Garrett) for that purpose.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we come today on the floor in September, 9 months into 
the 110th Congress under Democrat control where they promised us the 
most open, honest and transparent Congress in U.S. history. And looking 
back at yesterday on their last rules decision, what have they wrought? 
Just the opposite.
  I come to the floor today, as well, to oppose this rule and to oppose 
the closed-door proceedings and partisanship that the other side has 
exhibited yesterday with the way that they handled their rule. Their 
methodology is basically closing out the voices of almost half of 
Americans when they want to have their voice heard here in this 
Congress. I, too, came and submitted an amendment to the committee. 
Although the other side indicates that 13 amendments were approved, 
there were no single Republican-initiated amendments approved last 
night. That is because, as I said, half of America's voices were 
silenced.
  Now, the amendment to the rule that I proposed is quite simple, to 
try to bring back fairness to this flood program, a flood program that 
most Americans would support in a bipartisan approach. Picture this, if 
you will, out on

[[Page H10950]]

perhaps the California Coast you have a mansion, a PreFIRM home, a 
mansion owned by some megastar, a movie star millionaire in that home. 
He is paying one rate for insurance. Next door, literally across the 
street, is this little 1970s home, a little bungalow, owned by a poor 
widow. She now is paying higher rates for her insurance. She, in 
essence, is subsidizing that multimillionaire movie star on the other 
side in this lavish megamansion that he may own by this poor widow.
  Can't we do something about that? Yes. I propose an amendment that 
would bring actuarial fairness to this system. And I should say this, 
too. This was discussed in committee. The chairman of the committee 
said that he would work with me. My staff did work with his staff. I 
did work with the chairman. And the chairman even agreed with our 
language. The chairman even agreed, and I believe testified before the 
Rules Committee, that what we were doing here was bringing fairness to 
the committee and the rules process last night.
  So, at this time, in my closing comments, I would just ask if the 
gentlewoman would be willing to enter into a colloquy to explain why is 
it that she will not, and the Rules Committee would not, enter into a 
discussion on this bill in Rules, and why is it that they wish to 
exclude this rule, and why would the gentlewoman in the Rules Committee 
decide that we should not have fairness, and why should the poor widow 
be subsidizing the rich and the millionaires in this country?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman if she can explain why this 
amendment was excluded last night.

                              {time}  1115

  Ms. MATSUI. I would just like to comment that we had a discussion 
yesterday. I must say that the Rules Committee is different this year 
than it was last year. I was in the minority last year. We have 
vigorous discussions in our committee. We have made in order 13 
amendments.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the fact 
that the Rules Committee is different this year from last year, and 
that is obviously apparent, because only Democrat amendments would come 
through, and last year both Democrat and Republican amendments would go 
through.
  If the gentlewoman could explain on the merits? I would gladly yield 
to the gentlewoman if the gentlewoman could address the point as to why 
this particular amendment was not considered to be appropriate to be 
considered for this rule, and why it is that we should have the poor 
and the infirm and those people who have been living in their homes for 
decades have to subsidize the rich and the wealthy in this country.
  I would yield to the gentlewoman, if she would explain why the 
inequity should continue.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we made amendments in order last night, and 
I stand by the Rules Committee product. It might be that later on down 
the road you may want to work with the Financial Services Committee; 
but at this point in time, we did make 13 amendments in order.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the fact that the Rules Committee under Democrat control has 
included 13 Democrat amendments to their Democrat-proposed legislation 
here today. And if that is the new openness and the change in the 
process that they are presenting to us, should we anticipate that there 
is no need for Republicans to present any amendments to the Rules 
Committee in the future because they will only consider Democrat 
amendments? That is a sorry state for us today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I heard the 
gentleman say that he had spent time working with the chairman of the 
committee on this inequity to make sure that if you brought forward 
that amendment, that he would not oppose it.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. That is exactly the case. I presented this 
amendment in committee and presented it and discussed it in committee. 
At that time, we entered into a colloquy in committee and the chairman 
said that perhaps we could work through this because there were some 
other technical aspects that needed to be changed. I was more than 
willing to take the chairman at his word, and he lived up to his word 
to the extent that for the next several weeks and months following the 
committee hearing, we did have a back-and-forth between staff and also 
the chairman on the floor, literally himself, and he was supportive of 
the final product we had.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, once again the Republican team that is on 
the floor today wishes to continue our voice of representation of 
millions of Americans for better ideas, to be included not only on this 
floor but in the Rules Committee for consideration and agreement to 
debate and vote on these good ideas.
  We know that last night that there were 13 amendments that were made 
in order, all Democrat amendments, no Republican amendments. We know 
that several Republican amendments were rejected based upon being just 
minutes late, even though they had been electronically submitted.
  So as a result of that, we are here on the floor today doing 
appropriately, properly, what we should be doing; we are talking about 
the good ideas that we have. You heard already a good idea from the 
gentleman from New Jersey. You heard already a good idea from the 
gentlewoman from Michigan.
  At this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule governing 
the consideration of H.R. 3121. I had hoped that the committee would 
see the wisdom in providing an open rule on this important legislation, 
and in the absence of an open rule, that it would at least make in 
order amendments that both sides of the aisle took the time and effort 
to draft.
  Unfortunately, as has been said repeatedly, of the 26 amendments 
filed with the Rules Committee, only 13, half of the amendments filed, 
were made in order, and of those 13 amendments that the Rules Committee 
made in order, not one, not one Republican amendment was made in order.
  Has the majority again gone back on its promises to have an open, 
fair, and bipartisan operation of the House floor? On December 5, 2006, 
Majority Leader Hoyer was quoted in Congress Daily PM as saying, ``We 
intend to have a Rules Committee that gives opposition voices and 
alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the 
floor of this House.'' Clearly, today, the leadership of this Congress 
has again turned its back on its promises.
  The original Flood Insurance Reform Bill, H.R. 1682, which Chairman 
Frank and I introduced together earlier this year, enjoyed substantial 
bipartisan support in the Financial Services Committee. However, due to 
political pressure, a bill was introduced by my friend from the other 
side of the aisle, Congressman Taylor, to add wind to the National 
Flood Insurance Program.
  The flood reform bill turned partisan. So the majority introduced a 
new flood reform bill, H.R. 3131, and expanded the flood insurance 
program to include wind. While nine out of 13 witnesses, insurance 
experts, testified before the Financial Services Committee that wind 
should not be added to NFIP, the majority did it anyway.
  The new flood-plus-wind insurance passed out of the committee; and in 
July, at a hearing on adding wind to the NFIP, the National Association 
of Insurance Commissioners, insurance experts, environmental groups, 
floodplain management groups, the Treasury, and FEMA all opposed this 
expansion. That is why we are concerned about not having these 
amendments come to the floor.
  Members on our side of the aisle had hoped to be given the same 
opportunity to debate important issues on the House floor. The 
amendments filed by my colleagues Mrs. Miller, Mr. Garrett, Mr. 
Hensarling, Mr. Pearce and Mr. Rohrabacher were not made in order, and 
Mr. Price's amendment was not even considered.
  In particular, I wanted to say something about Mr. Hensarling's 
amendment. This should have been allowed. This is a hugely important 
issue. The other side has added a whole new Federal commitment on wind 
to flood insurance. At the Rules Committee, where I presented the 
majority request

[[Page H10951]]

for an open rule, Mr. Frank stated that he would welcome all amendments 
that address significant issues.
  Now, it is the prerogative of the Rules Committee, and we had a great 
discussion on that at the committee, and it seemed to talk more about 
SCHIP, but it is the prerogative of the committee to make amendments in 
order. But when they hear from the chairman of the committee, Financial 
Services, in this case, they did not follow his suggestion. There was 
no more significant issue than adding wind to the flood insurance.
  So I guess that Republicans don't deserve the right to participate in 
the amendment process, whether it is as a member of the committee of 
jurisdiction or as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Only 
through an open rule is that possible. For this reason, I rise in 
strong opposition to the rule being considered here today.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make clear that of these 13 
amendments, three are bipartisan amendments.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, part of what our last three colleagues who 
have been to the floor spoke about was that as members of the Committee 
on Financial Services they worked very diligently, not only in their 
States, not only within their delegation, not only within the 
committee, but also with the chairman on trying to make sure that these 
good ideas might be included.
  Now, the Rules Committee, which I have only served on for 9 years, 
always finds itself in a difficult position. Always. That is part of 
the dilemma of being on the committee, in particular when a committee 
chairman and a member show up before the Rules Committee and they talk 
about working together, finding a bit of compromise, working together 
to get a bill and thoughts and ideas to where they are not only 
germane, but to where they better the bill. The Rules Committee just 
sits back and we say, boy, that is such a wonderful thing. We are so 
happy and so pleased, Republicans and Democrats.
  Something has happened, something has happened since January that has 
poisoned that well. Not only time after time after time did we see 
yesterday when Republicans showed up and said to the committee, oh, I 
have worked very carefully with my Governor, or I have worked very 
carefully with people back home, I've worked with the administration, I 
have put in a lot of time, this is a thoughtful amendment, I've tried 
to gain the concurrence of working through the committee; and, oh, by 
the way, I have even worked with my committee chairman, which says 
something also about the committee chairman, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who yesterday on his own standing said, by 
and large, look, I understand every issue that is related to this. I 
don't mind if any amendment, as long as they are not duplicative, and 
as long as they have substance, I think they ought to be made in order. 
Once again, one of those times when the members of the committee, 
Republicans and Democrats, say, boy, that is great. Thank you so much, 
Chairman Frank.
  Something's happened, however, where people who were from the 
committee working with the committee chairman come and agree, and all 
of a sudden every single Republican amendment was rejected. It wasn't 
because they were duplicative; it wasn't because they didn't have 
substance. I don't know what it is.
  We have tried this morning to have several people who have come to 
the floor to say I'd like to engage the new Democrat majority, Rules 
Committee members, to find out--what is it--Why was every single 
Republican amendment rejected while 13 Democrat amendments were made in 
order? What is it?
  There's a change. I don't think it's open, I don't think it's 
transparent, and I question some other things behind the decisionmaking 
that is being made.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) also took time 
to not only have thoughtful amendments, he not only sits on the 
committee, but also came to the Rules Committee, is here today also, 
because he believes, we believe, as Republicans we may get shut out, as 
we were in the Rules Committee; but we are still going to come to the 
floor and stand for the things which we believe in that would better 
the bill.
  I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank my dear friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rarely come to the floor of the House to complain 
about process. It's a little bit like complaining about the refereeing 
in the football game. At the end of the day, it doesn't do a whole lot 
of good. But the irony, the irony of what I see today is so powerful, I 
must share it with my colleagues.
  It was just in the last Congress that our now chairwoman of the Rules 
Committee, the gentlewoman from New York, said, ``Here we go again, 
another important issue, another closed rule. The majority is arrogant 
and out of control. Their unethical assault on our democratic values 
must stop.''
  That is what the gentlewoman from New York, the chairwoman of the 
Rules Committee, said when she didn't like closed rules when 
Republicans were in the majority. Well, here we have a closed rule. At 
least it's closed to Republicans. This Republican offered three 
amendments, three amendments that were very substantive amendments, 
none of which were found in order. So I am curious whether this closed 
rule, now that the Democrats are in the majority, Mr. Speaker, whether 
they consider it arrogant of themselves, whether they consider it an 
unethical assault on our democratic values to sit here and bring us a 
rule which is closed to Republicans.
  I would certainly yield to the gentlewoman from California if she 
would like to answer whether or not it's arrogant and unethical to have 
a closed rule.
  Apparently she doesn't wish to answer the question.
  Our Speaker, before she became Speaker, said, ``We are going to have 
the most honest and open Congress in history.'' Nancy Pelosi, January 
18, 2006. She also said, ``Bills should generally come to the floor 
under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of 
a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer 
its alternatives, including a substitute.'' Speaker of the House, Nancy 
Pelosi.

                              {time}  1130

  So I am curious, did she not mean it when she said it? Does she not 
mean it now? Is there some carefully crafted, clever little loophole by 
which we can explain the Speaker's rules why there is no full amendment 
process?
  And I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California if 
she would like to explain if the Speaker doesn't mean her words.
  Apparently she doesn't care to offer an explanation.
  Let's get into the substance of the bill, Mr. Speaker. We are looking 
at an insurance program run by the Federal Government, not run 
particularly well, since supposedly premiums were supposed to support 
this program; and now, now it owes the taxpayers, $20 billion of which 
it admits it has no way, no chance whatsoever to pay back. None 
whatsoever.
  We have a National Flood Insurance Program run by the Federal 
Government that subsidizes overtly certain properties, many of which 
are condos and vacation homes, not all, many of which are. And so we 
have this anomaly where a factory worker in Mesquite, Texas, in my 
district, who may be pulling down $50,000, $60,000 a year as a 
taxpayer, subsidizes the flood insurance for somebody who is making a 
half a million dollars and has a condo on the beach.
  One, this is a program that is not fiscally sound. It is a program 
that is not fair. It is a program that screams out for reforms. And so 
what does the Democrat majority do? It wants to expand its coverage. It 
wants to create a huge, new mandatory wind policy. These are serious 
issues, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the 
previous question to give the Democrats yet another opportunity to live 
up to their broken promises and amend the rule to allow for 
consideration of H.

[[Page H10952]]

Res. 479, a resolution that I like to call the ``earmark accountability 
rule.''
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress continues to see nondisclosed earmarks 
appearing in all sorts of bills. These rule changes would simply allow 
the House to openly debate and be honest about the validity and 
accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills, not just appropriation 
bills. If we defeat the previous question, we can address that problem 
today and restore this Congress's nonexistent credibility when it comes 
to the enforcement of its own rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just before the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________