[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7941-7942]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2007--Continued


                           Amendment No. 4731

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I understand the 
manager for the majority will object to me calling up, but I would like 
to make some remarks about it, if I might, at this time.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague would yield, I appreciate 
his recognition of that. Again, our hope is something can be worked 
out. The objection is not based on the substance of the amendment as 
much as it is a question of whether the committee of jurisdiction which 
this matter is being considered under has raised some concerns with our 
colleague from South Dakota, and my hope is they can be resolved. So I 
would have to object if he brought up the amendment, but certainly I 
welcome his opportunity to talk about this amendment, and my hope is 
that between now and tomorrow sometime, whatever the differences are 
can be worked out, and we will be able to consider his amendment.
  Mr. THUNE. I thank the chairman, the Senator from Connecticut, for 
those words. Let me, if I might, make a couple of remarks with regard 
to the amendment and again suggest that if at all possible, we could 
figure out a way to make it a part of this Flood Insurance Reform and 
Modernization Act. I think it is very fitting on this bill. There are 
some jurisdictional issues that have been raised. But what I would like 
to point out is that this is a bill which obviously has a lot of 
important content and legislation that needs to be acted upon by the 
Congress, by the Senate. The amendment that Senator Johnson and I have 
offered is directly relevant to the bill because it seeks to reduce the 
potential impact of FEMA's revised flood map for residents of Sioux 
Falls, SD, which is the largest city in my State. Above all, this 
amendment allows the City of Sioux Falls to have the ability to advance 
the funds associated with the Big Sioux Flood Control Project which was 
authorized by the Congress in 1996.
  Keep in mind, roughly 20 years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
determined that the original flood control project in Sioux Falls was 
ineffective due to two significant flood events that occurred in 1957 
and in 1969. The city and the Federal Government have been working 
since 2000 to raise the height of the levees and to construct a dam. 
However, without the authority contained in this amendment, the 
completion of the Big Sioux Flood Control Project will languish until 
the Federal Government's remaining share of the project is 
appropriated.
  Effectively, with roughly $21 million in remaining Federal costs and 
the fact that the average funding provided by Congress over the past 7 
years has been about $2 million per year, the city is at the mercy of 
the Federal Government to complete this important project. If these 
flood protection improvements are not made, roughly $750 million in 
property damage could result in homes and businesses in a major flood 
event.
  Adding to the urgency for completing this important flood control 
project is the fact that following Hurricane Katrina, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency proposed modifications to the city's 100-
year flood plain, just as FEMA has done in other communities across the 
country, to ensure that homeowners are aware of potential flood risks. 
As a result of FEMA's proposed flood plain modifications in Sioux 
Falls, until the Army Corps certifies completion of its project, 
roughly 1,600 homeowners and businesses will be required to purchase 
flood insurance. The quickest way to eliminate or reduce the need for 
flood insurance for the 1,600 homeowners and businesses is to complete 
construction of the Big Sioux Flood Control Project as soon as 
possible.
  While the city has expressed a willingness to advance fund the 
Federal Government's remaining portion of the project, this would 
require Congress to act in a couple of ways. One is to allow the Army 
Corps to accept advance funding from the city for the Federal 
Government's portion of the project; second, to authorize the Army 
Corps to reimburse the city through future appropriations from the 
Federal Government's portion of the project.
  This straightforward amendment doesn't add any costs to the Federal 
Government. In fact, allowing the city to advance fund the remainder of 
the project would actually reduce the Federal Government's overall cost 
because the project would be completed in a much shorter timeframe.
  Such authorities have been extended to other Federal flood control 
projects in the past. Senator Johnson and I are simply seeking 
additional flexibility that will allow the city to expedite 
construction of the Big Sioux Flood Control Project. I believe the 
city's willingness to advance fund this flood control project 
underscores their commitment to finishing this much needed project.
  I look forward to working with the bill managers to try to get this 
amendment voted on, to get it included in the underlying bill as we 
work to reform our Nation's flood insurance program.
  I hope we can work through this jurisdictional issue because this is 
an issue of timing. There is another WRDA bill that may come down the 
road, but the last one took 7 years to get on the floor of the Senate. 
I don't believe the next one will take that long. In any case, the city 
of Sioux Falls--the largest community in my State--is looking at 11 
years to complete this project.
  As soon as FEMA designates this flood plain, 1,600 homeowners will be 
faced with an insurance bill. All the city is trying to do is take the 
initiative to complete this project in a more timely way by advance 
funding it and then allowing the Federal Government, through the Corps, 
to reimburse through what would be annual appropriations, which could 
take perhaps 11 or more years to get. I think this is a commonsense, 
practical solution. The city has stepped forward on this. I hope we can 
include it in this bill before we get to final passage.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all amendments 
to S. 2284 must be offered during Thursday's session, May 8; that the 
only amendments in order on Monday be the pending substitute amendment; 
further that a managers' amendment still be in order if cleared by the 
managers and leaders, the McConnell amendment No. 4720, with the Allard 
amendment No. 4721 withdrawn prior to a vote in relation to the 
McConnell amendment; a Reid and others amendment relating to the 
subject of energy; that the McConnell and Reid amendments be subject to 
a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; that if either amendment achieves that 
threshold, then the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider 
be laid upon the table; that if neither achieves the 60-affirmative-
vote threshold, then it be withdrawn; that the vote with respect to the 
McConnell amendment No. 4720 occur at 5:30 p.m. Monday, May 12, to be 
followed by a vote in relation to the Reid, et al., amendment; that 
upon disposition of all amendments, the substitute amendment, as 
amended, if amended, be agreed to; the bill read a third time, and the 
Senate then vote on passage of S. 2284, as amended; further that the 
previous order which referenced H.R. 3121 be changed to reflect passage 
of a flood insurance bill, either S. 2284 or H.R. 3121, and the cloture 
motion on amendment No. 4720 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank all involved. I thank the majority 
staff, the minority staff, and the respective Members who helped us put 
this agreement together. Basically, what it says is we have to offer, 
debate, and vote on

[[Page 7942]]

all amendments by the end of business tomorrow, and then leaving off 
until next week the issue involving the energy issues which the 
majority leader talked about earlier this evening. That will allow us 
to hopefully complete consideration of the flood insurance bill.
  I know I speak for Senator Shelby and other members of the committee, 
as I mentioned earlier, we passed this bill unanimously out of the 
Banking Committee some months ago. The fact that we will be able to 
come to closure on the bill by the end of business tomorrow is good 
news for literally millions of people who are counting on having a good 
flood insurance program.
  I would like to make some unanimous consent requests.

                          ____________________