[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13074-13079]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5114, FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM 
                         PRIORITIES ACT OF 2010

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1517 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1517

       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. 5114) to extend the authorization for the 
     national flood insurance program, to identify priorities 
     essential to reform and ongoing stable functioning of the 
     program, 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 chair 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. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of 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. The committee amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 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

[[Page 13075]]

     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. All points of order against 
     such 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 to the House with such 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.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Financial Services or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor of Arizona). 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 my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule 
is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. MATSUI. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1517 provides for consideration of H.R. 
5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010, under a 
structured rule. The resolution waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 
rule XXI. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate on the bill. The 
resolution provides that a substitute amendment recommended by the 
Financial Services Committee shall be considered an original bill for 
purpose of amendment, and shall be considered as read.
  The resolution makes in order those amendments printed in the Rules 
Committee report accompanying the resolution. The resolution waives all 
points of order against such amendments except those arising under 
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions, provides the Chair may entertain 
a motion to rise only if offered by the chair of the House Financial 
Services Committee or his designee. Lastly, the resolution provides the 
Chair may not entertain a motion to strike the enacting words of the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in strong support of the rule, the 
Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act, and in strong support of the 
underlying legislation. I would like to applaud the sponsor of H.R. 
5114, Chairwoman Maxine Waters, for her leadership in bringing this 
important bill to the floor. And I commend Chairman Frank and Ranking 
Member Baucus for being open to a number of improvements to this bill 
from myself and fellow members.
  I am grateful for their long-standing advocacy of my legislation, 
H.R. 1525, which is incorporated into the underlying bill before us 
today. Both of them and their incredible staffs have been valuable in 
this process.
  Mr. Speaker, it is critical that our constituents have access to a 
stable flood insurance program. Toward that end, H.R. 5114, which I am 
pleased to cosponsor, would reauthorize the National Flood Insurance 
Program for 5 years, and implement necessary changes that are essential 
for its continuing viability.
  Floods have been, and continue to be, one of the most destructive and 
costly natural hazards to my hometown of Sacramento and to other 
communities throughout the country. The NFIP is a valuable tool in 
addressing the losses incurred due to these disasters, and mitigating 
against future disasters. The program ensures that families have access 
to affordable flood insurance, while making certain that their safety 
is protected. In fact, the NFIP is the primary source of reliable, 
affordable flood insurance in this country, providing 95 percent of the 
flood insurance policies nationwide. It covers 5.6 million households 
and insures $1.2 trillion of property.
  From the Sacramento region to the Louisiana bayous to the plains of 
the Midwest, communities are improving their flood protection 
infrastructure in order to keep residents safe and secure. However, as 
we work to provide certainty to our recovering housing market, these 
communities are seeking clarity to meet the changing dynamics of 
Federal standards.
  It is for these reasons that I am thrilled that this legislation 
contains a provision I authored that would provide technical changes to 
Federal flood zone designations. In my district, the deepest flood 
depths would be in a region called the Natomas Basin. Fortunately, we 
have a flood protection project underway to achieve a 200-year level of 
protection for its residents.
  By 2011, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency and the State of 
California will have spent upwards of $350 million repairing levees in 
the Natomas Basin. But over the last 5 years, the hundreds of millions 
devoted to levee improvements in Natomas have not been acknowledged by 
FEMA in the remapping process. Unfortunately, FEMA's current flood zone 
certification process does not always take local and State funding into 
account.
  A year ago, I introduced H.R. 1525, which would fix this problem, and 
it has been included in the bill we are considering today. In addition 
to making flood insurance available to millions of Americans, this bill 
also provides communities clarity in order for them to continue their 
ongoing efforts to improve flood defenses. It would update current law 
to take local, State, and Federal funding into account when determining 
flood zone designations. Such investments must be recognized by the 
Federal Government.
  Local communities, States, and the Federal Government must all be 
thoughtful and committed partners because protecting our constituents 
from the dangers potential floods pose requires a comprehensive 
approach. While I have always urged homeowners in floodplains to 
purchase flood insurance, I have serious concerns about families being 
forced to incur higher insurance rates during an economic recession. 
Increased rates on top of the annual flood protection assessments that 
many residents are paying each year compounds this problem, which is 
why I am grateful that H.R. 5114 includes another provision I strongly 
support that would reduce the shock of higher insurance rates by 
phasing them in over 5 years. It would apply retroactively to September 
2008 to areas that have been already remapped.
  Most importantly for the thousands of homeowners across the country 
that have recently gone through the remapping process, H.R. 5114 would 
lower their flood insurance rates. Without this bill, many of our 
constituents would likely be forced to pay more than four times the 
preferred risk policy rate.
  Mr. Speaker, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act was 
unanimously approved by the Financial Services Committee on April 27, 
2010. It is budget neutral, and is supported by numerous organizations 
in the property insurance field. Congress has not reauthorized NFIP 
since 2004. It is time for us to do so and to make essential changes to 
the program to ensure its sustainability. As many of my colleagues can 
attest, providing for the security and safety of flood-prone regions 
like the one I represent needs to be at the top of our priority list.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of the solution and to help make 
sure residents of Sacramento and other flood-prone communities across 
the country can afford to purchase the flood insurance they need to 
protect their families, their businesses, and the livelihoods of our 
communities.
  I therefore urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui)

[[Page 13076]]

for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Almost 18 years ago, in 1993, I first arrived in Congress right in 
the aftermath of the greatest natural disaster that had ever hit south 
Florida. August 24, 1992, Hurricane Andrew, a category 5 storm with 
wind gusts of over 200 miles per hour, hit our community and devastated 
it. That storm caused over $26 billion of damage to south Florida. 
Entire communities were destroyed. Until Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf 
coast in 2005, Hurricane Andrew was the costliest natural disaster in 
American history.
  We in south Florida were very fortunate to receive generous 
assistance from our fellow Americans in the wake of Hurricane Andrew. 
That assistance was vital for our recovery, and I won't forget the 
support and compassion my colleagues in this Chamber demonstrated 
during those difficult times.
  The National Flood Insurance Program, established by Congress in 
1968, was designed to provide an alternative to disaster assistance and 
to reduce the costs of repairing flood damage to buildings caused by 
hurricanes or inland flooding of rivers, lakes, or streams. 
Approximately 20,000 communities across the country participate in the 
program by adopting and enforcing floodplain management regulations to 
reduce future flood damage.

                              {time}  1040

  In exchange, federally backed flood insurance becomes available to 
homeowners, renters, and business owners in those communities.
  The NFIP was self-supporting through policy premiums and fees until 
2005 when the program incurred approximately $17 billion in flood 
claims caused by hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. Currently, the 
program is over $18 billion in debt.
  Reauthorization of the NFIP is very important to the economy in south 
Florida. Without the program, home buyers are unable to close on new 
homes, suppressing home sales at a time when they're desperately needed 
in south Florida.
  For example, a constituent, Chris O'Neal, wrote to me last month 
asking for Congress to reauthorize this program. Because the majority 
had let the program lapse, he and his family were unable to close on 
their new home and they faced being homeless because their current 
landlord had forced them to vacate their home. Mr. O'Neal's case wasn't 
an isolated incident. A number of my constituents have been unable to 
close on their new homes, and it's my understanding that many 
throughout the country face a similar situation.
  This underlying legislation would rectify that problem and would 
reauthorize the NFIP through 2015. The bill provides premium discounts 
to assist residents in newly designated flood hazard areas who would be 
subject to a new requirement to purchase flood insurance during a 
phase-in period of 5 years.
  Other provisions include extending the Severe Repetitive Loss grant 
program to allow government buyouts of properties with frequent and 
severe losses to reduce program losses in the long term. The bill also 
allows for premiums to be paid in installments for lower-income 
property owners, thereby helping them to afford flood insurance and 
encouraging them to continue to purchase protection.
  Although I support the underlying bill, Mr. Speaker, it could have 
been better, especially if the Taylor-Scalise amendment had been made 
in order. Their amendment would allow coastal homeowners to buy an 
option for both wind and flood insurance coverage from the NFIP. This 
option would be extremely helpful to coastal communities like south 
Florida and the gulf coast. Unfortunately, the majority on the Rules 
Committee decided to block even debate on that amendment. And not only 
did they block the Taylor-Scalise amendment, they blocked out nearly 90 
percent of the Republican amendments submitted to the Rules Committee 
while allowing nearly two-thirds of the Democratic amendments.
  So today we will consider three minority and eight majority 
amendments, plus another 10 majority amendments included in the 
manager's amendment. That's quite a contrast. It's especially 
unfortunate when you consider we were told that the process was going 
to change, that it wasn't going to be this way. The distinguished 
Speaker promised the American people that her party would run the most 
open and bipartisan Congress in history. Yet week after week, the 
majority continues to block an open process. We have yet to consider 
even one open rule during the entire 111th Congress, not even on the 
historically open appropriations bills. That's quite sad.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maine (Ms. Pingree), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my colleague for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 5114, the Flood 
Insurance Reform Priorities Act.
  In Maine, FEMA is remapping York and Cumberland counties. The new 
maps will help homeowners and businesses assess the flood risk they 
face.
  In Portland, the initial models FEMA used showed much of the city's 
waterfront would be damaged by waves during a bad storm. FEMA's models 
turned out to be more appropriate for exposed or standing shorelines. 
Portland Harbor is not a barrier island nor is it a community built on 
shifting sand or even walled off from the sea by levees. Rather, 
Portland Harbor is a working, thriving waterfront that has endured for 
hundreds of years.
  After working with the city, FEMA recently improved the accuracy of 
their model, taking into account the impact of the city's working 
waterfront on the wave action as well as new data provided by the city. 
In the next few weeks, FEMA will issue preliminary maps that are a 
result of hard work by the city and the Maine congressional delegation.
  Together, we were able to save Portland's working waterfront, but 
other communities in York and Cumberland counties in my State face 
similar issues and do not have the resources to hire engineers and 
collect new data. Our working waterfronts are the economic and cultural 
hearts of our coastal communities. We need to make sure they are 
treated fairly in assessing the risks they face.
  In Harpswell, one boatyard just spent thousands of dollars to show 
FEMA they were not in a flood zone and that the maps were wrong. In 
Rockland, many of the buildings on the working waterfront probably can 
not be rebuilt if they burn down, and a new herring processing facility 
had to be built so far away from the water that they put the herring on 
a truck and drive it across the parking lot to be processed.
  You know, FEMA may be correct in their models--that these piers and 
buildings are in a flood zone and at risk for being damaged or 
destroyed in a once-in-a-lifetime storm. Frequently, though, sheltered 
harbors like Portland are relatively protected, and even during a bad 
hurricane or nor'easter, they may flood and do not get battered by 
heavy waves.
  Our Nation's working waterfronts, like all of our communities, 
deserve to be mapped using the best science FEMA has available. That's 
why I worked with the City of Portland to craft language that was 
included in the manager's amendment to show how these models are 
applied to working waterfronts and to study how it is done.
  We owe it to the American people to make sure that all of our 
communities receive accurate information about flood risks they face, 
and all of our communities deserve to work with FEMA in a true 
partnership.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule, the manager's amendment, 
and the underlying bill.
  Today, the House will consider H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform 
Priorities Act. In Maine, FEMA is remapping York and Cumberland 
counties. The new maps will help homeowners and businesses assess the 
flood risks that they face. Unfortunately, in some places the remapping 
process is not as accurate as it could be.
  For example, in Portland, the initial models FEMA used showed much of 
the City's waterfront would be damaged by waves during a

[[Page 13077]]

bad storm. FEMA's models turned out to be more appropriate for exposed 
and sandy shorelines. Portland Harbor is not a barrier island nor is it 
a community built on shifting sand or even walled off from the sea by 
levees. Rather, Portland Harbor is a working, thriving, waterfront that 
has endured for hundreds of years.
  After working with the City, FEMA recently improved the accuracy of 
their model, taking into account the impact of the City's working 
waterfront on the wave action as well as new data provided by the City. 
In the next few weeks, FEMA will issue preliminary maps that are the 
result of the hard work by the City and the Maine Congressional 
Delegation.
  Together, we were able to save Portland's waterfront but other 
communities in York and Cumberland county face similar issues and do 
not have the resources to hire engineers and collect new data.
  Our working waterfronts are the economic and cultural hearts of our 
coastal communities. Because businesses in working waterfronts like 
boatyards are located on the water's edge and often have piers that 
stick out into a harbor, they are more susceptible to storms and 
inaccurate models.
  In Harpswell, one boatyard just spent thousands of dollars to show 
FEMA that they were not in a flood zone and that the maps were wrong. 
In Rockland, many of the buildings on the working waterfront probably 
cannot be rebuilt if they burn down and a new herring processing 
facility had to be built so far away from the water that they put the 
herring in a truck, and drive it across the parking lot to be 
processed.
  FEMA may be correct in their models--that these piers and buildings 
are in a flood zone and at risk for being damaged or destroyed in a 
once-in-a-lifetime storm. Frequently though, sheltered harbors like 
Portland are relatively protected and even during a bad hurricane or 
nor'easter, they may flood but do not get battered by heavy waves.
  Our nation's working waterfronts, like all of our communities, 
deserve to be mapped using the best science FEMA has available. Our 
nation's waterfront businesses need accurate flood maps that don't 
needlessly place our businesses in the restrictive flood areas such as 
V or A zones and stifle the economic activity on the waterfront.
  This is why I worked with the City of Portland to craft language that 
was included in the Managers Amendment. This language will help protect 
our nation's working waterfronts and improve the accuracy of FEMA's 
flood maps in our harbors by requiring FEMA to study how their models 
and the assumptions that motivate those models are applied to working 
waterfronts and harbors.
  We owe it to the American people to make sure that all of our 
communities receive accurate information about the flood risks they 
face and all of our communities deserve to work with FEMA in a true 
partnership. I urge my colleagues to support the rule, the Managers 
Amendment and the underlying bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Arcuri), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. ARCURI. I thank my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, 
Ms. Matsui, for yielding me the time. And I'd like to compliment her on 
her hard work over the years and her leadership with respect to 
protecting individuals who have been devastated by the effects of 
floods which brings us here today.
  I speak in support of H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform 
Priorities Act, which will provide the stability necessary for 
businesses, realtors, homeowners, and plan effectively to reduce the 
potential economic loss and costs of repairing damages from future 
flooding without stifling or preventing otherwise safe development.
  As FEMA works to update and modernize flood maps from communities 
across the country, thousands of families across Upstate New York are 
facing a new requirement to purchase flood insurance as they are 
remapped into new flood zone boundaries. It is imperative that these 
maps are accurate and protect our communities without unnecessarily 
burdening them or stifling economic development, especially during 
these very tough economic times.
  H.R. 5114 seems to strike the proper balance by allowing property 
owners a sufficient grace period to account for the need to buy flood 
insurance or to appeal the determination that their property is within 
a floodplain, and also phases in flood insurance premium rates over a 
5-year period beginning as soon as the property owner initiates the 
flood insurance policy.
  In recent years, I've assisted communities in my district in 
successfully appealing updated flood maps, saving countless homes and 
business owners from unnecessarily having to purchase flood insurance.
  Instances like this illustrate why the grace period in H.R. 5114 is 
so important--so property owners have a 5-year delay of the flood 
insurance purchase requirement within which to appeal FEMA's 
preliminary determination. This grace period would apply retroactively 
to any final updated flood map that was enacted since September 1, 
2008.
  I'm also pleased that H.R. 5114 will create the Office of Flood 
Insurance Advocate within FEMA to assist policyholders in filing flood 
insurance claims, settling disputes between policyholders and FEMA, and 
streamlining the claims process. This is a provision I fought to 
include in the flood insurance reform legislation in the last Congress, 
and I applaud the committee for including these provisions in the 
underlying bill today.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I continue to 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy 
in permitting me to speak on the rule, as I have appreciated her work 
in her community over the years dealing with the consequences of 
flooding and water damage.
  I rise in support of the rule and reluctantly am supporting the 
underlying bill.

                              {time}  1050

  I have great sympathy for the work that was done by the Financial 
Services Committee. I understand what horrible timing it is to deal 
with the huge losses in housing value, other real estate markets, as 
well as unemployment and the economic slowdown. We are all reluctant to 
put any additional pressure on people who are located in harm's way.
  But I will tell you, having worked on flood insurance reform now for 
over a decade, there is never a good time to fix this program. The 
tragedy of Katrina 5 years ago dramatically illustrated both the need 
for, and the flaws in, our flood insurance program and environmental 
protections.
  For generations, local and State governments and, sadly, in some 
cases, the Federal Government itself has encouraged people to live in 
harm's way. Over time, this has become a much more expensive 
proposition while we have accelerated the potential for disastrous 
floods as we've engineered our rivers, while we've encouraged filling 
in wetlands that used to be nature's sponges, and we have more people 
in the areas that are subjected to even worse flooding.
  Now we have the situation where global warming is creating weather 
instability, extreme weather events, brutal rains and winds that make 
what was once a one in 100 years or one in 500 year event, sadly 
routine. We have seen on the floor of this House people come to the 
floor dealing with 500-year floods that have happened in relatively 
short time frames, and it is going to continue accelerating in the 
future.
  We need to make sure that FEMA has the resources to do this important 
mapping job properly, and we need to have the gumption to support FEMA 
after it has gone through the process and done the mapping right, to 
enforce that mapping. We need to make sure that people who are in 
harm's way are encouraged to protect their properties, and after 
repeated damage, that we don't just keep putting people back in harm's 
way but help them be located more safely.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. MATSUI. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. It is important that we no longer put the taxpayer on

[[Page 13078]]

 the hook for massive losses and have the rest of the people who pay 
flood insurance pay higher premiums while people who should start 
making some modification waiting 10 years before they pay their own 
way.
  This bill is a compromise, but I am hopeful that Congress can do more 
work to make a compromise that is more effective and long term because 
this is the tip of the iceberg. If we don't get it right, we're going 
to be back here time and time again on the hook for more and more money 
and more loss of life and property.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to start by thanking the Members and the staff of the 
Financial Services Committee for their diligence in working with me on 
this important legislation. Tom Glassic of the Financial Services 
majority staff has been especially helpful.
  Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, flooding is the most common natural 
disaster in this country. The National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, 
is the primary source of reliable, affordable flood insurance in the 
United States today. The last reauthorization of NFIP occurred in 2004. 
Since 2008, it has operated under a series of short extensions, with 
the current law scheduled to expire at the end of September.
  To ensure that individuals nationwide have access to a stable and 
reasonable flood insurance program, we need to pass the Flood Insurance 
Reform Priorities Act. This legislation would reauthorize the NFIP and 
implement other critically important changes that would guarantee the 
program's sustainability.
  In particular, it would help the Sacramento region and other areas 
advance their ongoing efforts to improve their flood protection. 
Additionally, the bill would lower the burden of higher insurance rates 
in remapped communities by phasing them in over 5 years.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 5114 would have no 
impact on the budget over the next 10 years. In fact, the CBO has 
stated that the measure would increase revenues by $5 million over 
2010-2015 and by $10 million over 2011-2020.
  It would address the NFIP's serious financial challenges by directing 
it back toward fiscal health and self-sustainability.
  This legislation, which was unanimously approved by the Financial 
Services Committee earlier this year, would provide certainty to our 
recovering housing market and ensure public safety.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5114 is an important bipartisan bill that would 
help protect our communities from catastrophic flooding. With that in 
mind, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR. Yesterday, I appeared before the Rules Committee and 
offered an amendment that would allow people in coastal America to buy 
wind insurance as an option to their flood insurance, a measure that is 
identical to what had passed this House less than 3 years ago as a part 
of the base bill. It is my understanding that that was not made in 
order.
  My question to the Rules Committee is since the Speaker says she is 
for it, since Majority Leader Hoyer says he is for it, since the 
chairwoman of jurisdiction, Ms. Waters, says she's for it, I've got to 
admit my amazement that it was not made in order, since it's already 
passed this House by about 270 votes 3 years ago. So I was hoping if 
the gentlewoman could enlighten those of us who are in support of that 
amendment what happened.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I will respond.
  One of the amendments was not germane. One amendment was made in 
order because it was germane.
  Mr. TAYLOR. The amendment, again, that has already passed this House 
as a part of the base bill of an identical bill 3 years ago, I'm having 
a little trouble understanding how that's not germane.
  I would urge people to oppose the rule.
  Ms. MATSUI. May I say that, just to clarify, the amendment that Mr. 
Taylor was talking about was germane to that bill. It is not germane to 
this bill.
  So if I may continue, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5114 is an important 
bipartisan bill that would protect our communities from catastrophic 
flooding. With that in mind, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous 
question and on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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 239, 
nays 182, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 443]

                               YEAS--239

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--182

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming

[[Page 13079]]


     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bright
     Culberson
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Kagen
     Kind
     Olson
     Schrader
     Welch

                              {time}  1126

  Messrs. GALLEGLY, SHIMKUS, and TURNER changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. CAPUANO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________