[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10663-10668]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1309, FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM ACT OF 
                                  2011

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 340 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 340

       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. 1309) to extend the authorization of the 
     national flood insurance program, to achieve reforms to 
     improve the financial integrity and stability of the program, 
     and to increase the role of private markets in the management 
     of flood insurance risk, 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. 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.
       Sec. 2. (a) 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.
       (b) 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 
     and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this 
     resolution.
       (c) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules shall be considered 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.
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Financial Services or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant 
     to this section shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services or their designees, 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. The original proponent of an amendment included in 
     such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the 
     Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of 
     the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4.  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. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     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.

                              {time}  0920

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The gentleman 
from Texas is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. House Resolution 340 provides for a structured rule 
designated by the Rules Committee for consideration of H.R. 1309. This 
rule allows for 25 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee by 
Democrats and Republicans to be made in order.
  I rise today in support of this rule, Mr. Speaker. This legislation 
was introduced by the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Insurance, 
Housing and Community Opportunity, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. 
Biggert), and this bill has gone through regular order. There were 
hearings on this issue. H.R. 1309 was marked up in the Financial 
Services Committee and reported out by a unanimous vote of 54-0, and 
the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), provided a structured amendment process with 25 additional 
amendments to be considered on the House floor.
  Said another way, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee, under the 
leadership of David Dreier, is willing to have in our upstairs 
committee room Members of Congress come and testify with the 
understanding that, in their confidence in the process of this House of 
Representatives, that they can bring forth their amendments, be heard 
by a Rules Committee that can equally give the Republican and Democrat 
sides the ideas that those Members wish to bring before this body, and 
that is what is happening with 25 amendments being made in order by the 
gentleman from California with the Rules Committee.
  Today, I will discuss the background of the current National Flood 
Insurance Program or NFIP, and why a long-term reauthorization is 
important, what the underlying legislation does to the NFIP, and why 
reforms are necessary.
  The NFIP was created in 1968 to address the Nation's flood exposure 
and the need to alleviate taxpayers' responsibility for flood losses 
paid out in the form of post-disaster relief following annual flooding 
that occurs across this country. In 1973, the Flood Disaster Protection 
Act established a mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement for 
structures located in identified special flood hazard areas. By 1984, 
Congress required lenders to purchase coverage on behalf of--and to 
bill premiums to--mortgagees who failed to purchase coverage on their 
own.
  The 2005 hurricane season resulted in significant claims which the 
NFIP annual contributions could not cover, so the NFIP's borrowing 
authority, which was at $1.5 billion a year, was increased three times 
from 2005, 2006 and 2007, allowing the NFIP to borrow up to $20.8 
billion. Currently, the NFIP owes the national Treasury $17.75 billion. 
A recent Insurance Journal article from

[[Page 10664]]

March 8, 2011, discusses this plan and it stated: ``The proposal does 
attempt to put the program on sounder financial footing by insisting 
that current subsidized prices to most policies be raised so they 
eventually cover the actual cost of risk determined by the actuaries.'' 
The underlying bill allows for greater accountability so taxpayers, 
meaning the Federal Government, actually incur less risk than in the 
current NFIP. Limiting the exposures for the taxpayer is one piece of 
what this bill does.
  The legislation we are discussing today reauthorizes the NFIP for 5 
years through September 30, 2016. The current program is scheduled to 
expire on September 30 of this year. The last time Congress passed a 
long-term flood insurance program was in 2004. Since its expiration in 
2008, the NFIP has been extended 11 times and lapsed three times during 
that period. These short-term extensions and lapses create needless 
uncertainty in the marketplace in an already struggling residential and 
commercial real estate market all across the United States. Charles 
Symington with the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America 
was quoted in a recent industry Insurance Journal stating: ``The 5-year 
extension of NFIP after several years of short-term lapses and last 
minute renewals is critical because it gives the marketplace 
certainty.''
  Mr. Speaker, I believe Charles is correct. The Congress of the United 
States must do its job by looking at those programs, looking at their 
need to make sure that they work properly and to make sure that the 
exposure to the taxpayer is not overextended. Charles Symington has 
this correct.
  In addition to providing a much needed long-term authorization, this 
bill amends the NFIP to ensure the immediate and near-term fiscal and 
administrative health of the program. The bill also ensures the NFIP's 
continued viability by encouraging broader participation in this 
program, increasing financial accountability, eliminating unnecessary 
rate subsidies, and updating the program to the needs that currently 
face this great Nation.
  Since 2006, the NFIP has been cited by the Government Accountability 
Office, GAO, as a high-risk government program. This means that 
embedded within this program, it is not being run to the best benefit 
of not just its mission statement, but also the best interest of the 
taxpayer. The GAO has found that the NFIP does not charge sufficiently 
high rates to cover its claims obligations and projected future losses, 
resulting in significant Federal expenditures and potentially large 
future liabilities on top of the $17.75 billion that the program is 
already in debt.
  To protect the American taxpayers from future risk of a Federal 
program already in debt, the NFIP must be reformed. That's why we are 
here today. The underlying bill provides for some of the necessary 
reforms, and certainly we don't have to debate this, but with a $14 
trillion deficit and out-of-control wasteful Washington government 
spending, Congress must provide the necessary oversight and 
accountability to ensure less taxpayer risk. I encourage my colleagues 
to vote ``yes'' on this rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one of those rare occasions when the gentleman 
from Texas and I actually agree on something. I think the underlying 
bill is a good bill, and I look forward to supporting it. While this 
rule is not an open rule, and I don't think that we have had an open 
rule on an authorizing bill since this Congress began, but the 
gentleman is such a good guy that I'm not going to make a big deal of 
that. Twenty-five of the 30 amendments that were offered were made in 
order, so I think we will have a good debate.
  The rule before us today provides for the reauthorization of the 
National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, through September 30, 2016. 
This program was established in 1968 in response to increasing Federal 
Government spending for disaster relief. The NFIP was intended to 
alleviate some of the public's financial burden because the government 
covered losses generated by the floods in the form of disaster relief 
payments.
  With the increase of severe weather in the past few years, the need 
to reauthorize this program before it expires on September 30 is great. 
The National Flood Insurance Program, housed within the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, has become financially strained following 
severe hurricanes--including Katrina in 2005, which significantly 
increased insurance claims.
  In addition to extending this bill for an additional 5 years, this 
bill also includes a 3-year delay of the mandatory flood insurance 
purchase requirement as a result of the new, updated flood maps. This 
will allow our constituents to be notified if their home is now at risk 
of flooding and purchase insurance accordingly, by requiring annual 
notifications to homeowners living in flood zones about the flood risk 
in their community, the geographical boundaries of the flood zone, the 
requirement to purchase flood insurance, and a general estimate of what 
similar homeowners in similar communities typically pay for flood 
insurance.

                              {time}  0930

  This bill also provides optional coverage for additional living 
expenses incurred by homeowners when losses from a flood make their 
homes unfit to live in. For businesses and commercial properties or 
multifamily properties, this bill provides optional coverage for losses 
resulting from any partial or total interruption of the insureds' 
businesses caused by flood.
  Mr. Speaker, we saw massive devastation to the southeastern part of 
our country in 2005, but we also saw the resiliency of the American 
people. It's no easy task to rebuild your entire life from the ground 
up. In recognizing the economic reality that having flood coverage 
could keep families from financial ruin but at the same time add 
additional and substantial costs to family budgets, this bill allows 
families to pay flood insurance premiums in installments.
  This bill will also help our local communities prepare for the worst 
by authorizing the use of Community Development Block Grant funds for 
communities to reach out to homeowners about flood insurance rates, 
mapping and inclusion in flood zones, and by authorizing localities to 
use Community Development Block Grant funds to supplement existing 
State or local funding for building code enforcement. The National 
Flood Insurance Reform Act gives communities the tools they need to 
prepare, protect and to rebuild.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Rules Committee made in order my 
amendment to H.R. 1309. I would like to thank the committee for working 
with me to make this important amendment in order. My amendment is 
simple. If FEMA makes a mistake in designing a flood map, communities 
can be reimbursed for the costs of mounting a successful challenge.
  Currently, communities that dispute FEMA's flood elevations can hire 
a private engineering firm to get a ``second opinion'' flood map. While 
this may sound like an attractive option, it puts a lot of small 
communities in very difficult financial positions. Hiring a private 
engineering firm is expensive and cost prohibitive for many small 
communities. On the one hand, if the community decides that it's too 
expensive to get a second opinion, homeowners are forced to pay higher 
or, in some cases, needless flood insurance premiums. On the other 
hand, if the community does mount a successful challenge to the 
original FEMA map, homeowners are spared from having to pay the higher 
flood insurance premiums, but the town still must pay the costs 
associated with obtaining that second map.
  Now, I've heard of many small communities that are forced into this 
tough situation, including the town of Holliston, Massachusetts, which 
is in my district. There is substantial evidence to support the 
argument that the FEMA map is incorrect, but town officials are 
struggling to find a way to

[[Page 10665]]

pay the $30,000 it would cost to conduct a second engineering study.
  I feel for these town officials. They want to do the right thing and 
help their residents, but these small towns are already cash-strapped 
and are cutting funding left and right for essential services like 
schools and police and firefighters, not to mention infrastructure. 
There simply is no money for a legitimate but expensive second opinion 
map. If FEMA makes a mistake in mapping a flood area, then they should 
pay for it. So I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is proof that Congress can work in a 
bipartisan way. Passed out of the House Committee on Financial Services 
54-0, this bipartisan bill is timely with hurricane season just around 
the corner. It is also important to add that the Congressional Budget 
Office estimates that enacting H.R. 1309 will have no net impact on 
direct spending over the 2012-2016 or 2012-2021 periods.
  I want to commend my colleague from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for her 
leadership on this and for working in a bipartisan way and producing 
what, I think, is a good bill. I look forward to working with her to 
make sure that this is passed.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a very valuable part 
of our Republican team here today, a gentlewoman who has taken hundreds 
of meetings and who has led the way in what, I believe, is to better 
the circumstance with the National Flood Insurance Program. She is from 
the Financial Services Committee and is the chairwoman of the 
Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 1309, the Flood 
Insurance Reform Act of 2011.
  I would like to thank Mr. Sessions for introducing and managing this 
rule. I would also like to thank Rules Committee Chairman Dreier and 
the leadership for scheduling floor time.
  On May 13, the Financial Services Committee favorably reported, as 
has been said, the Flood Insurance Reform Act by a unanimous vote of 
54-0. This bill is important and reflects the hard work and bipartisan 
support of the Financial Services Committee. It would reauthorize for 5 
years the National Flood Insurance Program, the NFIP, and enact a 
series of reforms designed to improve NFIP's financial stability, 
reduce the burden on taxpayers, and explore ways to increase private 
market participation.
  To improve NFIP's financial stability, the bill phases in actuarially 
sound rates for policyholders. In doing so, it will help to shore up 
NFIP and allow it to pay down its $17.75 billion debt to the taxpayer. 
It also increases the minimum deductibles for properties while at the 
same time giving homeowners more flexibility on how they can pay for 
their flood insurance. According to the CBO, the combined effect of 
these and other changes would be to bring in an additional $4.2 billion 
of net income to the NFIP over the next 10 years.
  Perhaps most importantly, H.R. 1309 eliminates a barrier to the 
development of a private flood insurance market and puts us on a path 
toward a long-term plan for flood insurance that eliminates taxpayer 
risk.
  First, it requires lenders to accept non-NFIP-backed flood insurance 
coverage provided by a private entity if that coverage meets all the 
same requirements as NFIP-backed flood insurance.
  Second, FEMA is required to solicit bids from the private sector and 
report to Congress on the cost to the private sector, not to the 
taxpayer, of bearing the risk of flood insurance.
  Finally, the bill addresses many of the concerns that Members have 
raised with us about new maps, especially as they relate to dam and 
levee decertifications. This bill allows newly mapped communities 
facing higher rates to annually, and for up to 3 years, request that 
FEMA suspend the requirement to purchase flood insurance while they 
work to construct or fix their flood protection systems.
  With the NFIP's authorization set to expire on September 30, it is 
critical that the House act to pass this bill as soon as possible. 
Doing so will give the House and Senate time to begin a dialogue and to 
shape a commonsense reform measure. In short, we fully intend to avoid 
a recurrence of what happened in the last Congress, which was when the 
program lapsed, causing turmoil in a recovering housing market, and was 
simply extended without reforms. Congress cannot continue to kick the 
can down the road.
  With that, again, I thank Mr. Sessions and the members of the Rules 
Committee. I would also like to thank all of the Members from both 
sides of the aisle who helped to craft this bill. I thank my colleagues 
on the Financial Services Committee for their work on this bill, 
especially Ms. Waters, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Dold, and Mr. 
Stivers, who are original cosponsors of this bipartisan bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule for H.R. 1309.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to a great 
leader on this issue, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1309, the Flood 
Insurance Reform Act of 2011.
  A full 5-year reauthorization of the program is critically important 
for our Nation. I want to thank and commend Chairwoman Biggert and 
Ranking Member Waters for their leadership on this issue as ushering in 
a 5-year reauthorization will provide welcomed relief for those who 
live in our country's floodplains.
  I thank Chairwoman Biggert for including language from my own H.R. 
902, legislation that would modernize FEMA's flood zone designations. 
Specifically, it would update current law to take local, State and 
Federal funding into account when determining flood zone designations. 
H.R. 1309 would extend the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, for 
5 years and allow property owners in participating communities to 
purchase protection against flooding.
  As we have seen across our country this year and in recent years, the 
NFIP is critically important to so many Americans. When a flood 
disaster strikes, the homeowners who have flood insurance can at least 
see their way through the crisis. The NFIP offers the victims of floods 
the ability to make their lives whole again. Of course, the best 
insurance against a flood is a strong flood protection system.

                              {time}  0940

  In my hometown of Sacramento, California, residents have taxed 
themselves hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for stronger flood 
protection. On one project in the Natomas Basin alone, State and local 
governments will have spent more than $300 million over the last 5 
years on levee improvements. This has all been invested, I must point 
out, without acknowledgement by FEMA or funding from the Corps of 
Engineers. I am working tirelessly to change that and ensure that the 
Federal Government follows through with their commitment to this 
project.
  There is no doubt that the Natomas Basin, like most of Sacramento, is 
at risk of flooding as it lays at the confluence of two great rivers. 
We know we must continue to build up our levees as well as carry flood 
insurance. Fortunately, the Sacramento region is working with the Army 
Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Water Resources to 
implement an aggressive levee improvement plan to achieve a 200-year 
level of flood protection.
  While these efforts are ongoing, flood insurance has become mandatory 
for many homeowners, insurance that can cost more than $1,350 annually. 
That is nearly four times the PRP rate. The increasing cost of flood 
insurance, which is on top of the annual flood protection assessments 
that my constituents are

[[Page 10666]]

already paying, compounds their financial burden. For these reasons, I 
believe that it is reasonable to phase in higher rates over a 5-year 
period.
  I have an amendment that I will offer during debate on the underlying 
bill that will phase in the full cost of flood insurance policies in a 
more equitable way moving forward. I believe that this is a necessity 
that will assist homeowners in these trying economic times. I look 
forward to its being included in the overall reauthorization. This 
approach would encourage responsible homeowners across the country to 
continue paying into NFIP without adding risk to either the floodplain 
or the NFIP.
  Again, I thank Chairwoman Biggert and Ranking Member Waters for their 
leadership on this legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. You know, Mr. Speaker, the beautiful part about the 
Republican Party is we have a whole bunch of Members who are just like 
the gentlewoman that I am going to extend time to in a minute who come 
to the table as friends of the taxpayer, who come and look at bills and 
reauthorizations of legislation from a perspective of what is the 
government's role, what should be the government's role, and how do we 
engage with the American people to keep these programs not only where 
they can sustain themselves, but also whether the taxpayer is well 
taken care of.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Shelby 
Township, Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
actually live in Harrison Township. I appreciate that, though.
  I certainly rise to support this rule, Mr. Speaker, but I am 
strongly, strongly opposed to the underlying bill, the National Flood 
Insurance Program. And I would start with this basic premise: Why in 
the world is the Federal Government even involved in the flood 
insurance business? Is that our core purpose of being the Federal 
Government? It's ridiculous.
  This program was started in 1968, and the government began writing 
policies in the early seventies. And no great surprise, the Federal 
Government is doing a lousy job of being in the insurance business. 
This program is currently over $17 billion in debt, and now we need to 
raise the debt ceiling on this program to about $25 billion. And 
recently, the FEMA administrator testified to Congress that the flood 
insurance program--no great surprise--is likely to stay in debt, 
massive debt forever. And it's easy to understand why--because this 
program is not actuarially sound and because the Federal Government can 
be treated, apparently, as a bottomless pit of money. So we don't need 
to base the premiums on any normal risk evaluation, which is a matrix 
that private sector insurance companies have to do. In fact, we 
actually encourage people to build in flood-prone areas that repeatedly 
flood.
  And just consider this one statistic: Only 1 percent of the 
properties in this program are considered to be repetitive losses, 1 
percent; yet that 1 percent accounts for 40 percent of the claims 
because they repeatedly flood and the Federal Government subsidizes 
them to reconstruct.
  At a time of extreme financial distress for our Nation, the Federal 
Government is subsidizing flood insurance. Why? If it's so great, why 
don't we start a fire insurance program? How about a wildfire insurance 
program? How about an earthquake protection insurance program? The 
truth is, Mr. Speaker, if we have a natural disaster in our country, 
this Congress, Americans, will always stand up and help that part of 
the country, that area of the country that is suffering. We will always 
help our fellow Americans.
  This program may have been well-intentioned at the beginning, but it 
has evolved into something that is unrecognizable anymore. And if we 
ever truly want to downsize, to right-size the Federal Government, we 
just can't be nibbling around the edges of reforming a program that is 
ridiculous at its very core. We can't be reforming useless government 
programs. They need to be eliminated. And I believe that the National 
Flood Insurance Program is a waste of taxpayers' dollars, it is a 
boondoggle, and it needs to be eradicated.
  So, Mr. Speaker, again, I do support the rule, but I obviously am 
very, very opposed to the National Flood Insurance Program. That is not 
the business of the Federal Government. We need to get out of that 
business.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the gentleman 
has no further speakers at this time.
  I would like to yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Republican 
leadership team, the gentleman from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I appreciate the work of Mr. Sessions and the very powerful Rules 
Committee in bringing forward this rule, which I support. And I 
appreciate the work of our colleague from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for 
introducing this legislation and working with me on some issues that 
are critically important to the people of eastern and southern Oregon, 
and, frankly, all across Oregon, especially in places like Milton-
Freewater, Oregon.
  In Milton-Freewater, citizens are paying hundreds of dollars more in 
flood insurance because FEMA came in and did a remap process, and it 
has put a real burden on the people of this community. The community 
has already set in motion a plan to fix the levees that FEMA says have 
fallen out of certification, to bring them back into compliance.
  This bill could provide relief from the mandatory insurance purchase 
requirements--remember, you've got government sort of mandatory 
insurance hanging over these folks--while the community works to 
improve the levees. It also will force FEMA to factor in the actual 
protection afforded by existing levees regardless of their 
accreditation status.
  Part of the problem we have out there in Milton-Freewater is you have 
a couple of agencies fighting over whether there should be brush 
allowed to grow on the levees. One agency says, oh, we need that for 
shade in the river, and the other says, no, that actually degrades the 
integrity of the levee. So we have Federal agencies fighting, and the 
people in Milton-Freewater get stuck with the bill.
  These commonsense steps and others in the bill will provide the 
relief Milton-Freewater is in desperate need of. These changes will, 
according to one county commissioner from the area, benefit more than 
2,000 people in the community.
  Now down in southern Oregon, citizens in Jackson County have been 
adversely impacted by the recently redrawn FEMA flood maps that, as 
FEMA has admitted, used inferior mapping methods for some portions. Now 
the new maps force many homeowners into 100- and 500-year floodplains 
for the first time. Now that means they have to buy costly insurance 
when they may not even need it. It's not cheap either. While it runs 
about $400 a year for the 2-year discount period, premiums skyrocket 
after that to as much as $25,000 annually, I'm told. Now, this bill 
would waive the burdensome mandatory insurance purchase requirements 
while the new maps are being appealed by homeowners. Homeowners 
shouldn't get stuck with this bill, this extraordinary cost, when it 
may, in fact, be a mapping error that even the agency admits they used 
inferior methods on.
  This bill also improves the mapping process by reinstating the 
Technical Mapping Advisory Council, which will be better suited to take 
into account local factors during remapping, including natural 
topography and decertified levees that had not previously been 
considered.
  This bill works to bring the National Flood Insurance Program out of 
the red while allowing communities more local input on their flood 
plans and time to adjust should they be designated as a high-risk area.
  So I urge my colleagues both to approve the rule and the underlying 
bill so that we may reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program in 
a commonsense, fiscally responsible and bipartisan way.

[[Page 10667]]



                              {time}  0950

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Hood 
River, Oregon, coming to speak not only about this bill but also his 
strong leadership in issues that deal directly with our Nation and 
keeping us fiscally sound.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Lawrenceville, Georgia, one of my colleagues on the 
Rules Committee, Mr. Woodall.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from Texas for yielding.
  We do have the great pleasure of serving on the Rules Committee 
together, though serving on the Rules Committee can be a benefit and a 
burden because historically there's been kind of a gentleman's 
agreement, I would tell you from what I've read about the institution; 
that if the committee of jurisdiction brings out a clever idea, they 
only bring out those clever ideas that they really like. And then the 
leadership of the House, whichever party is in control of the House, 
then only allows those reported bills that they really like to show up 
here on the floor of the House for us to debate. So then when the Rules 
Committee gets around to considering amendments, well, maybe the only 
amendments that are allowed are things that nibble around the edges but 
don't really make any substantive changes to the underlying bill.
  Five months, six now, I've been here in the U.S. House of 
Representatives as part of this freshman class, and what we're doing 
today excites me. And to folks who have been here a little bit longer, 
maybe it's not as exciting to you as it is to me. But what is happening 
here today, not only did we get a bill that went through the regular 
order process--coming out of committee, no special games played, went 
through the amendment process in committee, everybody got a vote, and 
in fact was reported unanimously out of committee, as I understand--
then it came to the Rules Committee. We had about 30 amendments offered 
up at the Rules Committee. A couple weren't germane, a couple were 
duplicative, but everything else we allowed. And one of those 
amendments was an amendment that said this is just a dumb program, 
let's scrap it, send it to the States and start over again. Wow.
  And now there are a lot of amendments that we allowed that said let's 
change a ``six'' to a ``five'' or let's change this number of members 
to this number of members, things that would improve a bill, nibble 
around the edges. But this rule today, for the first time that I can 
recall, allows an amendment that says the entire underlying legislation 
is headed in the wrong direction. Let's take a new direction.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, there are folks who would be scared about that kind 
of amendment, folks who would be intimidated to let something come to 
the floor. We have absolutely no idea what's going to happen.
  But this House has made a new commitment, a renewed commitment to 
expressing the voice of the American people. And guess what? The only 
amendments that are going to pass on the floor today are ones the 
American people are behind. The only amendments that are going to pass 
the floor today are ones that get 218 votes and represent the majority 
will of this U.S. House of Representatives. It just makes me so proud.
  And I hope, Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't follow the process as 
closely as you and I do, that they will see what a difference that is. 
And it is a difference from administrations going back 2 years, 4 
years, 8 years, 10 years, 12 years. Folks say if it's an idea that has 
the support of the House, then it deserves to be heard, and we're going 
to hear all of those amendments here on the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, it's not easy to maintain that level of openness in the 
House. It takes a lot of cooperation between both sides of the aisle to 
make openness work. We have had that cooperation. And I don't mean 
cooperation in the sense that folks agree on absolutely all of the 
ideas. I mean cooperation in the sense that folks know that when the 
House works its will, the people's work gets done. When the House works 
its will, the American people's voice is best heard.
  And I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their 
commitment to making that work. And I again thank my friend from Texas 
for yielding me the time this morning.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I want to advise my colleague, the gentleman, Mr. 
McGovern, that we do not have any further speakers at this time, and I 
would defer to his judgment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me, first of all, say that I'm glad the gentleman from Georgia is 
excited. I'm not quite at that level. I'm okay, but I'm not excited.
  This is not an open rule. We had an opportunity to have an open rule. 
We called for a vote. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of 
the aisle voted against it. But having said that, there are a lot of 
different amendments in here that represent a lot of different 
viewpoints, and so I'm okay with it. So I will begin by saying that.
  Secondly, I want to share with my colleagues that this is a good 
bill. And it is not a boondoggle, as the gentlewoman from Michigan 
referred to it. It is a necessary protection for people.
  The question was asked, well, why should the government be involved 
in flood insurance? Well, one of the reasons why is because the private 
insurance industry has no interest in providing the kind of coverage at 
an affordable level to people who need it. If there was money to be 
made, if they thought they could make money, you could bet the private 
insurance industry would step up and try to fill in the void. But they 
haven't, and they won't. And so without this, you will end up dealing 
with these catastrophes with disaster relief funds that Congress would 
have to approve. And that's not a very efficient or good way to deal 
with the issue of floods.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that this is an important 
bill not only because it is bipartisan in nature, but I think there is 
also a bipartisan consensus that it is important that we move forward 
with this.
  Again, I want to commend Mrs. Biggert and the members of the 
Financial Services Committee. I want to commend Congresswoman Maxine 
Waters who worked together in a bipartisan way, who produced a bill 
that passed 54-0. You don't see that very much. And this has been a 
very contentious Congress, and there have been lots of partisan divides 
when it has come to voting on bills. But in this one area, there is 
consensus, which I think is an indication that it will win broad 
bipartisan support in this Congress.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for 
bringing this rule to the floor. I want to thank all of those who are 
responsible for the underlying bill and look forward to supporting it. 
And I hope my colleagues, at a bipartisan level, will support my 
amendment, which I think is a good amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts not 
only for his service to the Rules Committee but also for the ideas that 
he represents. And I'm delighted that he had an opportunity today to 
state with great clarity that the 25 amendments that have been made in 
order by the Rules Committee are good for this institution, this body, 
and lives up to the promise not just that our Speaker, the gentleman, 
John Boehner, and our Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, subscribe to, but 
also the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman, David Dreier.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill we are discussing today provides a long-term 
certainty in the flood insurance market. It allows for greater 
transparency and accountability in the flood insurance program and 
removes or diminishes greatly the great risk that taxpayers incur from 
bailing out the current program.
  This country is facing a $14 trillion debt with almost $18 billion of 
that coming from the NFIP. Congress sorely

[[Page 10668]]

needed to retain its control over this program and to ensure that we 
relooked at it in its reauthorization. However, we still have a 
government that spends way too much, taxes too much, listens too little 
to the needs of the American people. And today, the Republican Party, 
through the leadership that we're being provided by Mrs. Biggert from 
Illinois, is doing exactly that one at a time, to take on the programs 
and needs of this great Nation.
  Once again, this bill provides us much needed long-term 
reauthorization and amends the NFIP to ensure the immediate and near-
term fiscal administrative health of this program. The bill also 
ensures the NFIP's continued viability by encouraging broader 
participation in the program, increasing financial accountability, 
eliminating unnecessary rate subsidies, and updating the program to 
meet the current needs of this great Nation.
  I applaud my colleagues for introducing the bill, the gentlewoman, 
Mrs. Biggert, for her hard work, the hundreds of meetings that were 
involved taking feedback from Members of Congress, looking at their 
needs, and then addressing those.
  I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this 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 on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________