To exclude from consideration as income certain payments under the national flood insurance program.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 804) to exclude from consideration as income certain payments under the national flood insurance program, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it was just last year that the United States Congress acted to reform the flood assistance programs of this country to ensure that those who engaged in abusive practices and thereby were over assessing the program for repetitive flood losses would no longer avail themselves of that inappropriate opportunity.

Accordingly, as the House passed legislation, there was an unintended consequence, however, pursuant to a ruling by the IRS which found that there was no technical or legislative basis on which to exempt payments made from the flood assistance program for the purposes of an individual qualifying for additional governmental assistance.

I will translate that into something that is more appropriate. If, for example, a person were to accept an assistance mitigation payment to reduce the probability of future flooding, that income could then be counted and disqualify that person from receiving food stamps, aid to dependent children, perhaps Social Security, other health care assistance. And that, of course, was not the intent of the legislation as passed.

In fact, under the provisions of the Stafford Act, all other emergency assistance granted by FEMA does not count toward qualifying individuals for governmental assistance, or for that matter, as income qualifying under the IRS for taxable liability.

The reason for this policy position is quite clear, the whole goal of the effort was to incent people to make changes necessary to their property so they would no longer call on the Federal Government for flood mitigation assistance.

In one instance, an individual who was to receive significant mitigation funding, had he accepted it, would have put him far over the qualifying limits for even his Social Security benefits. That is not the outcome that one would want to see as a result of trying to assist a person with flooding problems.

Coming on the heels of Hurricane Dennis and many events across the Gulf Coast of the past few months, it is now clear this action is not only appropriate but necessary and does not violate precedent nor other actions of the Congress with regard to other assistance programs.

For these reasons, I feel the adoption of H.R. 804 is highly appropriate and responsive to the needs of our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for his cooperative work in this matter.

It has been bipartisan. I think it achieves a worthwhile policy goal, and I express my appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) who is a strong advocate of our flood insurance program.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to all Members who have had an interest and role in perfecting this legislation. Merely for the purposes of establishing in the record as we close the chapter I believe on the reform of the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, but every dollar of benefit paid is generated by premiums of flood insurance paid into the fund by home and property owners. It is a program which pays out benefits, and at any time, if there has been an advance of funding by the Federal Government when funds on hand have been deficient to pay existing claims, all dollars have been repaid plus interest over the life of the program. So in fact it is a program that functions in an efficient taxpayer-responsible manner.

And with the adjustments made over the past 18 months to the program, I hope it brings to an end further Congressional review and oversight of the important flood assistance programs as now constructed.

Mr. Speaker, the following is the revised cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, May 11, 2005.

Hon. Michael G. Oxley,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has

prepared the enclosed revised cost estimate for H.R. 804, a

bill to exclude from consideration as income certain payments

under the National Flood Insurance Program. This estimate

supersedes our original estimate that was transmitted on

March 31, 2005.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathleen

FitzGerald.

Sincerely,

Douglas Holtz-Eakin,

Director.

Enclosure.

H.R. 804--A bill to exclude from consideration as income

certain payments under the National Flood Insurance

Program

If H.R. 804 were enacted, payments made under the National

Flood Insurance Program for flood mitigation activities would

not be

counted as income or resources when determining eligibility

for any federal means-tested program. The Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) awards grants to states and

communities, which in turn distribute funds to individuals

and businesses for activities that reduce the risk of

repetitive flood damage to buildings. Data from FEMA show

that the average approved award is about $75,000.

CBO expects that enacting this bil1 would increase the

number of persons eligible for certain means-tested programs

including Food Stamps and Medicaid. Currently, flood

mitigation grants are counted as income or resources. by

these programs and make some people ineligible for benefits

or reduce the amount of their benefit. (Certain other FEMA

grants are already excluded from income for benefit-

eligibility purposes.) Based on data from FEMA on the number

of flood mitigation grants awarded since fiscal year 1997 CBO

estimates that the increase in the number of people newly

eligible for these programs as a result of this legislation

would be small and that any increase in direct spending for

them would not be significant. Enacting the bill would not

affect revenues.

H.R. 804 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and

any increased spending by states for public benefits would be

minimal.

This revised estimate supersedes the estimate that CBO

transmitted on,this bill on March 31, 2005. Based on new

information on both the number of flood mitigation grants and

how they are distributed, CBO has lowered its estimate of the

number of instances where individual families receive such

grants. We previously estimated a cost of about $1 million a

year, but now estimate that such costs would be less than

$500,000 a year.

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Kathleen

FitzGerald (for federal costs), Leo Lex (for the impact on

state, local, and tribal governments), and Paige Piper/Bach

(for the private-sector impact). This estimate was approved

by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget

Analysis.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the following nominations: Lieutenant General Norton A. Schwartz, USAF, for appointment to the grade of general and to be Commander, U.S. Transportation Command; Dr. Ronald M. Sega to be Under Secretary of the Air Force; Mr. Philip Jackson Bell to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness; Mr. John G. Grimes to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration; Mr. Keith E. Eastin to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment; Mr. William C. Anderson to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics.

The presiding officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Banking Housing, and Urban Affairs

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 28, 2005, at 10 a.m. to mark up S. 190 ``The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005'', as amended by the Committee Print; S. 705 ``Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors Act of 2005;'' H.R. 804 ``To Exclude From Consideration as Income Certain Payments Under the National Flood Insurance Program;'' S. 1047 ``The Presidential $1.00 Coin Act of 2005,'' and pending nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 28, 2005, at 10 a.m., on pending committee business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 28, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., on issues related to MGM v. Grokster and the appropriate balance between copyright protection and communications technology innovation, in SR-253.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, July 28, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, July 28, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in Senate Dirksen Office Building Room 226.

Agenda

I. Bills: S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005, Kyl, Cornyn, Grassley, Hatch; S. 103, Combat Meth Act of 2005, Talent, Feinstein,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veteran's Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 28, 2005, for a markup to consider the following:

Nomination of James Philip Terry to be Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, Department of Veterans' Affairs and Charles S. Ciccolella to be Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training, Department of Labor.

Pending Legislation as follows:

A. Committee Print of S. 1182, the ``Veterans' Health Care Improvements Act of 2005'', incorporating provisions derived from S. 1182, as introduced; S. 1177; S. 1189; and S. 1190.

B. S. 716, the ``Vet Center Enhancement Act of 2005''.

C. S. 1234, the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2005''.

D. Committee Print of S. 1235, the ``Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2005'', incorporating provisions derived from S. 1235, as introduced; S. 552; S. 917; S. 151; S. 1259; S. 1271; and S. 423.

The markup will take place in Room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 28 at 10 a.m.

The purpose of the hearings is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 584 and H.R. 432, bills to require the secretary of the interior to allow the continued occupancy and use of certain land and improvements within rocky mountain National Parks; S. 652, a bill to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, PA, and the development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin; S. 958, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Star-Spangled Banner Trail in the states of Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia as a national historic trail; S. 1154, a bill to extend the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, to provide improved visitor services at the park, and for other purposes; S. 1166, a bill to extend the authorization of the Kalaupapa National Historical Park Advisory Commission; and S. 1436, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of maritime sites in the states of Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Chairman Baker's effort on crafting this piece of legislation and Chairman Mike Oxley's diligence in seeing this bill to the floor.

H.R. 804, introduced on February 15, 2005, will prevent federal agencies that administer means-tested or income-tested benefits from considering NFIP mitigation grants as income. H.R. 804 is necessary due to an IRS ruling in July 2004 that such grants must be reported as income for tax purposes. This IRS ruling has caused significant uncertainty in the administration of the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004. Anecdotal information has revealed that a significant number of homeowners have refused mitigation offers not only due to the fear of a potential tax liability, but also the potential for other unknown liabilities imposed by other federal government agencies. These penalties could include the loss of certain federal education, nutrition and health care benefits. H.R. 804 eliminates the potential for additional penalties by preventing federal government agencies (other than the IRS) from considering NFIP flood mitigation grants as income.

The precedent for this exception is found in the Stafford Act, which explicitly states that any disaster or pre-disaster mitigation payments made to homeowners under that Act are not to be considered as income by any federal agency administering a means- or income-tested benefit. By incorporating this language in the National Flood Insurance Act, H.R. 804 will resolve any additional uncertainty by likewise preventing federal agencies from considering flood mitigation grants as income.

Floods have been, and continue to be, one of the most destructive and costly natural hazards to our nation. In the aftermath of Hurricane Dennis this past weekend, I fear many communities in the South and Midwest will witness this unrelenting power firsthand as the tropical depression continues to unload heavy, flooding rains inland.

During this past year, there have been three major floods in my district in eastern Ohio. All three of these incidents qualified for federal relief granted by the President. Recent flooding in January of this year resulted in historic levels in several local dams, and, in Tuscarawas County, three communities were forced to evacuate, which displaced 7,000 people. I was able to witness this devastation firsthand when I toured damaged properties in both Tuscarawas and Guernsey counties. Also, I am planning to hold a field hearing in Tuscarawas County next month to continue the Subcommittee's oversight of the National Flood Insurance Program.

The National Flood Insurance Program is a valuable tool in addressing the losses incurred throughout this country due to floods. It assures that businesses and families have access to affordable flood insurance that would not be available on the open market.

Prior to the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act in 1968, insurance companies generally did not offer coverage for flood disasters because of the high risks involved. Today, almost 20,000 communities participate in the national flood insurance program. More that 90 insurance companies sell and service flood policies. There are approximately 4.4 million policies covering a total of $620 billion.

Last year's Flood Insurance Reform Act achieved significant reforms to this important federal program and I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today as we discuss FEMA's implementation of its flood mapping policy, as well as determine whether new reforms and initiatives are in order to complement the work we accomplished last year.

I urge my colleagues to approve this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record that on July 12 of this year, due to unavoidable circumstances, I was unable to be present. If I had not been detained today, July 12, 2005, I would have voted as follows:

On Previous Question on OSHA rollbacks, I would have voted ``nay'' to defeat the previous question on the Rule. If defeated we would have allowed the House to consider the Miller-Owens bill to raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage would be raised to $7.25 an hour from $5.15 an hour. The minimum wage has been frozen since 1997.

On H. Res. 351--rule providing consideration for 4 OSHA rollback bills--I would have voted ``nay.''

On H. Res. 352--providing that the House of Representatives will focus on removing barriers to competitiveness of the United States economy--I would have voted ``nay.'' I would not have supported the legislation because it would not improve U.S. competitiveness. Instead this resolution attempts to blame trial lawyers and ``regulation'' for the challenges facing the U.S. economy.

On H. Res. 343--commending the State of Kuwait for granting women certain important political rights--I would have voted ``yea.''

On H.R. 804--to exclude from consideration as income certain payments under the national flood insurance program--I would have voted ``yea.''

On H.R. 68--NASA and JPL 50th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act--I would have voted ``yea.''

On H.R. 739--OSHA rollback on employer citations--I would have voted ``nay.'' I would not have supported the legislation because it undermines the timely abatement of unsafe working conditions, encouraging employers to challenge OSHA citations. One of the principal purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is ``to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions.'' However, this bill effectively delays the timely abatement of unsafe working conditions, by encouraging employers to litigate citations rather than correcting health and safety hazards.

On H.R. 740--OSHA rollback to stack the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission--I would have voted ``nay.'' I would not have supported the legislation because it unjustifiably ensures that only lawyers are appointed to the Commission.

On H.R. 741--OSHA rollback of the Secretary of Labor's authority to issue citations--I would have voted ``nay.'' I would not have supported the legislation because it provides that the OSHA Review Commission shall have deference to override the Secretary of Labor's reasonable interpretations of the Secretary's own workplace safety standards-- thereby increasing the incentives for challenges to Labor Department's rules and regulations.

On H.R. 742--OSHA rollback to require OSHA to pay attorneys' fees--I would have voted ``nay.'' I would not have supported the legislation because it requires OSHA to pay attorneys' fees and costs for employers with 100 or less employees and a net worth of $7 million or less in an administrative or judicial proceeding in which OSHA does not prevail. It is a blatant attempt to chill OSHA's exercise of statutory responsibility to enforce the Occupational Safety and Health (OCS) Act, by penalizing the agency for every instance in which it attempts to do so unsuccessfully, and therefore, undermined the enforcement of workplace health and safety laws.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this and the leadership of our friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), who, as was mentioned along with our colleague, the former Member, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), will ironically will be in Washington D.C. this week.

I cannot think of a better gift for Mr. Bereuter, a recognition for his long service to this House and to the people of Nebraska and the country, to do this important clarification. I could not agree more with my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) how important it is to clarify the intent of this legislation.

The whole thrust of it was to, in some cases, eliminate potential abuse of the program. But more than an isolated case of abuse here and there, there were a number of people who were trapped in a pattern of flood and having to repair and did not know how to get out of it.

And the bill was designed, as my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), pointed out, in cooperation with environmental groups, with taxpayer groups, with industry, the insurance industry, home building industry, financial institutions, to try and make sure that we did the right job for both the taxpayer and people who are in flood-prone areas.

The National Flood Insurance Program is critical to the lives of over 4 million policyholders. And many of the people eligible for flood- mitigation assistance under the flood insurance program were caught in this cycle of flooding and rebuilding and flooding again that could be ended with mitigation assistance.

Now, I support strongly this legislation to remove a disincentive for people living in flood-prone areas to accept the mitigation grant that will help prepare them for floods before they happen, reduce damage for future floods, and save lives for future disasters. Everybody wins if this program works right.

The policyholders win because, as we pointed out, as the legislation was moving forward, when we have the legislation, only 1 percent of the property owners were responsible for 25 percent of the flood-loss dollars.

By reducing the magnitude of this repetitive flood loss program, we were able to make a huge difference to a wide range of people. The Association of State Flood Plain Managers estimates that avoiding just one 10 percent increase will save the 4.4 million policyholders about $175 million each year.

Taxpayers will win if the mitigation program works right, because the flood insurance payments are the tip of the iceberg. Because there are many, many people in harm's way, who get part of their relief from flood insurance, but we have disaster plains on the Federal Government that far exceed them.

By making this program work right, we will save taxpayers money time and time again. I appreciate the hard work the Financial Services Committee has done in trying to fine-tune the flood insurance program, continuing hearings to make sure that it works right, and here, clearing up any ambiguity to make sure that we take any disincentive for using the mitigation grants and solve that problem to make sure that people take advantage of moving out of harm's way, saving money, enhancing the environment.