To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide for the phase-in of actuarial rates for certain pre-FIRM properties.

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

First of all, I begin by saying thanks to the chairman of the committee for his help in working through this piece of legislation, and also for the ranking member for her working alongside the Chair as to facilitate the moving along of this legislation to the floor today. As the chairman indicates, we had the opportunity to discuss it in committee, which is, I think, and I think he will concur with me, is always the best way to deal with all legislation as opposed to bringing them up later on. It's best to get out there so we can have full and adequate disclosure and discussion on the issues. We were able to do that; we just weren't able to get it through the next hoop. But now we're able to jump through that hoop today, and, again, I appreciate the chairman's work on that.

What this is all about, very simply, is this. Back in 1968, that is when NFIP was created, the National Flood Insurance Program, and that was done, as the chairman indicated, way back then three or four decades ago, as I guess more and more people were building homes in places maybe they shouldn't be, along coastal lines and what have you, it was just next to impossible to buy flood insurance.

So Congress stepped in and created NFIP, and that allowed folks the opportunity to buy flood insurance for the first time. When they did that, however, they realized that here again we're talking about two sets of houses, those that were already in existence at the time and those that would come afterwards, called pre-FIRM and post-FIRM homes. They thought Congress back then, probably in its wisdom, realized that it wouldn't be right to tell those folks who were already in the floodplains that this new program was going to come along, that they were going to impose upon them a mandate of buying flood insurance when they bought and sold their houses; so what they did was instead to provide a subsidy for those pre-FIRM homes, and that subsidy has existed up until today. Unfortunately, we know that the flood program has had some problems in the last couple of years, most notably because of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. All the money that they have had to borrow to pay out for those huge flood losses, they are now $18 billion in debt. And that's the reason why the committee is now coming back to relook at the flood program, and that's why we have done that.

The legislation that the chairman talks about that we have already done I appreciate that we've moved through the House. I am a little bit disappointed, though, in that legislation in one regard, in that it increased the exposure to wind damage in the flood program. But despite that what I call an error in direction on that legislation, the underlying bill did make some substantial improvements to the overlying program. It updated the flood maps, increased the phase-in of actuarial rates on vacation homes and also second homes and on nonresidential properties that have been subsidized by the program since its inception.

The one area, though, that was not addressed was these pre-FIRM homes and the fact that the subsidies continue to exist. So to that effort, we have tried to get a compromise between those who said let's not do anything and those who said let's have those pre-FIRM homes immediately put in on the higher rates that would occur without the subsidization. Through the committee efforts, through the work with the ranking member and the chairman, we were able to come through with a compromise. In essence it says this: If you're a pre-FIRM home, your rates will still be subsidized until that home is basically phased in, sold and phased in on the same rate schedule as the underlying bill, and only for those homes that are sold for over $600,000. A movement in the right direction with regard to the subsidization, the problems of the underlying program, and for that reason I think we are moving appropriately, and I look forward to those deliberations that we may have sometime with the Senate on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3959) to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide for the phase-in of actuarial rates for certain pre- FIRM properties, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, from time to time in this House we are asked to choose, to some extent, between the strong views of people concerned with excessive spending by the Federal Government and those interested in environmental protection. Let me say to the Members, today is a happier day because we bring forward a bill today out of the Financial Services Committee which is authored by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), who will soon be speaking, which advances the legitimate concerns of both those interested in saving taxpayer money and those interested in environmental protection.

We have a Federal flood insurance program that exists because of market failure. That is, we do not believe that if you abolish it altogether the private market could entirely handle this. In fact, there are some areas where this committee is moving, and this House has voted, to expand the role of Federal flood insurance, particularly in the area of disasters. But as we do that, it is important that we do it in a responsible way.

There has been legitimate criticism of the flood insurance program as it was existing before. Frankly, this committee, both, again, under Mr. Oxley's chairmanship and recently, addressed it, and it encouraged people to build where they should not have built from an environmental standpoint and incurred too much taxpayer money. Essentially, there was too much subsidy in the program, from both the environmental and fiscal standpoints, to builders.

In the bill that we adopted last year in the previous session, we began to address that. We began to charge people a more appropriate amount, but we did not do it fully. The gentleman from New Jersey had an amendment that he wanted to offer that we considered in committee, and we had talked about it being offered on the floor. I regret that he wasn't given the chance to offer it on the floor, and I gave him my word that we would, as soon as possible, bring it forward. And it is my intention, if this bill passes today, as I expect that it will, if and when we get to work with the United States Senate on comprehensive legislation, this will be a part of this. In effect, this is a delayed amendment to the flood insurance bill we've already passed, and it will be treated in any deliberations in which I am a part as if it had been included back then.

So, I think the gentleman from New Jersey has done us a service by giving us something that is both environmentally and fiscally responsible.

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

I thank the gentleman for his kind words.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3959 and to insert extraneous material thereon.