To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to consider reconstruction and improvement of flood protection systems when establishing flood insurance rates.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1517 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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. 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.

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.

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 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. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3139) to extend the authorization of the National Flood Insurance Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

I want to acknowledge the great cooperation we have had on a bipartisan basis here, the gentlewoman from West Virginia and I. We have, as Members know, a Flood Insurance Program. It does some good, but it's become somewhat controversial. There are Members who would like to see its future extended, and I tend to agree with them. Some of our colleagues from the gulf coast on both sides have talked about extending it to, for instance, other disasters and wind. There are Members who believe that the way it works now, it causes undue hardship without providing any serious protection. There are many others who believe--and I think we could argue--that it's time to examine the whole program.

This is an example, Mr. Speaker, where two groups that are sometimes in debate are on the same side; and that is, people concerned about excessive government expenditure and the environmental community. It's certainly our goal to try to discourage people from building where they shouldn't. On the other hand, we have people who years ago, in good faith built there; and they cannot be expropriated and shouldn't be. What we have decided on a bipartisan basis is that we have a program that expires in September. As Members know, the Committee on Financial Services, which has jurisdiction over this, has a fairly broad jurisdiction, including housing and, of course, the financial industry. We have been somewhat preoccupied with those other issues, mortgage foreclosures and financial regulation. We have not had the time to do the kind of thorough reexamination of flood insurance that it deserves. So what we have today as a result of an agreement is a 6-month extension of the program essentially as-is.

There is one change, again in a bipartisan way. The gentlewomen from California (Ms. Matsui and Ms. Speier) and the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins) came together to ask us for a provision that they believed important for their districts and many others that does no harm and can provide some protection for them. With that inclusion, we are extending it for 6 months. This will now go across the Rotunda to the United States Senate. We expect that they will be able to enact it, if not in the next couple of days, when we come back in September. What this then does is gives us a chance, when we come back in 2010, to deal with this in a comprehensive way and to do the kind of reexamination that is called for. So that's exactly where we are. I note that the gentlewoman from California has joined us, the author of one of the provisions. I will yield to her after the other side.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the aforementioned gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), the author of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the coauthor of the amendment we have been discussing, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. And I would yield for a question to our colleague from Mississippi, who has been, with our support on our committee, a major proponent for protecting the people he represents in the area of wind and elsewhere.

I yield to the gentleman.

Well, as the gentleman knows, there has been a request from the administration for a longer extension, but the gentleman conferred with the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and expressed his concern that that would put off further any chance to do this, and we agreed with that. That is why this is a 6-month extension. And the answer is, I believe the House remains committed to that. What happens in the Senate will be another issue. But it is certainly our intention, the leadership of the committee on the majority side, once again, to work with the gentleman to extend that protection, and hope that maybe things will change in the Senate.

I yield again to the gentleman.

Yes, it would be very appropriate.

As Members know, we have been a little busy with the financial material, but we are probably not going away for a while this calendar year. And yes, I know the gentlewoman from California, who chairs the subcommittee which has jurisdiction, is very interested in this and does plan to have some hearings.

I would just finish up by saying that the gentlewoman did talk about the problem of houses on stilts in an earthquake area.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, I will yield back after recalling for no particular reason the views of the British philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, who said that he thought talk of natural law was nonsense and talk of natural rights was nonsense on stilts. That is irrelevant, but it just occurred to me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) 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.

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.

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts, for his bipartisan way of approaching this particular issue. He is correct when he says that we've gone back and forth on this over, I think, almost a decade on the way to reform this program. We certainly want to see that.

Everyone here should be in agreement that the National Flood Insurance Program needs reform. The chairman spoke of that. But I think we can also agree it would be irresponsible and unfair to many communities and areas where flooding occurs to let the program expire at the end of September 2009 without attempting to fix it, which is why we need to pass another short-term extension today.

The National Flood Insurance Program is currently carrying a debt in excess of more than $19 billion, primarily from property damage claims that were paid after the series of big storms that hit Florida in 2004 and the gulf coast in 2005. According to the Government Accountability Office, the NFIP is underfunded by design because many property owners continue to receive subsidized premium rates under long-standing provisions in place since the flood insurance rate mapping system went into effect in 1974. We need to deal with these issues. It's going to take bipartisan leadership on both sides, and I think we have that commitment to get it done. Many of us believe it's time for Congress to work toward encouraging more private insurance and reinsurance capacity to help protect at-risk communities and high-risk regions against the potential damages of flooding as well as other natural disasters. We are committed to pressing forward with reforms as soon as possible and urge others to join us in making this a bipartisan effort as well as a higher priority in this Congress.

In addition to supporting the need for a short-term flood insurance extension bill, I support a small but important technical change that would end the program's illogical and unwarranted discrimination against State and local funding of levee construction and improvement projects. I commend my friend, Congresswoman Matsui from Sacramento, for her leadership and her thoughtful and constructive proposal. I also would like to salute Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins of Kansas, an active member of our committee, for lending her support. As I previously stated, I know that we have a great need for reform in this program, and hopefully that will be our ultimate goal. But at the same time, I think it's wise for this Congress to extend this program for another 6 months as we would do in this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I don't live in a house on stilts, I live on a mountain, so I don't need stilts. I guess that's a good thing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and urge support of this legislation.