National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2009

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2623, legislation that would amend the Federal securities laws to clarify the Security and Exchange Commission's, the SEC, authority to sanction certain employees of regulated or supervised entities after they leave their jobs.

I would like to thank Mr. Kanjorski and Chairman Frank for bringing this bill to the floor today. I would also like to mention that this legislation was included in a larger piece of securities legislation from the 110th Congress, H.R. 6513, the Securities Act of 2008, which passed the House on suspension by voice vote.

The legislation is also included in H.R. 3310, the Consumer Protection and Regulatory Enhancement Act introduced by Ranking Member Bachus, and I appreciate his support on this legislation.

This legislation is directed at ensuring that former employees of organizations like the New York Stock Exchange or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority can be held accountable for any misconduct while an employee of these organizations.

Many provisions of Federal securities law which authorize the sanctioning of a person who engages in misconduct while associated with a regulated or supervised entity explicitly provide that such authority exists even if the person is no longer associated with that entity or has left his or her job. But there are confusing loopholes so that employees of some regulated or supervised organizations cannot be sanctioned by the SEC after they leave their positions. By clarifying the SEC's authority to sanction formerly associated persons, we ensure that employees are held accountable for their actions while in those positions even if they have moved on to another job.

Specifically, my legislation amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1994 and the Investment Company Act of 1940. Congress must ensure that the SEC has authority to investigate individuals suspected of violating the securities laws, to bring enforcement cases, and have those cases considered on the merits and not be dismissed on an ambiguity because a statute is confusing. No one should be able to violate the securities laws and resign their position knowing that the SEC cannot proceed against them. My legislation does not expand or alter the SEC's current authority; it clarifies it.

One illustration of the need for this legislation is in the case of Sal Sodano, who was chairman and CEO of the American Stock Exchange, AMEX. On March 22, 2007, the SEC charged Sodano with failing to enforce compliance with the Exchange Act during his term as the AMEX chairman and CEO; however, the SEC's filing occurred after Sodano left the AMEX in 2005. So his lawyers pointed to this loophole in the Federal law that the SEC could only sanction individuals while they were still associated with the organization.

The SEC's administrative law judge noted that the current law does not provide for sanctioning of a former officer or director. The judge specifically noted that Congress has drafted many statutes that allow the ability to sanction individuals formerly associated with any number of entities, but not in this case. By passing H.R. 2623, Congress can close this loophole and ensure accountability for individuals working at regulated or supervised entities.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which will provide more accountability, transparency, and efficiency in securities regulation.

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

General Leave

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.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker I would like to thank Chairman Frank, Chairwoman Waters, as well as Ranking Members Bachus and Capito and all the staff for all the work they've done to get us here today. I would also like to thank FEMA for their technical guidance throughout the year. The amended bill before us today includes language from H.R. 1525 that I authored to provide technical changes to Federal flood zone designations. This legislation makes a number of modifications to the National Flood Insurance Act in order to give communities clarity to help them restore and improve their flood protection system. From my hometown of Sacramento to the Louisiana bayou to the plains of the Midwest, communities are advancing flood protection infrastructure in order to keep Americans safe and secure.

However, as we work to conform to changing dynamics of flood protection, these communities are seeking clarity as they work to meet Federal regulations.

Public safety is my absolute number one priority. And during the last year that I worked with local, State, and Federal flood protection officials, that remains our priority. This bill will give communities clarity so they can continue to uphold public safety and promote proper protection. Specifically, this legislation will update current law to take local, State, and Federal funding into account when determining designations.

The city of Sacramento and the State of California have devoted millions of dollars toward flood protection. That investment should simply be recognized by the Federal Government. For my constituents this is vital. FEMA needs to recognize what our State and city have contributed when they review the progress made on the Natomas levees in my district and determine the area's flood designation.

This legislation also helps communities understand requirements for a completed system. Current regulations are vague on what a completed system actually is, and this has caused great concern and confusion among local communities. This provision brings greater clarity by combining a public safety standard with a concrete milestone.

Protecting our constituents from the dangers of floods requires a comprehensive approach. Local communities, States, and the Federal Government must all be thoughtful and committed partners to achieve public safety. I am glad that the bill before us today includes this Federal commitment to

give communities clear objectives as they work to improve flood protection infrastructure.

The American people have an indomitable spirit, and judging from my constituents, they don't expect the Federal Government to come to their aid for every problem. But they also don't expect us to stand in their way when they are trying to save lives and property.

The massive flooding and loss of life following Hurricane Katrina was a wake-up call for those of us who live along our Nation's beautiful coasts, bays, lakes and rivers. I represent the San Francisco Peninsula. As the name suggests, there is hardly a spot in my district where you can't see water. Currently, an advanced new levee system is being constructed to protect parts of three cities along San Francisco Bay. The levee is being built with local money. The residents have voted to tax themselves to do it. This is exactly how it should be, communities handling their issues themselves.

But currently, FEMA only recognizes Federally funded or managed projects. So, despite the fact that these levees are built to the exact same specifications, until the project is completed, homeowners and businesses in those areas will be forced to pay dramatically higher flood insurance, and any new construction will be required to be built on stilts above where the flood plain would be if the levees had not been built or improved. Imagine putting homes on stilts in an earthquake area. It just doesn't make sense.

Again, the levees are not the issue. These levees are being built to Federal standards. The only reason that tens of thousands of hardworking Americans will have to pay thousands of dollars more in insurance and local builders will have to put their buildings on stilts is because the forward-thinking residents of San Mateo, Foster City and Redwood Shores decided to improve their levees without Federal dollars.

I urge the passage of this amendment and this bill.