Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5114) to extend the authorization for the national flood insurance program, to identify priorities essential to reform and ongoing stable functioning of the program, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to bring my bill, H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010, to the floor today; and I stand in strong support of its passage. Moreover, I'm proud that this bill has the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, having passed out of the Financial Services Committee in April on voice vote.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is essential. The Flood Insurance Program provides valuable protection for approximately 5.5 million homeowners; but, unfortunately, the lack of a long-term authorization has placed the program at risk. The program has lapsed three times now since the beginning of this year: for 2 days in March, for 18 days in April, and again from June 1 to July 2, when President Obama signed my bill to provide for a short-term extension of the program through the end of September of this year.

These lapses meant that FEMA was not able to write new policies, renew expiring policies, or increase coverage limits. These delays also meant that each day 1,200 home buyers who wanted to purchase homes located in flood plains were unable to close on their homes. Given the current crisis in the housing market, this instability in the Flood Insurance Program is hampering that market's recovery and must be addressed.

Mr. Chairman, in drafting this bill, I also wanted to address the challenges posed to communities by the imposition of new flood maps. I saw these challenges firsthand in my home city of Los Angeles. Earlier this year I was able to assist homeowners in the Park Mesa Heights area of Los Angeles who had been mistakenly placed in a flood plain. In this case, FEMA acted quickly to respond to new data and correct the mistake. However, there are thousands of homeowners nationwide who now find themselves in flood zones and subject to mandatory purchase requirements.

H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010, would restore stability to the Flood Insurance Program by reauthorizing the program for 5 years. It would also address the impact of new flood maps by delaying the mandatory purchase requirement for 5 years and then phasing in actuarial rates for another 5 years.

The bill also makes other improvements to the program by phasing in actuarial rates from pre-firm properties, raising maximum coverage limits, providing notice to renters about contents insurance, and establishing a flood insurance advocate similar to the taxpayer advocate at the Internal Revenue Service.

Mr. Chairman, we must reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program and pass the reforms included in H.R. 5114. This country is reeling from major floods in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Oklahoma; and we are now officially in hurricane season, with south Texas still recovering from Hurricane Alex. I urge my colleagues to stand with me in support of this important extension.

In closing, I would like to recognize the many Members on both sides of the aisle who have approached me with their concerns about flood insurance programs. I'm further gratified that, through this bill, we're able to address many of those concerns. I remain committed to working with Members on ensuring that this program works for their communities and their constituents.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Representative Costello, who has been the leader on this issue of the maps, the remapping. And because of him we have a strong bill. He worked very hard, and I am very grateful.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas, who has fought so hard for his constituents and making sure that they have a strong advocacy program in this bill, Marion Berry.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to make sure that the gentlelady understands that we are moderating the subsidy in several ways on second homes, on nonresidential property, and when the homes are sold, and that's an important point that we will have some discussion on later.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), who's been responsible for making sure that we give homeowners an opportunity to pay installments instead of up front all of these premiums that they will be responsible for.

Thank you so very much for your work.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), who has worked very hard on these issues, and we have, in the manager's amendment, some of the work that she did.

I yield 1 minute to my colleague from California, Linda Sanchez, who has given a lot of her time to this effort.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from D.C., Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton.

I yield 1 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green). His State has experienced a lot of hardship with Katrina and Alex, and I thank him for his hard work.

I have no other speakers, Mr. Chairman; and I would reserve the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the ranking member from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for her cooperation and the work that she has put into the formulation of this very, very important bill.

I would like to thank Members on both sides of the aisle for the cooperation that we have seen exhibited on this bill, and I think that the Members on both sides of the aisle have done a fabulous job representing their constituencies on this issue.

It is time for us to have a reauthorization for 5 years, given the lapses that we have had and the risks that we have placed homeowners at when we

don't have flood insurance coverage. And so Members have come one by one on this issue explaining what is going on in their districts, and of course, we have had a lot of criticism about FEMA. We have had Members explain that neighbors are getting together to fight some of the mapping that is being done. All of that has been brought to our attention, and we've been able to deal with most of those complaints, not only in this bill but, of course, in the manager's amendment.

We have some people who are going to bring amendments to the floor from both sides of the aisle, and I'm confident that with the work that has gone into this bill, the amendments that we will have on the floor--many of them will be adopted--that we will see a good, solid piece of legislation move from this floor that will address the concerns of so many of our constituents across this country.

I'm proud of this legislation. I thank not only the Members on both sides of the aisle but the staffs from both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to ensure that we address these concerns.

So, now, with this authorization for 5 years, with the delayed time so that people have the opportunity to prepare, with the installment, with the way that we have done all of this, including putting an advocate in, our constituents are going to get some justice, some real attention; and I think they will be proud of the work that we have done.

American Insurance Association,

Washington, DC, July 15, 2010.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Spencer Bachus,

Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman and Representative Bachus: The American

Insurance Association (AIA) would like to express its strong

support for the House Financial Services Committee reported

bill reauthorizing and reforming the National Flood Insurance

Program (NFIP), H.R. 5114. The recent lapses in the NFIP

followed by the use of short-term extensions have caused

disruptions to homeowners, businesses and hindered real

estate closings nationwide. A long-term NFIP reauthorization

will bring much-needed stability to the market and fiscal

soundness to the program.

However, we strongly oppose the amendment to be offered by

Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS). The Taylor amendment would

negatively impact ``Write Your Own'' (WYO) companies and

significantly alter the way in which claims are processed by

the NFIP. Consumers want reasonably priced insurance for the

risks they confront. To help meet that objective, insurers

must be able to contractually define the parameters of their

exposure. Adopting the Taylor amendment will cause WYO

companies to take a hard look at their continued

participation in the program and jeopardize our support for

the underlying bill.

We look forward to continuing to work with you to enact a

long-term NFIP reauthorization.

Sincerely,

Leigh Ann Pusey,

President and CEO,

American Insurance Association.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that was made in order under the rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment I have submitted to the committee would make further improvements on the bill. The amendment would contribute to the stability of the flood insurance program by prospectively phasing in actuarial rates for severe repetitive loss properties and properties sustaining substantial damage.

The financial solvency of the program would also be protected by a provision that would make sure that homeowners receiving preferred rates who deliberately drop out of the program are charged actuarial rates if they rejoin the program.

The amendment also strengthens protections for homeowners by allowing all homeowners to pay flood insurance premiums in installments, providing grants to homeowners experiencing repeated flooding with funds to mitigate their flood risk, requiring FEMA to take a second look at areas that may be incorrectly mapped, and requiring FEMA to study the impacts of the flood insurance program on working waterfronts.

I am pleased that this amendment also incorporates amendments offered by many Members, including Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Clyburn, Ms. Herseth Sandlin, Mr. Hare, Ms. Markey, Mrs. McCarthy, Mr. Melancon, and Mr. Pascrell. I thank these Members and others who have made suggestions to me for their constructive additions to this amendment.

This amendment makes significant improvements to the underlying legislation, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.

I think everything has been said that needs to be said.

I simply again want to thank all of the Members that have been involved. I am very pleased that we finally are responding to the concerns of all of our constituents, particularly about new mapping. There are a lot of concerns about that. But the way that we delay implementation will give our constituents an opportunity to prepare the installment plans, the way we deal with the actuarial rates. I think this is some of the best work that could have been done to honor the concerns of our constituents.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida for offering this amendment.

The underlying bill authorizes grants to local communities to reach out to homeowners and communities about the flood insurance program and flood risk. As we know, the process by which homeowners receive notification of new flood maps is severely lacking.

Too often, homeowners learn that they are in a floodplain when they receive a letter from their mortgage company informing them that they have 45 days to buy flood insurance or it will be purchased on their behalf. Local communities are supposed to inform residents about new maps. However, communities often receive little notification from FEMA themselves. Also, some communities simply lack the resources to do the type of notification that is necessary to ensure that homeowners are aware of changes to the flood maps.

By providing a grant program to assist communities, the underlying bill would address this problem. The gentleman's amendment would require the director of the flood insurance program to submit annual reports to the Congress on the effectiveness of these grants. I think that is important. And I think that Congress should know how these grants are working and how these funds are being spent.

So I support the gentleman's amendment, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, quite simply, I support the gentleman's amendment. While I believe that the bill is clear that the grants provided under the bill would be competitive and, therefore, not subject to earmarking, I can understand the gentleman's need for wanting to clarify that these funds cannot be used for earmarks. Therefore, I support the amendment, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of this gentleman's amendment.

In April, my subcommittee held a hearing on flood and wind insurance legislative proposals. And at that hearing, the gentleman from Mississippi testified about the way the insurance industry abused the flood insurance program following Hurricane Katrina by claiming that if so much as a drop of water touched a home, that all the resulting damage was the result of flood and not wind, even if there was damage to the contrary. Insurers were able to maintain their bottom line at the expense of the financial solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program.

Nobody has worked harder on these issues than he has. He deserves support for this amendment, and we will continue to support his instructions about what we should be doing in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I support the gentlewoman's amendment. I understand that the gentlewoman has some concerns with the flood insurance program. I understand that she does believe that homeowners in her district are subsidizing the cost of flood insurance for homeowners along the coast.

While I disagree with her premise, I see no harm in having the GAO perform the study described in her amendment to look into the role of the private insurance market in providing flood insurance, the impact on the program if communities drop out, and the feasibility of regionalizing the program.

However, I would like to note that flood insurance is just that, insurance. It insures against an event that may or may not happen in the future. We have taken several steps in this bill to address the ``sticker shock'' that homeowners are encountering as a result of the mandatory purchase requirement resulting from the new maps.

However, if the maps are accurate, and if there is a flood risk, public policy should dictate that homeowners have coverage for that risk because if they don't, the Federal Government will have to pick up the tab.

Therefore, I disagree with the problem the gentlewoman has with the program. But I see no harm in her amendment, and so I would support that amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker and Members, we patiently waited over here to hear what this motion to recommit was going to be all about. We thought about all of the Members who have been calling us, writing us, working with us from both sides of the aisle to please help them address the concerns of their constituents about flood insurance. We have worked very hard with Members from both sides of the aisle to include their concerns in this bill.

You saw Members come to the floor with those amendments. You saw in the manager's amendment that we had worked with so many Members not only to include their concerns, but to answer questions and prepare them for going back to their communities explaining how this whole thing works.

Many of those questions that have been raised by our constituents have been raised over a long period of time. Our offices are bombarded with questions about the mapping. How does it work? How are they going to get timely notification? What are the premiums all about? These questions go on and on and on, to the point where our offices are oftentimes overwhelmed, not able to give sufficient information, or to assist those communities where they have banded together, despite the fact oftentimes they have few resources to deal with these issues.

And now, in this comprehensive authorization that we are doing we address those constituents' concerns with this outreach. I am very surprised that the Members on the opposite side of the aisle would try and deny to their constituents the basic kind of information and services that we should all be responsible for. We should be able to say to our constituents not only do you have a right to this information, but we are going to give you some help. You don't have to try and band together with resources that you don't have to find out how it all works to oppose FEMA, to find out from your mortgage servicers why you didn't get a timely notice, to find out from your city, who was notified perhaps by FEMA, why they didn't notify the community.

Mr. Speaker and Members, these are simply outreach activities that must be dealt with. These are outreach activities that our constituents deserve. To oppose assisting our constituents when they may be forced into new mapping that's going to cost them money that they had not anticipated, on and on and on, is just unbelievable.

So I would simply say it speaks for itself. Assistance to our constituents asking those basic questions. I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this motion to recommit. It works against the best interests of all of our constituents. They deserve better than this.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I would like to thank the chairwoman, Chairwoman Waters, for her hard work on this very important piece of legislation.

H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act, provides for the long-term reauthorization reform of the National Flood Insurance Program, extending it for 5 years, through September 30, 2015. The bill would phase out subsidized premium rates for certain properties, increase the annual limit on premium rate increases, and impose minimum deductibles for all policies.

The bill before us today, I believe, makes constructive reforms to eliminate certain subsidies and strengthens the financial soundness of the NFIP. Unfortunately, it also includes wasteful government spending. While I wish the bill went further to place the program on a path toward self-sufficiency and limit taxpayer exposure, I will support the final passage of this bill.

The NFIP is currently operating under a short-term extension through September 30, 2010, after experiencing its third lapse this year. H.R. 5114 makes constructive reforms to eliminate certain subsidies and strengthen financial soundness. In addition, several Republican proposals have been incorporated in H.R. 5114 to strengthen the reforms in this bill, including provisions to eliminate subsidized rates over time for homes that were sold to a new owner, impose minimum deductibles for all insured properties, require a report on the feasibility of incorporating national recognized building codes into the NFIP flood plain management criteria, and to direct the NFIP to report to Congress with a plan to repay its debt to the Treasury within 10 years.

The NFIP is facing serious financial challenges and cannot afford to continue on its current path. The GAO has included the NFIP on its annual list of high-risk government programs since 2006 because of its ongoing potential to incur billions of dollars in losses. With

an $18 billion debt to the Treasury now and the persistence of subsidized premium rates for properties in high-risk areas, the NFIP continues to be underfunded and Federal taxpayers remain at risk.

Unfortunately, recent temporary lapses of the NFIP created uncertainty in the housing market and resulted in negative consequences for home buyers trying to purchase flood insurance protection in high- risk areas where it is required. While many property owners depend on flood insurance for some measure of financial security, and many more should consider purchasing it to protect themselves from potential losses, fundamental reforms are needed to make the flood insurance program more self-sufficient, reduce the potential for losses, and minimize the financial risk to taxpayers.

In the long run, it is my hope, along with most of my Republican colleagues, that all flood insurance premium rate subsidies should be eliminated and underwriting risks should be transferred to the private insurance market to the maximum extent possible.

In this respect, the provisions of H.R. 5114 that phase out and eventually eliminate certain premium rate subsidies represent very positive steps. The bill includes constructive measures to eliminate subsidized rates over time for nonresidential properties and nonprimary residences, including second homes and vacation homes.

H.R. 5114 also raises the cap on rate increases from 10 to 20 percent, which will allow the NFIP to charge premiums more appropriate to the risk within a shorter period of time. These useful reforms are overshadowed, unfortunately, by provisions authorizing almost $500 million in new Federal spending for new mitigation and outreach grant programs and to establish an Office of Flood Insurance Advocate within FEMA, which administers the Flood Insurance Program.

While there is a definite need to improve FEMA's communication with communities and to increase advocacy about the impact of the new flood risk maps, Republicans believe that this effort should be undertaken using the existing NFIP funds, rather than new Federal spending in this time of historic deficits.

I know some of my Republican colleagues offered amendments to do just this, to address these concerns. And I wish that they had been made in order today, as their inclusion would have enhanced our debate.

The NFIP was originally intended to reduce the need for emergency disaster assistance from Federal taxpayers to local communities, and the program has a long ways to go to reach the point of being self- funded and self-sustaining. Furthermore, I believe that Congress has an obligation to U.S. taxpayers to challenge the premise that most flooding hazards will never be insurable by the private insurance market.

I remain committed to enacting comprehensive reforms that not only modernize the National Flood Insurance Program so that homeowners will continue to have access to flood insurance, but at the same time protect the American taxpayer.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Florida, Ms. Brown-Waite.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Could I ask the chairwoman if she has any additional speakers.

Then I would just like to say that this has been an effort that has been moving forth. As we've said, we've had a lot of lapses in this program across the country. It's caused a lot of disturbances for folks who are trying to purchase new homes or refinance, and I think that we need a permanent extension of this for 5 years.

So, again, I do have reservations about the additional spending; $500 million at this time of high debt and deficit and high unemployment is, I think, improperly placed, but this bill does have another purpose, and that is to make sure that homeowners and home purchasers can have the access that they need to the flood insurance program.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I'm not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the chairwoman's manager's amendment does make good improvements to the underlying bill by phasing out taxpayer subsidies for severe repetitive losses.

As we know, and as I said in my opening statement, the NFIP is facing serious financial challenges and the program cannot afford to go on its current path. So in this respect, I think that Chairwoman Waters' manager's amendment is a positive step in the right direction. In addition, the manager's amendment includes additional reforms that seeks to reduce the subsidies over time that continue to burden this program.

The measure includes several provisions to address local community concerns that we have all heard in our districts resulting from new flood risk maps and the ongoing flood control projects, resulting in delays of purchase requirements and higher rates in certain cases.

I would like to point out why I believe that phasing out the subsidies for severe repetitive loss properties is important. If you look at the accounting

for these losses over the last several years, the repetitive loss properties only account for 1 percent of the total policies in the program nationwide, yet the repetitive loss properties account for almost 30 percent of the claims paid annually.

Well, I think there is a sense of fairness about this, and most of us recognize that this is unfair. The subsidies for folks who continue to live in repetitive loss property areas continue to run up the losses in this very important flood insurance program. The high incidence of claims on repetitive loss properties has cost the National Flood Insurance Program more than $2.7 billion since 1978.

So with the reforms that the chairwoman has made in the manager's amendment, I support the manager's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand. And I've had constituents myself who have been remapped and fallen into the flood plain and questionable areas a lot, to their frustration. And I understand the gentleman from Ohio's intent on his amendment. But I think it sort of opens the door a little too broadly and a little too widely. While the amendment that he is proposing helps property owners who seek to recoup their expenses of appealing the flood map, it provides for full reimbursement for any costs. There's no specification to what reasonable costs could be--but any cost. And I think this is too broad.

I would prefer to see the amendment go back to the drawing board, reshape it, so that we can address the needs and the cost issues to our constituents but also make sure that we don't leave it so the door is so wide open that it would encourage in some possibilities maybe re- looking at it, overly expensive investigations into the flood mapping, without any kind of reasonable assurances that the costs that are incurred in challenging the maps would fall within a reasonable amount.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I rise to claim the time in opposition to it.

I would like to begin by saying to my friend from Mississippi, we have kind of had an ongoing discussion on this. I think he knows this is not a personal issue for me, but it is a very personal one for him, and I certainly understand that. I can't really even imagine being in your shoes, quite frankly, and a lot of your fellow Mississippians in what has happened.

But I am going to oppose this amendment, really, by seeking to address the water and wind issue, which is something I think we do need to address. I have several issues that I would like to bring forward.

First of all, I have concern that this could interfere with the State regulation of insurance. As we all know, insurance is regulated through the States. It could dictate some of the processes that I think would undermine the State regulation of insurance.

It's interesting that the gentleman brought up State Farm because-- and I'm sure he's aware that State Farm has just recently announced that they are going to be withdrawing from the WYO program, which is the Write Your Own insurance program, for several reasons, I believe. I'm not certain what they all are. But this means that 800,000 customers nationwide who bought their flood insurance coverage through State Farm will now need to be picked up by other Write Your Own insurance companies.

Third, I think this amendment could impose or would impose a new fiduciary responsibility on insurance companies that participate in this program. According to industry experts,

this could expose insurers to new lawsuits and force them to place the interests of the Federal program over the interests of their own policy holders.

I think there could be a better way to address this issue and the objectives of this amendment by working with FEMA officials and State insurance regulators to devise a formula with ratios that would apportion losses fairly to address the situation in the future. Some States and companies are already using this approach to help clarify potential wind-versus-water issues.

So, with that, I would like to thank the gentleman for his passion and his ``stick-to-it-iveness'' to try to solve a very deep problem, particularly in his region of the country. But with the way this amendment is written and printed, I would have to be in opposition to it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

I would just like to speak very briefly in support of the gentleman's amendment. We have all had in our States issues with knowing the correct way to leave and evacuate certain areas. I sort of was hoping that this area of information was already covered. So I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward, and I would ask that we support the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not necessarily opposed to it.

I would like to address the gentleman's amendment really in the broader context of the Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate. This is creating it within this bill, and I think in my opening statements I addressed this issue. It's creating a new office. And at a time when we have rising debts and deficits, we are creating another bureaucracy, another obligation on the Federal taxpayer where I think that we could work within existing regulatory and administrative offices to try to accomplish the same thing.

We had a discussion yesterday in the Rules Committee where the chairwoman of our subcommittee talked about the need for advocacy. And I don't oppose the need for helping people wind through the intricacies of FEMA, trying to make appeals, trying to find out when and how they're going to be paid or what their alternate living arrangements might be and all the things that an advocate can do in terms of winding through a large bureaucracy like FEMA. But FEMA has assured us that they have already a functioning appeals process, and on top of an Inspector General and continual GAO oversight of the NFIP program.

So I think that the advocacy office itself is representing some duplicative and unnecessary bureaucracy and spending. So while I don't oppose the gentleman's amendment, if the advocacy office goes through, it's not really the substance of your amendment, it's really more the basis of the flood advocate itself, Office of the Flood Advocate itself.

I yield back balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I would like to thank the gentleman for his amendment.

I raise questions about this amendment for the same reason that I raised questions about the previous amendment, and that is, you know, we are at a point here in our economy in this time where we have high unemployment. We have our deficit that has just passed over the trillion dollar mark for the second year in a row. We have increasingly excruciating debt that we're going to be passing on to our children and grandchildren, and yet we're still going to be creating a grant program in this bill that's going to cost the taxpayers $250 million-- significant dollars at a time when people are losing their jobs or cutting back or making decisions in their own lives about the ways to afford the things that they not just want but they absolutely must have and need. And while, you know, further education and outreach is always a good thing, I think now would be a good time for us to make a statement in this bill by saying, not now, not this time, not this $250 million.

I have a question, too, in terms of the gentleman's amendment, not being a real estate agent myself. I'm not sure that in the real estate agent--in the training to become a real estate agent and the things--I know you have to be licensed and you have to take continuing ed and you have to keep up on all different kinds of financing and property evaluations and all the things. It's kind of a surprise to me that real estate agents don't already know the extent or how to deal with the Flood Insurance Program, particularly if there are regions of the country that are prone to this type of damage and these type of floods. But I don't know if the gentleman has an answer for that.

Are you aware of whether real estate agents now, across the country, are exposed to this kind of information? I mean, why wouldn't they already have this?

I yield to the gentleman if you have an answer to the question. I don't know the answer to that.

Thank you for that clarification.

Reclaiming my time, I would just additionally say that I would think, through the continuing education of the real estate schools and the licensing boards throughout the different States who have these issues, that this would already be something that's covered.

Again, I will go back to my original premise, $250 million in 5 years at a time of record debt and deficit and high unemployment, to me, is an improper expenditure at this time.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5114, ``the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010.'' I want to thank Chairwoman Waters and Chairman Frank for their hard work on H.R. 5114. This bill will provide enhanced security, better organization, increased participation, and a clear and improved direction for the future of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). By addressing the financial and administrative issues regarding NFIP, this bill will help protect millions of Americans from the potentially devastating economic effects created by a flood.

Communities like mine in Houston rely heavily on NFIP to provide security against the risk of flood. Without this national flood insurance program, many communities across the U.S. would cease to exist because it is virtually impossible to buy flood insurance in the private market. The importance of this insurance program has grown significantly over the last decade as more and more communities have increased their dependence on the NFIP.

As a direct result of certain natural disasters, including the 2005 hurricanes, and increased annual rain and flooding, NFIP has reached its highest participation rate in its 42-year history. Today, over 5 million homes and businesses rely on NFIP for flood coverage security. It is of extreme importance that this program continues to grow and develop to serve this population.

Mr. Chair, as you know, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has authority to issue, renew, or increase coverage of flood insurance policies under the NFIP; and this authority will again lapse on September 30, 2010. H.R. 5114 will extend these authorities to fiscal year 2015 and continue this program in a renewed and revitalized direction. This bill represents a great opportunity to improve and redefine NFIP and to provide greater security to the American people.

Not only will this bill clean up the NFIP requirements and expand coverage with ``phase-ins'' of actuarial rates to more properties and in newly mapped high flood risk areas; this bill will also address outreach issues, risk analysis, and economic effects. It will initiate studies to report the impact, effectiveness, and feasibility of NFIP policies as well as potential methods, practices, and incentives that would increase participation by low-income families owning residential properties located within special flood risk areas. The bill will also create an office to oversee and better manage all of the responsibilities of NFIP and provide assistance to communities, businesses, and homeowners with all flood insurance issues.

Furthermore, this bill will require a comprehensive strategy assessing the goals of NFIP to ensure that the program has a clear plan to pay off its debt and ensure itself a healthy future. This not only benefits the recipients of the flood insurance coverage, it also benefits the program, the U.S. budget, and the American people.

I submitted several amendments to complement the goals of this legislation. One would have required a study to analyze important data regarding the damages resulting from floods. The amendment would have directed the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to conduct a study on the impacts of excessive rainwater on residences located in areas at high risk for flooding from bayous and highways. The results of this study would have been reported to Congress no later than 5 years after the enactment of this bill. Through this study, my amendment would have provided vital information necessary to assess the dangers of an at-risk area and better prepare communities to protect themselves from flood.

Mr. Chair, the only way to achieve the maximum security and preparedness for at-risk communities is to understand these risks with updated, relevant data and analysis. In the Houston area, there is already an on-going study, analyzing the effects of the bayou and rainfall, as flooding and its detrimental consequences are often a concern for the Houston area. The White Oak Bayou Federal Flood Damage Reduction Project is an existing project in Houston which is a partnership project between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the Harris County Flood Control District (the District). In developing a flood damage reduction project for White Oak Bayou, the Harris County Flood Control District has performed extensive data collection and analysis. The District has held public meetings within the community several times over the course of developing the project to determine the community's interests and flood damage reduction needs. Using this information, the District developed the flood damage reduction project for White Oak Bayou.

In 1998, the District began a feasibility study for the White Oak Bayou Federal Flood Damage Reduction Project. This investigation has involved an extensive study of the White Oak Bayou watershed. Components to address flooding were analyzed and evaluated in great detail, which generated several alternatives for consideration as part of the project. Some of the components are already being implemented.

Unfortunately, there are many other areas in Houston/Harris County, Texas and other communities throughout this country that experience an inordinate amount of flooding. In Houston, these areas that are frequently flooded from excessive rainwater include the Buffalo Bayou, the Greens Bayou, and the Halls Bayou. These areas could greatly benefit from a study and analysis to determine the impact of excessive rainwater on residences located in areas at high risk for flooding from bayous and highways. Such a study would allow for investigators to better determine the amount of flood damage and create and implement measures to prevent such future damage.

Another amendment I offered would have stated that it is the sense of Congress that it is important to provide resources to address the devastating effects of flooding; that homeowners are particularly negatively affected by flooding; that excessive rainfall often leads to unsafe and hazardous living conditions; that flooding presents unexpected destruction and damage; and that it is necessary to provide consumers the opportunity to buy flood insurance.

This amendment declares to the American people in a loud voice, that Congress understands the seriousness of flooding and the importance of flood insurance. It is important that we candidly illustrate our reasoning for the issuance of this legislation.

Mr. Chair, it is clear that we have not been taking this issue as seriously as we should. We have had three lapses of authority this year alone with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). We must not continue to simply extend this program for 30 days at a time. We must not continue to play with the security of the American people when it pertains to an issue so serious and potentially devastating as floods. The people who own homes in these areas and the businesses who own property deserve better. The communities and the many potential homeowners, who cannot purchase homes without access to flood insurance, deserve better. We must take the first step by making it perfectly clear that we as a Congress will no longer play and toil with this issue. We must affirm that we are very serious about protecting our constituents and securing our nation from the devastating consequences of floods.

Finally, I also offered a well crafted amendment that would have effectively prohibited states and local governments from misusing new federal flood insurance program requirements to disadvantaged businesses and homeowners in any way. Unfortunately, federal law is often misinterpreted by state and local officials, resulting in unintended consequences in many communities across this country. My amendment was a practical and reasonable response to a previously enacted Houston ordinance that had just such unintended consequences. This ordinance prohibited property construction on vacant land or

substantially damaged property located in major floodways and bayous and almost resulted in the wrongful taking of property from innocent homeowners, merely because their property was located in the wrong place.

In 2006, I began meeting with hundreds of homeowners in Houston from areas such as Shady Acres, a 100-year-old neighborhood, as a result of the implementation of changes to Chapter 19, the City of Houston's floodplain ordinance. Listening to their testimonies and frustration made the impact of this bill very relevant. Just think, in my home district an ordinance was passed that resulted in the massive reduction in property values for almost 10,000 developed and vacant properties, including 2,400 single family homes. The ordinance took advantage of the fact that FEMA would be expected to decrease flood insurance premiums by 5 percent for those areas. Although the communities could pay less for flood insurance, the difference was minimal compared to the losses to their property values. Many owners were afraid that they would have to sell their homes because of the dramatic drop in value.

By firmly stating that state and local governments should not misinterpret these flood insurance laws to put property owners at a disadvantage, I believe we could have sent a strong message that Congress will protect the property rights and interests of American citizens and the people this bill is intended to aid. It is important to make it known that the use of any unforeseen circumstances to treat flood insurance program requirements as a proxy for the wrongful taking of property is utterly unacceptable.

I truly believe my amendments would have complemented H.R. 5114. However, I still believe the bill is a proactive measure that has been long overdue to address the urgent needs of Americans throughout this country, many of whom experience damage and losses to their homes, property and businesses from flooding.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to pass this important bill.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Chair, this House recently passed a financial markets regulatory restructuring bill which in essence, unfortunately, will create a new Federal insurance program, or bailout authority, for large financial companies that take on too much risk. I wish we would leave, given the state of the national debt, I wish we would leave the safety net where it currently is, under federally insured depository institutions. And instead, ultimately I fear we will one day be looking at taxpayer subsidies to cover the likes of Goldman Sachs, AIG, and Lehman Brothers.

I wish we had learned our lesson from the National Flood Insurance Program, which we know was supposed to never require any taxpayer funds, any general revenue. But unfortunately, we know today already $19 billion is owed to the Federal taxpayer. And we look at the other federally administered insurance programs: Social Security, long term deficit of $15 trillion; Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, debt of $22 billion, projections of $34 billion by 2019; Federal crop insurance, Medicaid--the list goes on and on and on.

This bill adds to the tab. And the Congressional Budget Office has projected this bill will increase spending by roughly a half-billion dollars over 10 years. Even by Washington standards, I hope we still consider that to be significant funding.

Now, I wish the Federal Government wasn't in this business, but we are in this business. And if we are in this business, we have to ensure that we are not subsidizing and incenting people to live, essentially put them in harm's way and put them in harm's way at taxpayers' expense. If they are going to put themselves and their property in harm's way, that's a decision they need to be making. But we shouldn't be a party to incenting them to that.

So we still have a program that oversubsidizes certain properties, including condos and vacation homes, and we're asking people in my district, the factory worker in Mesquite, Texas, and maybe making $50,000 a year, to subsidize the flood insurance of somebody who may be making a half a million dollars a year, maybe because they have a condo on a beach. That's not a program that's particularly fiscally sound or one that I believe is fair.

I certainly want to thank the chairman, I want to thank the ranking member for their work. And there are a number of improvements in this legislation that will help improve the program. I want to thank the chairman for incorporating a modest amendment I offered in 2007 that would at least require the NFIP to conduct a study

within the next 6 months of how do you end up repaying the taxpayer at least over a 10-year period so they can recoup their losses on a program they were never supposed to bail out in the first place.

I appreciate the fact that the underlying legislation will raise the annual cap on premium rate increases. I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) who offered an amendment that was incorporated that would eliminate subsidies over time for homes that are sold to new owners and phases in actuarially sound premiums on second homes.

There is also language in here that will impose minimum deductibles for all insured properties. All of these are several steps in the right direction to help ensure that the taxpayer doesn't suffer further losses.

But unfortunately, the bill really doesn't do anything to deal with the current almost $19 billion of funds that are owed to the taxpayer today. Nothing in the bill will help recoup that particular loss. It delays the implementation of actuarial rates, which I think again puts the taxpayer in further harm. It does not phase out the taxpayer subsidies. We still have insurance at subsidized rates, creating perverse incentives that encourage people to essentially live in harm's way. And just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have already cost the taxpayer $150 billion roughly and counting, those programs ultimately need to be returned to competition, and so does this program ultimately need to be returned to market competition.

Now, I know we can't outlaw hurricanes, we can't outlaw floods, but we can at least make sure that the factory worker in Mesquite, Texas, in my district, doesn't have to keep picking up the tab over and over. And very importantly, this is a program that authorizes almost a half a billion in new spending on an outreach program when one already exists. We cannot afford it.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit today is a simple one. It says today, right here, right now, this body will decline to create yet another new government spending program, this one, a quarter of a billion dollar new FEMA outreach program on top of the FEMA outreach program that is already in place.

Mr. Speaker, the American people know already that the National Flood Insurance Program is in trouble, just like almost every other federally administered insurance program.

Social Security has a long-term deficit of $15.1 trillion. The Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation has a debt of $22 billion. The Federal Crop Insurance Program, Medicaid, and the list goes on and on.

The National Flood Insurance Program owes the taxpayer, owes the Treasury already $19 billion. Why are we going to add to this burden today, Mr. Speaker?

And, in addition, as I said earlier, this is duplicative of an already existing program. I'm not here to say, Mr. Speaker, that outreach is a bad idea. But I am curious what is wrong with the Cooperating Technical Partners Program of FEMA.

Mr. Speaker, even if this wasn't duplicative of an already existing system, even if we truly needed it, the question is, can we afford it? Is it really worth borrowing 43 cents on the dollar, mainly from the Chinese, and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren? At this time, Mr. Speaker, at a time when our Nation is facing a debt crisis, the motion to recommit says no, it doesn't meet that test.

I mean, Mr. Speaker, we know already that the deficit has increased almost tenfold in just 2 years. I mean we are looking at the largest deficits in American history. Our Nation is literally drowning in debt.

Don't take my word for it. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor, as a number of our Members do, to serve on the President's Fiscal Responsibility Commission. It's led by Democrat Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff to President Clinton, who just this week said before the National Governors Association, ``The debt is like a cancer. It is truly going to destroy the country from within.'' That is the Democratic head of the President's Fiscal Responsibility Commission. He recognizes the problem that we are facing today.

Renowned economist Robert Samuelson has said that our spending could ``trigger an economic and political death spiral.'' Former Comptroller David Walker has said we are facing, quote, ``a fiscal cancer.''

Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a crisis in our Nation's history that we could see coming from miles away it's this one. Why do we want to make it worse? Right here, right now we can take one tiny step towards ensuring we don't put more debt on our children and our grandchildren for a program that is already in the red almost $19 billion.

I would say that there is very little that I agree with the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee on. But I noticed that last night on NPR he was quoted as saying, ``We have to reduce the deficit. I believe that we are reaching a point where the deficit could be unsustainable. We have to make this point: We're going to have to reduce government spending fairly significantly.'' And I agree with Chairman Frank on that point. And I would hope that this would be the moment where we could take that one step.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, with the chairman being in the majority, I am sure if he wants to do that, he has the opportunity to do that. If the Democratic majority wants to raise taxes on those who have less than a quarter-billion dollars in income, that is their opportunity to do that. If they want to quit funding our troops in harm's way, they have the opportunity to do that.

What we are saying is there is an opportunity right here, right now not to create yet another duplicative program and add to the debt burden. Now, I am sure we might hear that somehow this is going to create more jobs, but I ask where are the jobs? Where has the spending led to?

I encourage all to support the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.