To require a study of voluntary community-based flood insurance options and how such options could be incorporated into the national flood insurance program, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6186) to require a study of voluntary community-based flood insurance options and how such options could be incorporated into the national flood insurance program, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous material on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6186, introduced by my friend and colleague on the Financial Services Committee, Congresswoman Gwen Moore.

H.R. 6816 would require the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, the agency which administers the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, to conduct a study on the advantages and disadvantages of providing voluntary community-based flood insurance through NFIP and report its recommendations for implementation to Congress within 18 months. H.R. 6186 also requires the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to analyze FEMA's report and submit its comments or recommendations on it to Congress within 6 months.

Community-based flood insurance is an insurance technique where a risk assessment is made for all the buildings in a community, and then premiums to cover that risk are paid collectively by that community rather than the current practice of assessing each building individually and having each individual owner pay a premium. This innovative tool may represent a new and better way for some communities at risk of flooding to take the necessary steps to protect their citizens.

In fact, FEMA has stated in congressional testimony that voluntary community-based flood insurance could help the NFIP better account for the full cost of flood risk, as well as provide incentives to encourage communities to implement greater flood mitigation measures. Thus, we think it's appropriate to commission this study of the community-based flood insurance concept so that FEMA can understand how it could be put to the greatest benefit.

Congresswoman Moore's community-based flood insurance study provision was originally introduced as part of H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011, the bipartisan, long-term NFIP reauthorization measure that passed the House with over 400 votes

last summer. During the previous year, Congresswoman Moore's study language was also included as part of long-term NFIP reauthorization efforts that passed the House three additional times as part of other bills.

Unfortunately, Congresswoman Moore's text, which is now H.R. 6186, was not included in the bipartisan Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act that was signed into law on July 6. However, the Financial Services Committee remains committed to enacting this provision, and I want to commend Congresswoman Moore for all her hard work on this measure, and I am a cosponsor.

With that, I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6186, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start out by expressing my deepest appreciation to the manager of this bill, Representative Biggert, and also a cosponsor of this legislation, in addition to Representative Bachus and Representative Waters, a bipartisan initiative.

As Mrs. Biggert has indicated, this study was originally included in the flood insurance bill that passed the House but was later dropped for reasons of expediency. It was not controversial in negotiations with the Senate. I believe that a community-based flood insurance option may eventually provide a wonderful cost-saving option for communities within the framework of the overall National Flood Insurance Program.

The potential for savings and community empowerment certainly merits a study. H.R. 6186 would require FEMA to study voluntary community- based flood insurance options and examine how such options could be incorporated into the National Flood Insurance Program.

The idea is to study group flood insurance policies for a National Flood Insurance Program-participating community or a FEMA-designated flood plain so that everyone in the community would pay the same rate. Now, this approach has merit because it means not only potentially lower rates due to increased participation, but there is also the option of providing lower-income households with access to vouchers to purchase flood insurance as part of the group.

The group rating, of course, would spread the risk to an affordable extent for each individual homeowner. An analogy for this concept is group or employee health insurance coverage versus individual coverage. We all understand that group coverage is less expensive than individual coverage due to the economies of scale of streamlined underwriting. The difference is, in this case, a community, not an individual, would be the policy holder.

Now, this brings me to a very important potential benefit of this approach: increased incentives for communities to take affirmative actions to mitigate the threat from floods in the community. Now, while an individual flood insurance holder has absolutely no incentive or means to, say, build stronger levees or dikes, a community policyholder would have the means and incentives to take those kinds of precautions. In theory, under this model, the homeowner would pay insurance like a utility bill on a monthly or quarterly basis.

Finally, I want to point out that there is precedent for this idea. Under current regulations, FEMA could issue group flood insurance policies. The program was limited, but it was successful. This bill only adds that FEMA examine the cost and benefits of using this approach on an ongoing basis as an option for communities.

I urge all my House colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on the Legislative Day of September 10, 2012, upon request of a leave of absence, a series of votes were held. Had I been present for these rollcall votes, I would have casted the following votes: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 6122, To revise the authority of the Librarian of Congress to accept gifts and bequests on behalf of the Library, and for other purposes (Roll No. 557)--I vote ``Yes''; On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended H.R. 2139, Lions Clubs International Century of Service Commemorative Coin Act (Roll No. 558)--I vote ``Yes''; On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 6186, To require a study of voluntary community-based flood insurance options and how such options could be incorporated into the national flood insurance program (Roll No. 559)-- I vote ``Yes.''

On the Legislative Day of September 11, 2012, upon request of a leave of absence, a series of votes were held. Had I been present for these rollcall votes, I would have casted the following votes: On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 773, Providing for consideration of H.R. 5544, to authorize and expedite a land exchange involving National Forest System land in the State of Minnesota for the public school system, and for consideration of H.R. 5949, to extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for 5 years (Roll No. 560)--I vote ``No''; On Agreeing to the Resolution H. Res. 773, Providing for consideration of H.R. 5544, to authorize and expedite a land exchange involving National Forest System land in the State of Minnesota for the public school system, and for consideration of H.R. 5949, to extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for 5 years (Roll No. 561)--I vote ``No''; and On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended H.R. 4264, FHA Emergency Fiscal Solvency Act (Roll No. 562)--I vote ``Yes.''

Mr. Speaker, during the course of the week, I was absent for legislative business; had I been present, I would have cast the following votes:

Rollcall 557--H.R. 6122--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 558--H.R. 2139--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--``yes.''

Rollcall 559--H.R. 6186--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 560--H. Res. 773--On Ordering the Previous Question-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 561--H. Res. 773--On Agreeing to the Resolution--``yes.''

Rollcall 562--H.R. 4264--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--``yes.''

Rollcall 563--H.R. 5544--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''

Rollcall 564--H.R. 5544--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''

Rollcall 565--H.R. 5544--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''

Rollcall 566--H.R. 5544--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''

Rollcall 567--H.R. 5544--On Motion to Recommit with Instructions-- ``no.''

Rollcall 568--H.R. 5544--On Passage--``yes.''

Rollcall 569--H.R. 5949--On Passage--``yes.''

Rollcall 570--H.R. 3857--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--``yes.''

Rollcall 571--H.R. 5865--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--``no.''

Rollcall 572--H. Res. 778--On Ordering the Previous Question-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 573--H. Res. 778--On Agreeing to the Resolution--``yes.''

Rollcall 574--H. Res. 779--On Agreeing to the Resolution--``yes.''

Rollcall 575--H.R. 1775--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--``yes.''

Rollcall 580--S. 3245--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass-- ``yes.''

Rollcall 581--H.R. 6213--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''

Rollcall 582--H.R. 6213--On Agreeing to the Amendment--``no.''

Rollcall 583--H.R. 6213--On Motion to Recommit with Instructions-- ``no.''

Rollcall 584--H.R. 6213--On Passage--``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 10, 2012 I had obligations that necessitated my attention in Champaign, Illinois and missed suspension votes on H.R. 6186, which directs FEMA to assess options, methods, and strategies for making voluntary community-based flood insurance policies available through the National Flood Insurance Program. H.R. 2139, which directs the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue as legal tender $1 coins in commemoration of the centennial of the founding of the Lions Clubs International. And lastly, H.R. 6122, which directs the Librarian of Congress to accept in the interest of the Library of Congress, its collections, or its service personal property valued at $25,000 or less, nonpersonal services, or voluntary and uncompensated personal services.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the above stated bills.