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 340 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 340 provides for a structured rule designated by the Rules Committee for consideration of H.R. 1309. This rule allows for 25 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee by Democrats and Republicans to be made in order.

I rise today in support of this rule, Mr. Speaker. This legislation was introduced by the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), and this bill has gone through regular order. There were hearings on this issue. H.R. 1309 was marked up in the

Financial Services Committee and reported out by a unanimous vote of 54-0, and the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), provided a structured amendment process with 25 additional amendments to be considered on the House floor.

Said another way, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee, under the leadership of David Dreier, is willing to have in our upstairs committee room Members of Congress come and testify with the understanding that, in their confidence in the process of this House of Representatives, that they can bring forth their amendments, be heard by a Rules Committee that can equally give the Republican and Democrat sides the ideas that those Members wish to bring before this body, and that is what is happening with 25 amendments being made in order by the gentleman from California with the Rules Committee.

Today, I will discuss the background of the current National Flood Insurance Program or NFIP, and why a long-term reauthorization is important, what the underlying legislation does to the NFIP, and why reforms are necessary.

The NFIP was created in 1968 to address the Nation's flood exposure and the need to alleviate taxpayers' responsibility for flood losses paid out in the form of post-disaster relief following annual flooding that occurs across this country. In 1973, the Flood Disaster Protection Act established a mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement for structures located in identified special flood hazard areas. By 1984, Congress required lenders to purchase coverage on behalf of--and to bill premiums to--mortgagees who failed to purchase coverage on their own.

The 2005 hurricane season resulted in significant claims which the NFIP annual contributions could not cover, so the NFIP's borrowing authority, which was at $1.5 billion a year, was increased three times from 2005, 2006 and 2007, allowing the NFIP to borrow up to $20.8 billion. Currently, the NFIP owes the national Treasury $17.75 billion. A recent Insurance Journal article from March 8, 2011, discusses this plan and it stated: ``The proposal does attempt to put the program on sounder financial footing by insisting that current subsidized prices to most policies be raised so they eventually cover the actual cost of risk determined by the actuaries.'' The underlying bill allows for greater accountability so taxpayers, meaning the Federal Government, actually incur less risk than in the current NFIP. Limiting the exposures for the taxpayer is one piece of what this bill does.

The legislation we are discussing today reauthorizes the NFIP for 5 years through September 30, 2016. The current program is scheduled to expire on September 30 of this year. The last time Congress passed a long-term flood insurance program was in 2004. Since its expiration in 2008, the NFIP has been extended 11 times and lapsed three times during that period. These short-term extensions and lapses create needless uncertainty in the marketplace in an already struggling residential and commercial real estate market all across the United States. Charles Symington with the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America was quoted in a recent industry Insurance Journal stating: ``The 5-year extension of NFIP after several years of short-term lapses and last minute renewals is critical because it gives the marketplace certainty.''

Mr. Speaker, I believe Charles is correct. The Congress of the United States must do its job by looking at those programs, looking at their need to make sure that they work properly and to make sure that the exposure to the taxpayer is not overextended. Charles Symington has this correct.

In addition to providing a much needed long-term authorization, this bill amends the NFIP to ensure the immediate and near-term fiscal and administrative health of the program. The bill also ensures the NFIP's continued viability by encouraging broader participation in this program, increasing financial accountability, eliminating unnecessary rate subsidies, and updating the program to the needs that currently face this great Nation.

Since 2006, the NFIP has been cited by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, as a high-risk government program. This means that embedded within this program, it is not being run to the best benefit of not just its mission statement, but also the best interest of the taxpayer. The GAO has found that the NFIP does not charge sufficiently high rates to cover its claims obligations and projected future losses, resulting in significant Federal expenditures and potentially large future liabilities on top of the $17.75 billion that the program is already in debt.

To protect the American taxpayers from future risk of a Federal program already in debt, the NFIP must be reformed. That's why we are here today. The underlying bill provides for some of the necessary reforms, and certainly we don't have to debate this, but with a $14 trillion deficit and out-of-control wasteful Washington government spending, Congress must provide the necessary oversight and accountability to ensure less taxpayer risk. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a very valuable part of our Republican team here today, a gentlewoman who has taken hundreds of meetings and who has led the way in what, I believe, is to better the circumstance with the National Flood Insurance Program. She is from the Financial Services Committee and is the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

You know, Mr. Speaker, the beautiful part about the Republican Party is we have a whole bunch of Members who are just like the gentlewoman that I am going to extend time to in a minute who come to the table as friends of the taxpayer, who come and look at bills and reauthorizations of legislation from a perspective of what is the government's role, what should be the government's role, and how do we engage with the American people to keep these programs not only where they can sustain themselves, but also whether the taxpayer is well taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Shelby Township, Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the gentleman has no further speakers at this time.

I would like to yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Republican leadership team, the gentleman from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Hood River, Oregon, coming to speak not only about this bill but also his strong leadership in issues that deal directly with our Nation and keeping us fiscally sound.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Lawrenceville, Georgia, one of my colleagues on the Rules Committee, Mr. Woodall.

I want to advise my colleague, the gentleman, Mr. McGovern, that we do not have any further speakers at this time, and I would defer to his judgment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts not only for his service to the Rules Committee but also for the ideas that he represents. And I'm delighted that he had an opportunity today to state with

great clarity that the 25 amendments that have been made in order by the Rules Committee are good for this institution, this body, and lives up to the promise not just that our Speaker, the gentleman, John Boehner, and our Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, subscribe to, but also the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman, David Dreier.

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are discussing today provides a long-term certainty in the flood insurance market. It allows for greater transparency and accountability in the flood insurance program and removes or diminishes greatly the great risk that taxpayers incur from bailing out the current program.

This country is facing a $14 trillion debt with almost $18 billion of that coming from the NFIP. Congress sorely needed to retain its control over this program and to ensure that we relooked at it in its reauthorization. However, we still have a government that spends way too much, taxes too much, listens too little to the needs of the American people. And today, the Republican Party, through the leadership that we're being provided by Mrs. Biggert from Illinois, is doing exactly that one at a time, to take on the programs and needs of this great Nation.

Once again, this bill provides us much needed long-term reauthorization and amends the NFIP to ensure the immediate and near- term fiscal administrative health of this program. The bill also ensures the NFIP's continued viability by encouraging broader participation in the program, increasing financial accountability, eliminating unnecessary rate subsidies, and updating the program to meet the current needs of this great Nation.

I applaud my colleagues for introducing the bill, the gentlewoman, Mrs. Biggert, for her hard work, the hundreds of meetings that were involved taking feedback from Members of Congress, looking at their needs, and then addressing those.

I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those rare occasions when the gentleman from Texas and I actually agree on something. I think the underlying bill is a good bill, and I look forward to supporting it. While this rule is not an open rule, and I don't think that we have had an open rule on an authorizing bill since this Congress began, but the gentleman is such a good guy that I'm not going to make a big deal of that. Twenty-five of the 30 amendments that were offered were made in order, so I think we will have a good debate.

The rule before us today provides for the reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, through September 30, 2016. This program was established in 1968 in response to increasing Federal Government spending for disaster relief. The NFIP was intended to alleviate some of the public's financial burden because the government covered losses generated by the floods in the form of disaster relief payments.

With the increase of severe weather in the past few years, the need to reauthorize this program before it expires on September 30 is great. The National Flood Insurance Program, housed within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has become financially strained following severe hurricanes--including Katrina in 2005, which significantly increased insurance claims.

In addition to extending this bill for an additional 5 years, this bill also includes a 3-year delay of the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement as a result of the new, updated flood maps. This will allow our constituents to be notified if their home is now at risk of flooding and purchase insurance accordingly, by requiring annual notifications to homeowners living in flood zones about the flood risk in their community, the geographical boundaries of the flood zone, the requirement to purchase flood insurance, and a general estimate of what similar homeowners in similar communities typically pay for flood insurance.

This bill also provides optional coverage for additional living expenses incurred by homeowners when losses from a flood make their homes unfit to live in. For businesses and commercial properties or multifamily properties, this bill provides optional coverage for losses resulting from any partial or total interruption of the insureds' businesses caused by flood.

Mr. Speaker, we saw massive devastation to the southeastern part of our country in 2005, but we also saw the resiliency of the American people. It's no easy task to rebuild your entire life from the ground up. In recognizing the economic reality that having flood coverage could keep families from financial ruin but at the same time add additional and substantial costs to family budgets, this bill allows families to pay flood insurance premiums in installments.

This bill will also help our local communities prepare for the worst by authorizing the use of Community Development Block Grant funds for communities to reach out to homeowners

about flood insurance rates, mapping and inclusion in flood zones, and by authorizing localities to use Community Development Block Grant funds to supplement existing State or local funding for building code enforcement. The National Flood Insurance Reform Act gives communities the tools they need to prepare, protect and to rebuild.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Rules Committee made in order my amendment to H.R. 1309. I would like to thank the committee for working with me to make this important amendment in order. My amendment is simple. If FEMA makes a mistake in designing a flood map, communities can be reimbursed for the costs of mounting a successful challenge.

Currently, communities that dispute FEMA's flood elevations can hire a private engineering firm to get a ``second opinion'' flood map. While this may sound like an attractive option, it puts a lot of small communities in very difficult financial positions. Hiring a private engineering firm is expensive and cost prohibitive for many small communities. On the one hand, if the community decides that it's too expensive to get a second opinion, homeowners are forced to pay higher or, in some cases, needless flood insurance premiums. On the other hand, if the community does mount a successful challenge to the original FEMA map, homeowners are spared from having to pay the higher flood insurance premiums, but the town still must pay the costs associated with obtaining that second map.

Now, I've heard of many small communities that are forced into this tough situation, including the town of Holliston, Massachusetts, which is in my district. There is substantial evidence to support the argument that the FEMA map is incorrect, but town officials are struggling to find a way to pay the $30,000 it would cost to conduct a second engineering study.

I feel for these town officials. They want to do the right thing and help their residents, but these small towns are already cash-strapped and are cutting funding left and right for essential services like schools and police and firefighters, not to mention infrastructure. There simply is no money for a legitimate but expensive second opinion map. If FEMA makes a mistake in mapping a flood area, then they should pay for it. So I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is proof that Congress can work in a bipartisan way. Passed out of the House Committee on Financial Services 54-0, this bipartisan bill is timely with hurricane season just around the corner. It is also important to add that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting H.R. 1309 will have no net impact on direct spending over the 2012-2016 or 2012-2021 periods.

I want to commend my colleague from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for her leadership on this and for working in a bipartisan way and producing what, I think, is a good bill. I look forward to working with her to make sure that this is passed.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to a great leader on this issue, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me, first of all, say that I'm glad the gentleman from Georgia is excited. I'm not quite at that level. I'm okay, but I'm not excited.

This is not an open rule. We had an opportunity to have an open rule. We called for a vote. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle voted against it. But having said that, there are a lot of different amendments in here that represent a lot of different viewpoints, and so I'm okay with it. So I will begin by saying that.

Secondly, I want to share with my colleagues that this is a good bill. And it is not a boondoggle, as the gentlewoman from Michigan referred to it. It is a necessary protection for people.

The question was asked, well, why should the government be involved in flood insurance? Well, one of the reasons why is because the private insurance industry has no interest in providing the kind of coverage at an affordable level to people who need it. If there was money to be made, if they thought they could make money, you could bet the private insurance industry would step up and try to fill in the void. But they haven't, and they won't. And so without this, you will end up dealing with these catastrophes with disaster relief funds that Congress would have to approve. And that's not a very efficient or good way to deal with the issue of floods.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that this is an important bill not only because it is bipartisan in nature, but I think there is also a bipartisan consensus that it is important that we move forward with this.

Again, I want to commend Mrs. Biggert and the members of the Financial Services Committee. I want to commend Congresswoman Maxine Waters who worked together in a bipartisan way, who produced a bill that passed 54-0. You don't see that very much. And this has been a very contentious Congress, and there have been lots of partisan divides when it has come to voting on bills. But in this one area, there is consensus, which I think is an indication that it will win broad bipartisan support in this Congress.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing this rule to the floor. I want to thank all of those who are responsible for the underlying bill and look forward to supporting it. And I hope my colleagues, at a bipartisan level, will support my amendment, which I think is a good amendment.

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

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

I thank my friend from Texas for yielding.

We do have the great pleasure of serving on the Rules Committee together, though serving on the Rules Committee can be a benefit and a burden because historically there's been kind of a gentleman's agreement, I would tell you from what I've read about the institution; that if the committee of jurisdiction brings out a clever idea, they only bring out those clever ideas that they really like. And then the leadership of the House, whichever party is in control of the House, then only allows those reported bills that they really like to show up here on the floor of the House for us to debate. So then when the Rules Committee gets around to considering amendments, well, maybe the only amendments that are allowed are things that nibble around the edges but don't really make any substantive changes to the underlying bill.

Five months, six now, I've been here in the U.S. House of Representatives as part of this freshman class, and what we're doing today excites me. And to folks who have been here a little bit longer, maybe it's not as exciting to you as it is to me. But what is happening here today, not only did we get a bill that went through the regular order process--coming out of committee, no special games played, went through the amendment process in committee, everybody got a vote, and in fact was reported unanimously out of committee, as I understand-- then it came to the Rules Committee. We had about 30 amendments offered up at the Rules Committee. A couple weren't germane, a couple were duplicative, but everything else we allowed. And one of those amendments was an amendment that said this is just a dumb program, let's scrap it, send it to the States and start over again. Wow.

And now there are a lot of amendments that we allowed that said let's change a ``six'' to a ``five'' or let's change this number of members to this number of members, things that would improve a bill, nibble around the edges. But this rule today, for the first time that I can recall, allows an amendment that says the entire underlying legislation is headed in the wrong direction. Let's take a new direction.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are folks who would be scared about that kind of amendment, folks who would be intimidated to let something come to the floor. We have absolutely no idea what's going to happen.

But this House has made a new commitment, a renewed commitment to expressing the voice of the American people. And guess what? The only amendments that are going to pass on the floor today are ones the American people are behind. The only amendments that are going to pass the floor today are ones that get 218 votes and represent the majority will of this U.S. House of Representatives. It just makes me so proud.

And I hope, Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't follow the process as closely as you and I do, that they will see what a difference that is. And it is a difference from administrations going back 2 years, 4 years, 8 years, 10 years, 12 years. Folks say if it's an idea that has the support of the House, then it deserves to be heard, and we're going to hear all of those amendments here on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, it's not easy to maintain that level of openness in the House. It takes a lot of cooperation between both sides of the aisle to make openness work. We have had that cooperation. And I don't mean cooperation in the sense that folks agree on absolutely all of the ideas. I mean cooperation in the sense that folks know that when the House works its will, the people's work gets done. When the House works its will, the American people's voice is best heard.

And I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their commitment to making that work. And I again thank my friend from Texas for yielding me the time this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011.

A full 5-year reauthorization of the program is critically important for our Nation. I want to thank and commend Chairwoman Biggert and Ranking Member Waters for their leadership on this issue as ushering in a 5-year reauthorization will provide welcomed relief for those who live in our country's floodplains.

I thank Chairwoman Biggert for including language from my own H.R. 902, legislation that would modernize FEMA's flood zone designations. Specifically, it would update current law to take local, State and Federal funding into account when determining flood zone designations. H.R. 1309 would extend the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, for 5 years and allow property owners in participating communities to purchase protection against flooding.

As we have seen across our country this year and in recent years, the NFIP is critically important to so many Americans. When a flood disaster strikes, the homeowners who have flood insurance can at least see their way through the crisis. The NFIP offers the victims of floods the ability to make their lives whole again. Of course, the best insurance against a flood is a strong flood protection system.

In my hometown of Sacramento, California, residents have taxed themselves hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for stronger flood protection. On one project in the Natomas Basin alone, State and local governments will have spent more than $300 million over the last 5 years on levee improvements. This has all been invested, I must point out, without acknowledgement by FEMA or funding from the Corps of Engineers. I am working tirelessly to change that and ensure that the Federal Government follows through with their commitment to this project.

There is no doubt that the Natomas Basin, like most of Sacramento, is at risk of flooding as it lays at the confluence of two great rivers. We know we must continue to build up our levees as well as carry flood insurance. Fortunately, the Sacramento region is working with the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Water Resources to implement an aggressive levee improvement plan to achieve a 200-year level of flood protection.

While these efforts are ongoing, flood insurance has become mandatory for many homeowners, insurance that can cost more than $1,350 annually. That is nearly four times the PRP rate. The increasing cost of flood insurance, which is on top of the annual flood protection assessments that my constituents are already paying, compounds their financial burden. For these reasons, I believe that it is reasonable to phase in higher rates over a 5-year period.

I have an amendment that I will offer during debate on the underlying bill that will phase in the full cost of flood insurance policies in a more equitable way moving forward. I believe that this is a necessity that will assist homeowners in these trying economic times. I look forward to its being included in the overall reauthorization. This approach would encourage responsible homeowners across the country to continue paying into NFIP without adding risk to either the floodplain or the NFIP.

Again, I thank Chairwoman Biggert and Ranking Member Waters for their leadership on this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I appreciate the work of Mr. Sessions and the very powerful Rules Committee in bringing forward this rule, which I support. And I appreciate the work of our colleague from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for introducing this legislation and working with me on some issues that are critically important to the people of eastern and southern Oregon, and, frankly, all across Oregon, especially in places like Milton- Freewater, Oregon.

In Milton-Freewater, citizens are paying hundreds of dollars more in flood insurance because FEMA came in and did a remap process, and it has put a real burden on the people of this community. The community has already set in motion a plan to fix the levees that FEMA says have fallen out of certification, to bring them back into compliance.

This bill could provide relief from the mandatory insurance purchase requirements--remember, you've got government sort of mandatory insurance hanging over these folks--while the community works to improve the levees. It also will force FEMA to factor in the actual protection afforded by existing levees regardless of their accreditation status.

Part of the problem we have out there in Milton-Freewater is you have a couple of agencies fighting over whether there should be brush allowed to grow on the levees. One agency says, oh, we need that for shade in the river, and the other says, no, that actually degrades the integrity of the levee. So we have Federal agencies fighting, and the people in Milton-Freewater get stuck with the bill.

These commonsense steps and others in the bill will provide the relief Milton-Freewater is in desperate need of. These changes will, according to one county commissioner from the area, benefit more than 2,000 people in the community.

Now down in southern Oregon, citizens in Jackson County have been adversely impacted by the recently redrawn FEMA flood maps that, as FEMA has admitted, used inferior mapping methods for some portions. Now the new maps force many homeowners into 100- and 500-year floodplains for the first time. Now that means they have to buy costly insurance when they may not even need it. It's not cheap either. While it runs about $400 a year for the 2-year discount period, premiums skyrocket after that to as

much as $25,000 annually, I'm told. Now, this bill would waive the burdensome mandatory insurance purchase requirements while the new maps are being appealed by homeowners. Homeowners shouldn't get stuck with this bill, this extraordinary cost, when it may, in fact, be a mapping error that even the agency admits they used inferior methods on.

This bill also improves the mapping process by reinstating the Technical Mapping Advisory Council, which will be better suited to take into account local factors during remapping, including natural topography and decertified levees that had not previously been considered.

This bill works to bring the National Flood Insurance Program out of the red while allowing communities more local input on their flood plans and time to adjust should they be designated as a high-risk area.

So I urge my colleagues both to approve the rule and the underlying bill so that we may reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program in a commonsense, fiscally responsible and bipartisan way.