Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 50 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 10 o'clock and 30 minutes a.m., for morning hour debates.

Mr. Speaker, only one day into the new Congress and the Republican Leadership's procedures for advancing legislation are an outrage that purposefully seeks to limit meaningful debate. By stifling opportunities to present alternatives by either Democrats or Republicans, the House leadership is showing its unwillingness to legislate and its lack of fiscal responsibility.

This morning we passed legislation to extend unemployment benefits for millions of Americans out of work. Unfortunately, due to the Republican leadership procedures, provisions could not be added to provide benefits to 1 million whose benefits have already expired.

Now, with this Continuing Resolution, we are faced with a provision for the Department of Homeland Security that would allow the Administration to bypass a normal review by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and win blanket approval on the House floor for its plan to lease up to 575,000 square feet at a cost of up to $250 million. There are important security, infrastructure, and fiscal considerations left undiscussed by this approach.

The Republican leadership is not just afraid of the Democratic proposals, but they are afraid of their own moderate members and the American public. Decision-making that leaves out normal congressional and committee processes is an attempt to remove democratic debate and public opinion from the table. This is a horrible way to begin the new Congress. The American public deserves better.

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened that the first major action of Congress will begin with a flawed process. One can only hope that this is not a sign of things to come with the Republican leadership at the helm of both chambers. Over 20,000 workers in Oregon alone were affected by the failure of Congress to pass this extension last session. These people deserve our best, not the lowest common denominator of benefits that the Republican leadership has decided it has to offer. Furthermore, the Republican leadership is not even allowing debate to occur on more reasonable options, instead choosing to limit the democratic process. The Democratic alternative provides for 26 weeks of extended unemployment benefits, helping nearly 2.5 million Americans over the next six months, while the Republican proposal only offers 13 weeks. While I am grateful for my jobless constituents that an extension will now be implemented, it is too little and too late.

Extending unemployment insurance is the fastest way to help the people that need it most, since it provides targeted and effective economic stimulus. These critical benefits increase consumer spending in the hardest-hit areas and sustain and strengthen economic recovery. It makes more sense to invest in expanded unemployment benefits now to help millions of Americans, than exploding the budget deficit with President Bush's economic stimulus plan which will cost almost $850 billion, including debt service, and whose own economists say will create less than 200,000 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Chair and ranking member for moving this forward expeditiously. It is important. I appreciate their commitment to look at the long term.

My colleague the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) has been working on this for some time. It is a critical program for the lives and livelihood of many people around the country. It is a good example of how the Federal Government can step in and help work with local communities to lessen the impact that disasters have on people's lives and property.

However, as we look at this reauthorization we must indeed look at the big picture, because the Federal Government can do a much better job of providing the right signals and incentives for individuals, communities, and State governments to act responsibly. Unfortunately, some aspects of our disaster policy on the national level are themselves a disaster, including a dominant structural model for flood plain and flood management that has a serious number of problems.

Despite spending over $40 billion in the last 40 years on flood program management to reduce flooding, we have actually seen flood losses increase to

an average of $8 billion a year, six times what it was before the program was enacted 40 years ago. Forty percent of the payments go to 2 percent of the property.

We have a serious problem of repetitive flood loss. I have often cited an example of one home in Houston, Texas, with an assessed value of less than $115,000 that has received over at least 16 losses totaling over $806,000. It is an example of a program that needs to be corrected.

Flood losses are only going to get more expensive as global warming leads to more extreme weather events. The world's largest banks and insurers are already estimating that the cost of financial losses from events such as this summer's devastating floods in Central Europe and in India will be $150 billion over the next 10 years.

Our national flood policy often encourages development and rebuilding in places with a predictably high risk of future catastrophic loss. It also fosters an unsustainable reliance on the Federal Government. That is why the Bush administration in one of their first actions upon taking office identified flood insurance reform as one of the areas that could both help the environment and save money. It is an area of reform that was identified by the Clinton administration and James Lee Witt, a FEMA director that we all worked with.

I am pleased to join with my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), in co-sponsoring the Two Flood and You Are Out of the Taxpayer Pocket Act that would reauthorize the program until the year 2007. I will not go into the details other than to say it is the sort of heavy lifting in terms of legislation that will actually unite the administration, environmentalists, people who are fiscally conservative, people who care about being able to make sure that we do not encourage people to put themselves in harm's way.

I appreciate speaking in support of this bill today and look forward with working with people in this Chamber on important reform legislation that can be a source of pride for this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.