Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It's no secret that our Nation's $14.3 trillion debt poses an extraordinary threat to our financial future, and extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act would finally end the fiscal uncertainty and force the Federal Government to put the interests of the taxpayers first.

Our colleagues across the aisle claim that this plan goes too far by restricting future borrowing, but the reality is that this bill simply caps spending at the same sustainable rates as past generations, about 20 percent of GDP, a post-World War II average.

For too long, government has spent the taxpayers into a debt they cannot afford. Cut, Cap, and Balance would show our creditors, our competitors, and the American people that we are willing to make the tough choices needed to restore confidence and growth in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to cut the spending and give American businesses the certainty and stability they need to create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill

(H.R. 33) to amend the Securities Act of 1933 to specify when certain securities issued in connection with church plans are treated as exempted securities for purposes of that Act, as amended.

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 in support of H.R. 33, the Church Plan Investment Clarification Act. I would like to thank my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee for their support of this legislation. I would also like to thank Mr. Carson of Indiana for managing the bill for the other side of the aisle.

H.R. 33, the Church Plan Investment Clarification Act, is a technical corrections bill to amend Public Law 108-359, the Church Pension Fairness Act. It clarifies an exemption in current law to allow church pension plans, like secular pension plans, to invest in collective trusts.

Due to a technical error included in the 2004 law, the necessary exemption from the Securities Act of 1933 was not provided to give church pension plans access to collective trusts. Collective trusts allow pension plans to pool their assets, diversify their investments, and share risk and transaction costs with other pension plans, thereby reaping the benefits of collective buying power. Again, H.R. 33 clarifies that church pension plans, like secular plans, may invest in collective trusts.

On June 22, 2011, the House Committee on Financial Services by voice vote unanimously approved H.R. 33. This bill is similar to the original Church Pension Fairness Act bill, H.R. 1533, which the House passed in 2003 by a vote of 397-0.

Finally, the bill is supported by a number of organizations, including the Church Alliance; the General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church; the YMCA Retirement Fund; Everence Financial on behalf of the Mennonite Retirement Trust, the retirement plan for the Mennonite Church USA; the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in North America; Church Pension Group, on behalf of the Church Pension Fund, an independent agency of the Episcopal Church; the Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board of the American Baptist Churches in the USA; the Board of Pensions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; and the Pensions Board of the United Church of Christ.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise to engage in a brief colloquy with my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) about the issue of energy efficiency in buildings as it relates to funding for the Energy Information Administration.

First let me say that I very much appreciate the committee's efforts with respect to the EIA and the overall bill. The EIA is an essential resource for the commercial building sector as they seek to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy costs.

I want to clarify the intent of the committee direction for the EIA funding of the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey, also known as CBECS. I recognize that the committee recommended an appropriation of $105 million for EIA in fiscal year 2012, roughly $9 million above fiscal year 2011 levels.

Unfortunately, the committee also included limiting language that I'm concerned about. Does the gentleman from New Jersey consider CBECS a priority for EIA?

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman. As you know, I serve as cochair of the High Performance Building Caucus with Representative Russ Carnahan of Missouri. Many members of the High Performance Building Coalition have come to us to express their concern about an updated CBECS since the latest data is nearly a decade old.

Substantial investments in the commercial building sector have been made since the last CBECS was published in 2003. The updated data is not only valuable to building owners looking to make improvements, but also necessary to inform the Annual Energy Outlook that we, in Congress, rely on.

Finally, I would like to point out that the building renovation sector relies overwhelmingly on American-made goods for its work. In fact, over 90 percent of the manufacturing of furnaces, insulation and ductwork is here in the United States. So by making this data available to commercial buildings through CBECS, we are directly supporting American jobs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1309.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011. I'd like to thank Ms. Waters and all the Members from both sides of the aisle who helped to craft this bill.

On May 13, the Financial Services Committee favorably reported the Flood Insurance Reform Act by a unanimous vote of 54-0. This bill is important and reflects the hard work and bipartisan support of the Financial Services Committee.

It would reauthorize for 5 years the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP. The bill would enact a series of reforms designed to, number one, improve NFIP's financial stability; two, to reduce the burden on taxpayers; three, restore integrity to the FEMA mapping system; four, to explore ways to increase private market participation; and, five, to help bring certainty to the housing market.

For over 40 years, taxpayers have subsidized flood insurance premiums for policyholders. To improve NFIP's financial stability, H.R. 1309 phases in actuarially sound rates for policyholders and phases out taxpayer-subsidized rates. As a result, the Congressional Budget Office stated that the bill generates $4.2 billion; and absent a Katrina-like catastrophe, the bill will actually accelerate NFIP's payments on its $17.75 billion debt to the taxpayer. As it stands, NFIP has already paid back taxpayers about $1.8 billion.

But perhaps most importantly, H.R. 1309 eliminates a barrier to the development of a private flood insurance market and puts us on a path towards a responsible, long-term plan that eliminates taxpayer risk.

For the first time, policyholders can choose private flood insurance over government flood insurance without the risk of lender rejection; and the bill eliminates taxpayer-subsidized rates so that the private sector can offer consumers increasingly competitive rates as compared to the NFIP. Second, FEMA is required to solicit bids to determine the cost to the private sector, not to the taxpayer, bearing the risk of flood insurance.

Third, it requires that GAO and FEMA evaluate the feasibility of voluntary, community-based flood insurance. And, fourth, the bill reiterates FEMA's existing authority to purchase reinsurance from the private sector as an alternative to the U.S. Treasury and taxpayers serving as a backstop to NFIP.

Finally, the bill addresses many of the concerns that Members have raised with us about new maps, especially as they relate to the dam and levee decertifications. It allows communities to suspend the requirement to purchase flood insurance while they work to construct or fix their flood protection systems.

Madam Chairman, when Congress created NFIP, there was no viable private-sector flood insurance market. Taxpayers were providing increasing amounts of direct assistance through disaster relief to flood victims. Without reforms contained in this bill, taxpayers will never be paid back the debt they are owed; homeowners and businesses will have limited or no access to flood insurance; and Congress will inevitably have to bail out flood disaster victims, as it did prior to 1968. We cannot allow this to happen.

This bill is the first significant reform to the program in nearly a decade. The NFIP is too important to let lapse and too in debt to continue without reform. I look forward to today's amendment debate and urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, June 2, 2011.

Hon. Spencer Bachus,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Bachus: I am writing concerning H.R. 1309,

the ``Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011,'' which is

scheduled for floor consideration soon. As a result of your

having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 1309 that fall

within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the

Judiciary, we are able to agree to forego action on this bill

in order that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor

for consideration.

The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual

understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1309 at

this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject

matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our

Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the

bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may

address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our

Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an

appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate

conference involving this or similar legislation, and

requests your support for any such request.

I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 1309, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during floor

consideration.

Sincerely,

Lamar Smith,

Chairman.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco), another great member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time both sides have remaining?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan, Candice Miller.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).

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

With the NFIP's authorization set to expire on September 30, it's really critical that the House pass the bill and work with the Senate to shape a final commonsense reform measure. We have to avoid a recurrence of what happened in the last Congress when the program lapsed and caused turmoil in a recovering housing market. Houses couldn't be closed if they didn't have insurance and if they had a mortgage. At that time, it was simply extended without any reforms. So if there is no viable private insurance market, we're going to have to pay more. So I would suggest that we really look forward to passing this bill.

Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Madam Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to our distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1309. It's a bill to reform and reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program. I think that we have had a great debate, and it certainly is a pleasure to have a bill that has such bipartisan support. I think it's such an important bill.

It's going to enact a series of reforms designed to improve NFIP's financial stability, reduce the burden on taxpayers, restore integrity to the FEMA mapping system, and explore ways to increase the private market participation and help bring certainty to the housing market. It's a $4.2 billion revenue raiser. And I think that that's very important too, that we will really be able to change the scope of this. If we go back to 1968 when this started, there was no private insurance, and this is why this happened. And we have to keep it that way, or we will pay so much more for disaster relief when this happens to so many people who live in floodplains.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I really thank the members of the Financial Services Committee, particularly Ms. Waters and Mr. Frank, and on our side Mr. Bachus, the chairman.

SmarterSafer.org,

Washington, DC, June 30, 2011.

Hon. John A. Boehner,

Speaker of the House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi:

SmarterSafer.org, a diverse coalition of taxpayer advocates,

environmental organizations and insurance interests, urges

you to quickly take up comprehensive flood insurance reform,

like H.R. 1309, a bill that extends the program for five

years and makes meaningful reform to the program.

Congress must act quickly to reauthorize the program before

it expires in September, and must couple any reauthorization

with meaningful reforms. The flood program is almost $18

billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury, and that amount will

likely grow as a result of recent flooding. To ensure the

viability of the program so that those at risk can rebuild

after a disaster, to protect taxpayers, and to protect

environmentally sensitive areas, Congress must make

significant reforms to the flood insurance program.

A comprehensive bill, like H.R. 1309, which was the subject

of significant hearings and debate, is needed. When you

consider this bill, we ask that you look at adopting changes

to do the following: phase out all subsidies, extend and

streamline the mitigation grants program including making

permanent the severe repetitive loss mitigation program;

ensure the program is not expanded to additional coverages;

and allow for no mapping or mandatory purchase delays. Though

we believe that H.R. 1309 is a step in the right direction,

with these changes you will be putting the flood program on a

sustainable path. Under H.R. 1309 flood maps will be up to

date and accurate; subsidies in the program will be phased

out; and FEMA is authorized to purchase reinsurance to cover

losses and protect taxpayers. We urge you to schedule this

bill for consideration.

Sincerely,

Environmental Organizations--American Rivers, Ceres,

Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense Fund, National

Wildlife Federation, Republicans for Environmental

Protection, Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy; Consumer and

Taxpayer Advocates--American Conservative Union, Americans

for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Center on Risk,

Regulation, and Markets--The Heartland Institute, Competitive

Enterprise Institute.

Insurer Interests--Allianz of America, Association of

Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers, Chubb, Liberty Mutual Group,

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, National

Flood Determination Association, Reinsurance Association of

America, Swiss Re, USAA; Housing--National Low Income Housing

Coalition, National Leased Housing Association; Allied

Organizations--American Consumer Institute, Friends of the

Earth, International Code Council, National Fire Protection

Association, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Zurich.

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 340, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 8 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan package of amendments that we are accepting. I urge my colleagues to support the amendments en bloc.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

I urge support for the amendments en bloc.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment would impose penalties against lenders who require borrowers to maintain flood insurance in an amount greater than the outstanding principal balance of the loan.

Limiting the amount of coverage to the unpaid principal balance leaves consumers at risk of having to incur the costs of repair on their own and, additionally, is not reflective of the current state of industry practices. In fact, with the exception of VA loans, limiting insurance to the unpaid principal balance is not recommended under existing law.

Consumers, not lenders, will bear the financial brunt of a disaster. Limiting flood insurance to the unpaid principal balance may protect the lender's financial interest in the property; however, it doesn't protect the consumer's equity and investment in the property.

NFIP establishes the minimum amount of coverage required at the lesser of the outstanding balance of the loan or the maximum available NFIP coverage, which today is $250,000 for residential and $500,000 for commercial properties.

The standard NFIP dwelling flood policy requires that one to two family owner-occupied dwellings be insured for the replacement value in order for losses to be paid for the cost to repair or replace the property. If these properties are not insured for at least 80 percent of the replacement value at the time of loss, the policyholder cannot obtain the full benefits of the policy and may not receive sufficient funds to repair or replace the property damaged by flood.

Guidelines issued by Federal regulators encourage and authorize lenders to require flood insurance at replacement cost, not to exceed NFIP maximum available coverage. The guidelines also urge lenders to follow the same rules in calculating flood coverage as they do in calculating hazard coverage, where standard industry practice is to require coverage at replacement cost.

In the case of condominiums, the guidelines issued by Federal regulators require lenders to ensure that flood protection has been obtained for the replacement value of the property improvements, not to exceed the NFIP maximum limits.

I would request a ``no'' vote on the Speier amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen's amendment, while well intentioned, would prevent the National Flood Insurance Program from moving toward a more actuarially sound basis for calculating premiums in as quick a manner as possible.

The underlying bill provides that FEMA, at the discretion of the administrator, can increase the chargeable premiums for flood policyholders by up to 20 percent once every 12 months until the premium being paid properly reflects the risk associated with the property.

The amendment is intended to save policyholders from the ``sticker shock'' premium increases potentially pose, but the underlying bill addresses this concern by allowing for a gradual phase-in of the actuarial rates instead of an abrupt adjustment.

One of the core goals of this bill is to move the NFIP towards a more actuarially sound, properly functioning

program, and any amendment to slow down that effort must be opposed.

The amendment would strike part of section 5 that would increase annual limits on premium rates. It increases from 10 to 20 percent. The sponsors of the amendment have stated that their objective is to prevent a 100 percent increase in possible premium hikes, but what it's doing is really going to delay our being able to have a more actuarially sound basis for calculating the premiums in as quick a manner as possible.

Section 5 really addresses this concern by phasing in all of the non pre-FIRM properties to full actuarial rates over time to eliminate the subsidy and to allow the premiums paid for policies to reflect the risk covered by those policies. So I would oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Under H.R. 1309, FEMA is required to update its flood maps according to the Technical Mapping Advisory Council's recommendations within 6 months or report to Congress why it has rejected them. As part of the new standard for the flood insurance rate maps, FEMA must include in any rate map areas of residual risk, including areas behind levees, dams and other manmade structures. I'm afraid that the Cardoza amendment would fail to provide homeowners with a real assessment of their risks, thereby impairing their ability to prepare for such natural disasters.

And to address concerns about the mapping process, H.R. 1309 reinstates the Technical Mapping Advisory Council to bring in the expertise and perspectives of other stakeholders in FEMA's process for setting new mapping standards. The amendment I think would weaken these new mapping standards that are designed to give homeowners and the NFIP an accurate portrait of flood risk, and I would oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

I think that proper and effective notification by FEMA allows the protection provided by the NFIP to reach out to those who need it. And the amendment also includes provisions designed to benefit communities that believe that they have been incorrectly mapped in the flood program, further enhancing the validity of the maps by providing an appeal for newly mapped areas. I support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson).

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment, which would direct the GAO to conduct a study on all- peril insurance policies for residential properties, to me really expands beyond the scope of this bill.

Fundamental reform of the National Flood Insurance Program should be the priority of this Congress, including the removal of subsidies over time to improve the long-term solvency of the program. In contrast, the Scott amendment would dramatically increase the scope at a time when government insurance programs, such as the NFIP, are essentially insolvent and remain grossly underfunded.

If the gentleman would like to have an all-peril study, he has the option to write a letter to the GAO and request such a study, and that will be done, but to tie it into the flood insurance makes it seem like we're going to expand the flood insurance when we're really trying to decrease the expansion and really to bring in the private sector to do this. I really think that this is way beyond what we should be doing.

His amendment would pave the way to expand the Federal Government's role in the private insurance market by creating a massive new program to offer government-provided coverage backed by taxpayer dollars against property losses. If the gentleman is really interested in the drywall particularly, this is something that he can ask for a study on that, and it really should not be within the scope of this bill.

I would urge opposition to this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time and request a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I know we have had quite a bit of discussion about this already, but maybe we will bring this to a close with this amendment, for a while anyway.

Let me just say that the underlying bill really doesn't ask for additional borrowing authority. In fact, the reforms in the underlying bill will accelerate the ability of NFIP to pay down its debt. This bill is a revenue raiser and will bring in $4.2 billion to the program.

We have addressed the fact that there have been some problems with NFIP. I think there was some mismanagement, and there was a need for reform. That is why we have spent so much time on this bill to talk to all of the different groups, to talk to all of the Members who have had concerns.

I have got here a list. According to a broad coalition of industry experts and trade associations who all support this, more than 5.6 million policyholders depend on the NFIP as their only source of protection against economic devastation from a flood. In fact, I could read all of those who asked for a ``no'' vote on this amendment. We have the American Insurance Association, American Land Title Association, Building Owners and Management Association, CCIM Institute, Chamber SWLA, Council of Insurer Agents and Brokers, The Financial Services Roundtable, Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, Institute of Real Estate Management, International Council of Shopping Centers, Manufactured Housing Institute, Mortgage Bankers Association, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, National Association of REALTORS, National Ready Mix Concrete Association, Society of Industrial and Office Realtors, Property and Casualty Insurance Association of America, The Risk and Insurance Management Society, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

You know, if 5.6 million property owners can't rely on this, what is going to happen? What is going to happen is we wouldn't have flood insurance. And on May 13, the Financial Services Committee favorably reported the Flood Insurance Reform Act by a unanimous vote of 54-0. Anybody who doesn't think that is something on how much time we put into this and how much people care about it, 54-0 in this Congress, I don't think that has happened for a bill that is this important for a long, long time. It really reflects the hard work and the bipartisan support of the Financial Services Committee.

Again, it has a series of reforms that are going to make this a much better program. It improves the financial stability of the NFIP. It reduces the burden on taxpayers. It restores integrity to the FEMA mapping system and explores ways to increase private market participation. It helps to bring certainty to the housing market. I would oppose this amendment strongly.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

If this bill were not to pass and if this amendment were to be agreed to, it would be devastating to at least 20,000 communities if there was no flood insurance. Congress would inevitably have to bail out flood disaster victims, as it did prior to 1968; and it would cost so much more money. And the President would have to sign on to any devastation that might be made, as is what happened in Louisiana after Katrina. I oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I submit the following letter in support of funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science in H.R. 2354, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2012.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, May 13, 2011.

Hon. Rodney Frelinghuysen,

Chairman, Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Subcommittee, House Appropriations Committee, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2354. I commend the work of my colleagues, Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky of Energy and Water Development appropriations, for their efforts to balance important energy and infrastructure funding in nuclear energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, and in particular the Office of Science.

Strong funding at DOE is critical for the development of future reactor technologies and licensing for new nuclear and small modular nuclear power. Similarly, healthy funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is vital to our waterway commerce, protection from invasive species and water quality in the Midwest.

Finally, by maintaining our investment in the Office of Science, Congress will preserve our capacity to innovate, enhance our competitive edge in the global economy, and create good American jobs well into the future. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the Office of Science.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

I would like to thank Mr. Sessions for introducing and managing this rule. I would also like to thank Rules Committee Chairman Dreier and the leadership for scheduling floor time.

On May 13, the Financial Services Committee favorably reported, as has been said, the Flood Insurance Reform Act by a unanimous vote of 54-0. This bill is important and reflects the hard work and bipartisan support of the Financial Services Committee. It would reauthorize for 5 years the National Flood Insurance Program, the NFIP, and enact a series of reforms designed to improve NFIP's financial stability, reduce the burden on taxpayers, and explore ways to increase private market participation.

To improve NFIP's financial stability, the bill phases in actuarially sound rates for policyholders. In doing so, it will help to shore up NFIP and allow it to pay down its $17.75 billion debt to the taxpayer. It also increases the minimum deductibles for properties while at the same time giving homeowners more flexibility on how they can pay for their flood insurance. According to the CBO, the combined effect of these and other changes would be to bring in an additional $4.2 billion of net income to the NFIP over the next 10 years.

Perhaps most importantly, H.R. 1309 eliminates a barrier to the development of a private flood insurance market and puts us on a path toward a long-term plan for flood insurance that eliminates taxpayer risk.

First, it requires lenders to accept non-NFIP-backed flood insurance coverage provided by a private entity if that coverage meets all the same requirements as NFIP-backed flood insurance.

Second, FEMA is required to solicit bids from the private sector and report to Congress on the cost to the private sector, not to the taxpayer, of bearing the risk of flood insurance.

Finally, the bill addresses many of the concerns that Members have raised with us about new maps, especially as they relate to dam and levee decertifications. This bill allows newly mapped communities facing higher rates to annually, and for up to 3 years, request that FEMA suspend the requirement to purchase flood insurance while they work to construct or fix their flood protection systems.

With the NFIP's authorization set to expire on September 30, it is critical that the House act to pass this bill as soon as possible. Doing so will give the House and Senate time to begin a dialogue and to shape a commonsense reform measure. In short, we fully intend to avoid a recurrence of what happened in the last Congress, which was when the program lapsed, causing turmoil in a recovering housing market, and was simply extended without reforms. Congress cannot continue to kick the can down the road.

With that, again, I thank Mr. Sessions and the members of the Rules Committee. I would also like to thank all of the Members from both sides of the aisle who helped to craft this bill. I thank my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee for their work on this bill, especially Ms. Waters, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Dold, and Mr. Stivers, who are original cosponsors of this bipartisan bill.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule for H.R. 1309.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life of an American soldier from Homer Glen, Illinois, who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of his country.

Private First Class Michael C. Olivieri was a dedicated soldier serving his first tour of duty in Baghdad where he was helping to train and support the Iraqi police. On June 6, his base came under attack, resulting in the death of five soldiers, including Michael.

Last week would have marked Michael's first wedding anniversary, which he had hoped to celebrate during a scheduled visit home. During that same visit, he was to attend his sister's wedding.

Mr. Speaker, Michael was a caring husband, a loving son and grandson, a beloved sibling, and a dear friend to countless members of the Homer Glen community. A 2002 graduate of Lockport Township High School, Michael attended Southern Illinois University and went on to enlist in the U.S. Army, where his talents and leadership were on full display.

Often playing the guitar for his buddies in the field, Michael was well known for lifting the spirits of his fellow soldiers, and he will be missed dearly by those who knew and loved him.

Today I would like to offer my heartfelt condolences to his wife, Sharon; his parents, Michael and Jody; his sisters, Abby and Ashley, his brother, Joe; and his grandparents, Joseph and Adelaide Olivieri and Dorothy Riegel.

Private Michael C. Olivieri was a great man, a distinguished soldier, and a true American hero.

I thank the gentlelady for having this tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of the Republican women who are here and especially the freshmen because they have brought so much enthusiasm, so much talent, so much intelligence to this body, and it really has been such a help to us.

When I was elected to Congress, I was the only Republican woman to be there. It was kind of lonesome, so I thought, well, at least I can be the president, the vice president, the treasurer, the secretary of the freshmen Republican women that year, but there was nobody else to be there with me, so I had to do it all alone. I've been here a long time. This is my 13th year. To see what has happened and the enthusiasm and what is going on and the changes that are happening is incredible.

I came from a family where my father was the first to go to college. His parents had emigrated from Finland even though they were Swedish. He went to college, but he always said to my three siblings and me, You can do anything you want to do if you get a good education; but he made one mistake, maybe, because he said he would pay for it. So my older sister went to medical school; I went to law school; my brother went to law school; my sister got her master's in Latin and Greek, but she doesn't use that too much anymore.

So that was true, because I never, never expected that I would be in Congress. I never expected that I would be a lawyer. In fact, I went to a wonderful school--Stanford for undergraduate--and then applied to law school. For my first year, I went to the University of California; and the first thing that greeted me was a professor who said, You're taking the place of someone who belongs here, which was a man. That really has changed my life, because I excelled in everything I did. I transferred law schools, by the way, and went back to Illinois.

My first job out of law school was clerking for a judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The reason I got it was that a young man from a different school where the judge had always hired-- the judge didn't particularly like him, so he called over to Northwestern, and they sent me over there, and that's how I got that job. I continued in the legal profession, but I found that I got involved in a lot of volunteer work along the way, too--being chairman of boards and whatever and then running for and being elected to the State assembly.

The reason I wanted to go into the State assembly and into Congress was from what I learned from volunteer work--and from having four children, first of all, and then from being president of the high school school board--because I wanted my children to have the best education; and the way to do that is to get involved and to participate as with all of the others, like being chairman of the Visiting Nurses Association of Chicago, and I got into Medicare and Medicaid. So all of these things led me to want to go into Congress. I was asked to do those things. Then finally, when a seat opened up in Congress, I said, I'm going for this. I was elected, and I've been here and on three committees that are really important still--with the Financial Services, the Education and Labor, and the Science Committees.

Let me just talk a little bit about trade because, as has been said by so many Members much more eloquently than I, government does not create jobs; it's the private sector; but government needs to act to reduce and get rid of the barriers that we have put on so many of the businesses so that we can have economic growth so that we can have those jobs. One way is to look at the trade issue.

We cannot have protectionist trade policies. Free trade agreements are one of the many ways to improve all American standards of living and to get our economy back on track. The administration has three trade agreements that are on the shelf, already negotiated and all ready for approval--Colombia, Panama and South Korea. These trade agreements alone have the potential to create 250,000 jobs for Americans in America. What has been so concerning is that the President has not acted, and a failure to act means that we will continue to lose sales and jobs to other countries which do not face the trade barriers that our goods and services are facing. On many products, tariffs would come down immediately upon the enactment of these agreements, giving a boost to exports and jobs.

Let me just tell you about one company that has trade with Colombia. It's a big company with big, big machinery; and every time they send one of those pieces of machinery into Colombia, it's a $200,000 tariff, which shouldn't be there, while we have open doors and while we have trade that can come here.

We have wasted so much time. We have wasted at least 2\1/2\ years for not doing this. I think, with these trade agreements, such an increase would provide a tremendous boost to the national economy, especially to my home State of Illinois, where we rank No. 5 in the exporting States for manufacturing and agriculture products. So I would encourage the administration to immediately send up those trade agreements. Doing so would immediately put people back to work and provide a much needed boost to our economy.

I thank all the women who are here today, and I thank you for doing this and for giving us the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a local hero from my home district. At just 7 years old, Abby Beranek of Lemont, Illinois, demonstrated quick thinking and courage when a fire broke out in her home, utilizing the fire safety skills she learned as a Girl Scout to keep her family safe.

When she realized her home was on fire, first-grader Abby Beranek remained calm and immediately put in action the lessons she learned when her troop visited the Lemont fire station. Because of Abby's courage and quick thinking, she was able to help her mom and keep her 18-month-old brothers and 3-month-old sister safe.

I also want to commend the Lemont Fire Protection District, especially Jeff Hawthorne and Chief Carl Churulo, for offering lifesaving educational safety courses for our children. Their hard work and willingness to reach out to the community has clearly made a difference and saved lives.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing a local hero, Abby Beranek of Lemont, Illinois, who has made her community and her family very proud.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize this April as Financial Literacy Month.

Each year my good friend and fellow chair of the House Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus, Mr. Hinojosa, and I work to bring Financial Literacy Month to Capitol Hill. In that effort we are joined by our longtime Senate allies, Senator Akaka and Senator Enzi.

Traditionally, we have offered a resolution as a way to showcase the latest trends in financial and economic literacy. This year, however, the House is taking an understandable break from debating commemoratory resolutions in order to focus attention on pressing items like the budget.

Nonetheless, I want to take a brief opportunity today to encourage my colleagues to take part in this year's Financial Literacy Month. It's a time when nonprofits, educational institutions, financial organizations, government agencies, and others work together to protect consumers and prepare our children to prosper in today's sophisticated marketplace.

For example, from April 17 through 23, America's credit unions will hold National Credit Union Youth Week, which focuses on teaching young Americans about the benefits of setting goals and saving to reach them. In a parallel effort, the American Bankers Association Education Foundation held Teach Children to Save Day on April 12. It's an annual event during which America's banking professionals have volunteered to teach money skills to 4 million young people.

Madam Speaker, this is a trend we should applaud, one that I encourage my colleagues to participate in by joining the Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus. Members and their staffs can also join us this Friday in the Cannon Caucus Room from noon to 3 for a Financial Literacy Day Fair featuring information and constituent outreach materials from 55 of the Nation's leading financial literacy organizations, including the Jump$tart Coalition, Junior Achievement, and the Council for Economic Education.

Madam Speaker, too many Americans continue to enter the workforce unprepared to handle money, buy a home, or save for retirement. According to the Jump$tart Coalition's most recent survey, our high school seniors are now scoring lower on financial literacy than they have during any years since 2000; and yet, according to a 2009 survey from the Council for Economic Education, only 34 States require school districts to include personal finance in their education standards for students K-12.

These are troubling numbers, and that's why we must work together to give Americans the tools they need to prepare against economic uncertainty, recognize deceptive practices, build credit, and make dozens of other day-to-day financial decisions. These are skills that everyone must learn to prosper in today's complex marketplace, and that's what Financial Literacy Month is all about.

So I encourage my colleagues who are interested in learning more to join us this Friday from noon to 3 in the Cannon Caucus Room for our annual Financial Literacy Day Fair.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Home Farming Day, an initiative launched by the nonprofit organization Urban Farming in partnership with the Kraft Foods Triscuit brand. The event celebrates those who are growing food at home or with their communities and, in turn, nurturing and inspiring healthier eating habits nationwide.

Last year, the first Home Farming Day resulted in the planting of 50 new farms in unused urban spaces in 20 cities. I was pleased that my office could participate in the groundbreaking on one of those gardens in my congressional district.

This year, Triscuits and Urban Farming plan to replant all 50 gardens and add 15 new farms throughout the country, totaling 65 community- based home farms. Food grown at these community farms goes directly to the volunteers who grow the crops, along with their families and communities. Volunteers can also donate to local food banks for those that are in need.

In my home district, crops are delivered to the Loaves and Fishes Community Pantry in Naperville, Illinois, where they provide low-income families with fresh, healthy meals.

Mr. Speaker, from the White House to our own backyards and windowsills, more and more Americans are taking up the fun and healthy pastime of growing their own food. It is not unlike what many of our parents and grandparents did during World War II when they planted 20 million ``victory gardens.'' I can recall stealing into my own mother's victory garden to eat the raspberries and gather crops of rhubarb, squash, and tomatoes.

In fact, home gardening already is an activity that most Americans enjoy. A 2010 Garden Writers Association survey found that 66 percent of Americans have some form of lawn or garden, and younger Americans between the ages of 25 and 40 are now gardening at the same rate as the general population. And Home Farming Day is an opportunity to encourage that trend, especially among young people in urban communities where fresh fruits and vegetables may be less available.

Whether on a kitchen countertop, in a balcony flower box, or at a community plot, home farming is a great way for people of all ages to celebrate natural living, and treat themselves to some fresh fruits and vegetables while they're at it.

It is a goal worth pursuing, and I'd like to commend Triscuit, the 109-year-old cracker brand manufactured in my congressional district, and the home farming movement for helping to show Americans how easy it is to grow fresh vegetables and herbs right in their own backyard.

I'd like to congratulate Urban Farming and their partners on their success in expanding Home Farming Day across the country, encouraging communities to utilize open spaces to bring fresh ingredients to our homes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of one of America's great military heroes, Lieutenant General Selmon Willard Wells, or Jim as he was known to his family.

General Wells passed away in December at the age of 94 after a lifetime of distinguished service to his country. Today, his friends, family, and loved ones will gather to celebrate his amazing life in a special service near his home in California. Among those will be his children, three grandchildren, and six great-grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, there's no way I could do justice to all the achievements of this amazing man in the time I have here.

Jim first earned his wings in 1941 and went on to log over 12,000 hours of flying time as a command pilot, with over 700 hours of combat time. He flew hundreds of missions during three wars--World War II, Korea, and Vietnam--and has been honored with almost every medal imaginable.

After commanding forces all over the world, he culminated his military career as an inspector general of the Air Force here in Washington.

Today, I would like to join with my colleagues here in the U.S. House of Representatives to express to Jim's family and loved ones our heartfelt sympathy on his loss and our sincere gratitude for his service to the Nation he loved.

Mr. Speaker, during his service today, it was the hope of many that General Wells would be honored by a military flyover. I am disappointed to say that the Air Force was unable to accommodate this wish, but I know there's no military airman in America who does not join us in honoring the memory of this hero. And if anyone would understand the logistical challenges of command, it would be Jim.