Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct. Section 106 of the Senate flood insurance bill would reform the National Flood Insurance Program in a significant way by phasing out taxpayer subsidies and requiring that rates are based on an…
Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
Section 106 of the Senate flood insurance bill would reform the National Flood Insurance Program in a significant way by phasing out taxpayer subsidies and requiring that rates are based on an actual risk of flooding basis.
The Senate bill achieves this goal more quickly and fairly than the House bill, which does not begin phasing out premium subsidies for nonresidential properties and nonprimary residences until 2011.
We owe it to the American people whose lives get turned upside down in the aftermath of flood disaster to encourage an efficient, effective program, with adequate resources to be there for them when they need it.
Risk-based pricing will reassure taxpayers that they are not subsidizing those who choose to live in high-risk areas near coastal lowlands or flood plains where many property owners have repetitive losses.
Section 106 of the Senate version of the flood bill would also eliminate subsidies within 90 days of enactment for prospective policyholders of nonresidential structures, nonprimary residences, and severe repetitive loss properties.
It would also eliminate subsidies within 90 days for properties that undergo improvements or renovations that exceed 30 percent of the fair market value of the property, and any property that sustains damage exceeding 50 percent of the fair market value after the enactment of this bill.
In addition, Section 106 includes a provision that would prohibit subsidies and require risk-based pricing for prospective policyholders if the property was not insured within 90 days of enactment or if the policy lapses as a result of deliberate choice by the policyholder.
Risk-based pricing would also be required if the prospective policyholder refused to accept an offer for mitigation assistance or relocation following a major disaster.
These are prudent measures to strengthen flood programs, phase out taxpayer subsidies, and encourage a premium pricing structure that is based on the actual risk of the property to flooding.
While not part of this motion, I also believe it would be ill-advised to force the National Flood Insurance Program to take on new risk of wind coverage, as it would expose taxpayers to further losses and could unnecessarily interfere with the functioning of private wind insurance markets.
The Republican minority believes that the chief objective of Congress should be to reform the existing National Flood Insurance Program, including the removal of subsidies over time to improve the long-term solvency of the program. Adding new coverage to the program that has already lost $18 billion is a move in the right direction.
Madam Speaker, I want to stop and reiterate that the program, the reason this is so important is that we continue to subsidize this program and the deficits keep going up. Now, some people say, Well, the program pays for itself. But the truth of the matter is, Madam Speaker, this Congress is going to have to write off billions of dollars because the system is currently insolvent now, and now others want to increase and expand the coverage and postpone putting risk-based premiums in place.
The American people already are dealing with a lot of other issues. They don't need to be dealing with having to subsidize the National Flood Insurance Program any longer.
As the conferees work on this final flood insurance bill, we ask that they produce a bill that is fiscally responsible and does not saddle future taxpayers with more losses.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
In addition to rising to offer this motion to instruct on H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2008, I believe it's also critical that we talk about another issue that is very important to the American taxpayers, and that is a sound and reliable energy policy for our country.
I am repeatedly frustrated and I know the American people are repeatedly frustrated that this Congress has done nothing this summer, this year, to produce one additional barrel of oil to help reduce the dependency problem that this country has on foreign oil. This is not only an economic security issue for our country, it is a national security issue for our country.
We know that we have seen in the last few days that the Iranian Government is flexing their muscle and they are saying that they want everybody to know that they are a world power and that if people make them mad, or if they decide to do something, that they could close the Strait of Hormuz, where I think someone said almost 40 percent of the world's oil passes through that port. That just says to us
that this is a national security issue as well.
There's a very simple solution to America's energy problem. It's not complicated, it's not complex. It's a simple, three-letter word. It's yes. It's saying yes to drilling for oil within the borders of the United States of America. It's saying yes to drilling in Alaska and off the Outer Continental Shelf. It's saying yes to continuing to develop and use the 250-year coal supply that America has. As someone said a while ago, we are the Saudi Arabia of coal.
There are new technologies out there converting coal and liquefying it to use as a very clean and efficient energy source.
It is saying yes to building more nuclear power plants in this country. We haven't built a new nuclear power plant in I think over 30 years. It is a very safe, reliable source of energy and does not create a lot of greenhouse gases.
It is saying yes to building new refineries in our country. Not only, Madam Speaker, are we importing 70 percent of our oil, but because we haven't built a new refinery in this country in over 30 years, we are importing from 10 to 15 percent of our gasoline.
It is saying yes to renewable and alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar and biofuels.
Madam Speaker, what we need to do is have a balanced energy program, looking at renewables, looking at new technologies, but also producing American resources.
This growing energy crisis is affecting every facet of Americans' daily lives. As they try to drive to work, I had recently a telephone call with a constituent, and he said, Congressman, I have to drive three times a week to get medical treatment, and it is over 100 miles to and from to get that treatment. He said, I am down to the decision now whether I can afford to be able to go and get my treatment or buy groceries or make my rent payment. I need some help.
Madam Speaker, the American people are looking to this Congress to do something. And we can do something. We can say yes; yes to new technologies, yes to producing American resources, instead of exporting billions of dollars to foreign countries and letting them develop their resources.
I believe last month, June, the average import, this is daily import, Madam Speaker, was 13 million barrels a day, 13 million barrels a day. That is $1.8 billion dollars every day that America gets up and writes a check to send somewhere else. Not to invest in America. We write a check for $1.8 billion every day to send to some foreign countries.
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, some of those countries that we send that check to aren't all that friendly to the American people. Our friend, Mr. Hugo Chavez from Venezuela, we write him a check every day for $170 million. I am sure the American people are pretty excited that $170 million of investment that could be building America's resources and creating jobs in America is going down to South America, to Venezuela, to one of the people that have said we are imperialists and that they have invaded America not with armies, but with their oil.
So, Madam Speaker, what we have to do is we have to begin to look at why we are not doing anything in this Congress.
One of the things I have noticed that we worked on this summer, and I know the American people will be extremely excited to know, is that we have protected foreign cats, foreign dogs, monkeys, and today we will spend about 3 or 4 hours naming a scenic route. Now, I think that really goes a long way to assuring the American people that we are in fact working on energy solutions that will bring lower energy prices for the American people.
Madam Speaker, we have to begin to say yes, not only to these high energy prices affecting Americans' ability to go to and from work. Teachers, for example, in rural areas, driving 50, 75 miles, their cost of transportation is almost doubling, but their salaries are not going up. Those teacher contracts are out right now and they are saying, should I accept that teaching contract in that little rural community, where it is going to almost take a pay cut to do that because of the cost of gasoline?
It is affecting food prices. One of the things we know about energy, Madam Speaker, is it is interwoven in every aspect of our life. In the production of food, farmers are paying record prices for fertilizer and for diesel. So that is just the production side. The chemicals have gone up. Several chemical companies in the last few weeks have announced double digit increases in the cost of their commodities.
Now that we have produced those products, now we have to get those products to the processors and to the market. The cost of processing that food has gone up. Once we produce that food and we process it, then we have to deliver it to the distribution systems, and from the distribution systems to the grocery stores, and then the American people have to go to the grocery store. All along the way, these high energy prices are causing huge inflation for our country, and, Madam Speaker, we have to do something about it.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
I appreciate the gentleman, and I think the leadership in his party has been very clear of what their energy policy is: No, we are not going to do anything about it.
I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) 3 minutes.
Madam Speaker, could I inquire of the amount of time that I have remaining.
At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Madam Speaker, just in response to the gentleman, what can we do, we can increase the supply. And as the other previous speaker from Florida said, we are not talking about geothermal or switch grass, Madam Speaker. We are talking about proven technology. We know we that can use oil. We know that we can use nuclear. We know that we can use coal. And the only way you are ever going to lower the price is increase supply, yet my colleagues on the other side are saying ``no.'' The American people are saying ``yes.''
I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) who has been trying to bring this point to the forefront in this Congress.
I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Madam Speaker, it's my honor to yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader, Mr. Boehner.
Madam Speaker, one of the things I want to say is we are more than willing to work in a bipartisan way if the majority leader has a plan to supplant the fact that we import 13 million barrels a day. If he's got some plan to do that, the Republicans will stay here till December to pass that legislation.
I just want to also let the gentleman know that the largest wind farm in the world is in my congressional district, and there's more wind power in my congressional district than in the whole State of California. We were able to accomplish that in just 5 years.
Madam Speaker, what the American people that are here today, they want to know is, is this Congress, is this majority, going to do something about energy. Either yes or no.