Floor Statements

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

I would like to thank the chairwoman, Chairwoman Waters, for her hard work on this very important piece of legislation.

H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act, provides for the long-term reauthorization reform of the National Flood Insurance Program, extending it for 5 years, through September 30, 2015. The bill would phase out subsidized premium rates for certain properties, increase the annual limit on premium rate increases, and impose minimum deductibles for all policies.

The bill before us today, I believe, makes constructive reforms to eliminate certain subsidies and strengthens the financial soundness of the NFIP. Unfortunately, it also includes wasteful government spending. While I wish the bill went further to place the program on a path toward self-sufficiency and limit taxpayer exposure, I will support the final passage of this bill.

The NFIP is currently operating under a short-term extension through September 30, 2010, after experiencing its third lapse this year. H.R. 5114 makes constructive reforms to eliminate certain subsidies and strengthen financial soundness. In addition, several Republican proposals have been incorporated in H.R. 5114 to strengthen the reforms in this bill, including provisions to eliminate subsidized rates over time for homes that were sold to a new owner, impose minimum deductibles for all insured properties, require a report on the feasibility of incorporating national recognized building codes into the NFIP flood plain management criteria, and to direct the NFIP to report to Congress with a plan to repay its debt to the Treasury within 10 years.

The NFIP is facing serious financial challenges and cannot afford to continue on its current path. The GAO has included the NFIP on its annual list of high-risk government programs since 2006 because of its ongoing potential to incur billions of dollars in losses. With

an $18 billion debt to the Treasury now and the persistence of subsidized premium rates for properties in high-risk areas, the NFIP continues to be underfunded and Federal taxpayers remain at risk.

Unfortunately, recent temporary lapses of the NFIP created uncertainty in the housing market and resulted in negative consequences for home buyers trying to purchase flood insurance protection in high- risk areas where it is required. While many property owners depend on flood insurance for some measure of financial security, and many more should consider purchasing it to protect themselves from potential losses, fundamental reforms are needed to make the flood insurance program more self-sufficient, reduce the potential for losses, and minimize the financial risk to taxpayers.

In the long run, it is my hope, along with most of my Republican colleagues, that all flood insurance premium rate subsidies should be eliminated and underwriting risks should be transferred to the private insurance market to the maximum extent possible.

In this respect, the provisions of H.R. 5114 that phase out and eventually eliminate certain premium rate subsidies represent very positive steps. The bill includes constructive measures to eliminate subsidized rates over time for nonresidential properties and nonprimary residences, including second homes and vacation homes.

H.R. 5114 also raises the cap on rate increases from 10 to 20 percent, which will allow the NFIP to charge premiums more appropriate to the risk within a shorter period of time. These useful reforms are overshadowed, unfortunately, by provisions authorizing almost $500 million in new Federal spending for new mitigation and outreach grant programs and to establish an Office of Flood Insurance Advocate within FEMA, which administers the Flood Insurance Program.

While there is a definite need to improve FEMA's communication with communities and to increase advocacy about the impact of the new flood risk maps, Republicans believe that this effort should be undertaken using the existing NFIP funds, rather than new Federal spending in this time of historic deficits.

I know some of my Republican colleagues offered amendments to do just this, to address these concerns. And I wish that they had been made in order today, as their inclusion would have enhanced our debate.

The NFIP was originally intended to reduce the need for emergency disaster assistance from Federal taxpayers to local communities, and the program has a long ways to go to reach the point of being self- funded and self-sustaining. Furthermore, I believe that Congress has an obligation to U.S. taxpayers to challenge the premise that most flooding hazards will never be insurable by the private insurance market.

I remain committed to enacting comprehensive reforms that not only modernize the National Flood Insurance Program so that homeowners will continue to have access to flood insurance, but at the same time protect the American taxpayer.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Florida, Ms. Brown-Waite.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Could I ask the chairwoman if she has any additional speakers.

Then I would just like to say that this has been an effort that has been moving forth. As we've said, we've had a lot of lapses in this program across the country. It's caused a lot of disturbances for folks who are trying to purchase new homes or refinance, and I think that we need a permanent extension of this for 5 years.

So, again, I do have reservations about the additional spending; $500 million at this time of high debt and deficit and high unemployment is, I think, improperly placed, but this bill does have another purpose, and that is to make sure that homeowners and home purchasers can have the access that they need to the flood insurance program.

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

I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I'm not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the chairwoman's manager's amendment does make good improvements to the underlying bill by phasing out taxpayer subsidies for severe repetitive losses.

As we know, and as I said in my opening statement, the NFIP is facing serious financial challenges and the program cannot afford to go on its current path. So in this respect, I think that Chairwoman Waters' manager's amendment is a positive step in the right direction. In addition, the manager's amendment includes additional reforms that seeks to reduce the subsidies over time that continue to burden this program.

The measure includes several provisions to address local community concerns that we have all heard in our districts resulting from new flood risk maps and the ongoing flood control projects, resulting in delays of purchase requirements and higher rates in certain cases.

I would like to point out why I believe that phasing out the subsidies for severe repetitive loss properties is important. If you look at the accounting

for these losses over the last several years, the repetitive loss properties only account for 1 percent of the total policies in the program nationwide, yet the repetitive loss properties account for almost 30 percent of the claims paid annually.

Well, I think there is a sense of fairness about this, and most of us recognize that this is unfair. The subsidies for folks who continue to live in repetitive loss property areas continue to run up the losses in this very important flood insurance program. The high incidence of claims on repetitive loss properties has cost the National Flood Insurance Program more than $2.7 billion since 1978.

So with the reforms that the chairwoman has made in the manager's amendment, I support the manager's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand. And I've had constituents myself who have been remapped and fallen into the flood plain and questionable areas a lot, to their frustration. And I understand the gentleman from Ohio's intent on his amendment. But I think it sort of opens the door a little too broadly and a little too widely. While the amendment that he is proposing helps property owners who seek to recoup their expenses of appealing the flood map, it provides for full reimbursement for any costs. There's no specification to what reasonable costs could be--but any cost. And I think this is too broad.

I would prefer to see the amendment go back to the drawing board, reshape it, so that we can address the needs and the cost issues to our constituents but also make sure that we don't leave it so the door is so wide open that it would encourage in some possibilities maybe re- looking at it, overly expensive investigations into the flood mapping, without any kind of reasonable assurances that the costs that are incurred in challenging the maps would fall within a reasonable amount.

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

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I rise to claim the time in opposition to it.

I would like to begin by saying to my friend from Mississippi, we have kind of had an ongoing discussion on this. I think he knows this is not a personal issue for me, but it is a very personal one for him, and I certainly understand that. I can't really even imagine being in your shoes, quite frankly, and a lot of your fellow Mississippians in what has happened.

But I am going to oppose this amendment, really, by seeking to address the water and wind issue, which is something I think we do need to address. I have several issues that I would like to bring forward.

First of all, I have concern that this could interfere with the State regulation of insurance. As we all know, insurance is regulated through the States. It could dictate some of the processes that I think would undermine the State regulation of insurance.

It's interesting that the gentleman brought up State Farm because-- and I'm sure he's aware that State Farm has just recently announced that they are going to be withdrawing from the WYO program, which is the Write Your Own insurance program, for several reasons, I believe. I'm not certain what they all are. But this means that 800,000 customers nationwide who bought their flood insurance coverage through State Farm will now need to be picked up by other Write Your Own insurance companies.

Third, I think this amendment could impose or would impose a new fiduciary responsibility on insurance companies that participate in this program. According to industry experts,

this could expose insurers to new lawsuits and force them to place the interests of the Federal program over the interests of their own policy holders.

I think there could be a better way to address this issue and the objectives of this amendment by working with FEMA officials and State insurance regulators to devise a formula with ratios that would apportion losses fairly to address the situation in the future. Some States and companies are already using this approach to help clarify potential wind-versus-water issues.

So, with that, I would like to thank the gentleman for his passion and his ``stick-to-it-iveness'' to try to solve a very deep problem, particularly in his region of the country. But with the way this amendment is written and printed, I would have to be in opposition to it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

I would just like to speak very briefly in support of the gentleman's amendment. We have all had in our States issues with knowing the correct way to leave and evacuate certain areas. I sort of was hoping that this area of information was already covered. So I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward, and I would ask that we support the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not necessarily opposed to it.

I would like to address the gentleman's amendment really in the broader context of the Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate. This is creating it within this bill, and I think in my opening statements I addressed this issue. It's creating a new office. And at a time when we have rising debts and deficits, we are creating another bureaucracy, another obligation on the Federal taxpayer where I think that we could work within existing regulatory and administrative offices to try to accomplish the same thing.

We had a discussion yesterday in the Rules Committee where the chairwoman of our subcommittee talked about the need for advocacy. And I don't oppose the need for helping people wind through the intricacies of FEMA, trying to make appeals, trying to find out when and how they're going to be paid or what their alternate living arrangements might be and all the things that an advocate can do in terms of winding through a large bureaucracy like FEMA. But FEMA has assured us that they have already a functioning appeals process, and on top of an Inspector General and continual GAO oversight of the NFIP program.

So I think that the advocacy office itself is representing some duplicative and unnecessary bureaucracy and spending. So while I don't oppose the gentleman's amendment, if the advocacy office goes through, it's not really the substance of your amendment, it's really more the basis of the flood advocate itself, Office of the Flood Advocate itself.

I yield back balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I would like to thank the gentleman for his amendment.

I raise questions about this amendment for the same reason that I raised questions about the previous amendment, and that is, you know, we are at a point here in our economy in this time where we have high unemployment. We have our deficit that has just passed over the trillion dollar mark for the second year in a row. We have increasingly excruciating debt that we're going to be passing on to our children and grandchildren, and yet we're still going to be creating a grant program in this bill that's going to cost the taxpayers $250 million-- significant dollars at a time when people are losing their jobs or cutting back or making decisions in their own lives about the ways to afford the things that they not just want but they absolutely must have and need. And while, you know, further education and outreach is always a good thing, I think now would be a good time for us to make a statement in this bill by saying, not now, not this time, not this $250 million.

I have a question, too, in terms of the gentleman's amendment, not being a real estate agent myself. I'm not sure that in the real estate agent--in the training to become a real estate agent and the things--I know you have to be licensed and you have to take continuing ed and you have to keep up on all different kinds of financing and property evaluations and all the things. It's kind of a surprise to me that real estate agents don't already know the extent or how to deal with the Flood Insurance Program, particularly if there are regions of the country that are prone to this type of damage and these type of floods. But I don't know if the gentleman has an answer for that.

Are you aware of whether real estate agents now, across the country, are exposed to this kind of information? I mean, why wouldn't they already have this?

I yield to the gentleman if you have an answer to the question. I don't know the answer to that.

Thank you for that clarification.

Reclaiming my time, I would just additionally say that I would think, through the continuing education of the real estate schools and the licensing boards throughout the different States who have these issues, that this would already be something that's covered.

Again, I will go back to my original premise, $250 million in 5 years at a time of record debt and deficit and high unemployment, to me, is an improper expenditure at this time.

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

I would like to thank Mr. Sessions for yielding me the time. I would like to thank our ranking member, Spencer Bachus, for his dedication to this issue. I would also like to thank the chairman of our full Committee of Financial Services for his dedication to this as well.

But, Madam Speaker, as we stand here today, unfortunately, this is a missed opportunity. From the start of the debate, it was apparent there was little or no interest from our Democrat colleagues in working towards a consensus bill on regulatory reform. Now they are using budgetary smoke and mirrors, and I think that it will be apparent to Americans as this bill unfolds.

As my constituents say to us all the time: Work together. Shelve the partisanship. The stakes are too high.

But, unfortunately, the bill before us was drafted without our significant input. We are now faced with a bill that will give us institutionalized government bailouts, limit consumer choices, and raise the cost for businesses, our job creators across this Nation.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be basking in the rhetoric and high praise for cracking down on Wall Street. However, the resolution authority in this bill does little or nothing to address the issue of the moral hazard that has been created by the TARP program. Instead, failed firms will be wound down at taxpayers' expense.

Under this resolution authority, the big will get bigger, and they will push the limits of risk because they will know that the government will be there to pay for their demise. In fact, many of the tools used for TARP are institutionalized in this legislation. My friends can opine on Wall Street reform all they want, but this bill does not achieve that.

Why should the people of West Virginia help pay for poor decisions of Wall Street bankers, or in any State? Well, they shouldn't. But for over a year we have advocated for an enhanced bankruptcy for these large, highly complex financial institutions. This approach would have created a level playing field between Wall Street and Main Street and would have assured all parties know the rules of the game ahead of time.

Furthermore, the taxpayers would not have to worry if their children and grandchildren will have to pick up the tab for the mistakes of the fabulous fabs of the world. Unfortunately, the majority has decided once again to turn a deaf ear to America's cries to end the bailouts.

This bill will fuel the growth of Wall Street, will lead to job loss, and it represents a missed opportunity.

I'd like to thank my friend from Maryland for recognizing me. I'd particularly like to thank my fellow member of the delegation, Mr. Rahall, for bringing House Resolution 1153 forward. The occurrence of this crash straddled two of our counties. His is Pocahontas and mine is Randolph. We both know very well that we

don't call West Virginia ``Wild and Wonderful'' for no reason. This is one of the wildest parts of our beautiful State. And so I want to offer my congratulations to the brave men and women of the 130th Airlift Wing, which is headquartered in Charleston, West Virginia, in my district, and all the first responders and citizens who helped with this rescue.

As we've heard, Major Hazuka of Bluefield, West Virginia, of the 130th Airlift Wing of the National Guard, discovered the Navy Kittyhawk helicopter which had crashed over Randolph and Pocahontas Counties in terrible weather conditions. They acted very, very quickly. I would also like to honor Army National Guard Flight Medics Staff Sergeant Nicole Hopkins and Specialist Casey Dunfee, who were lowered to the landing site to give emergency medical care and to help coordinate the efforts.

The 130th Airlift Wing represents the best of West Virginia, and their heroic response to this crash further establishes their importance to this State. As my colleague from West Virginia so eloquently put it, it didn't surprise any of us. This unit and those around our State and around this Nation are known for their willingness to step up when they're most needed. But the terrain and the weather on that particular day was incredibly dangerous.

I know my colleague from Pennsylvania mentioned all of the different units of first responders that responded that day, but I would like to repeat their names: the West Virginia Civil Air Patrol, the Valley Head Fire Department, the Northern Greenbrier EMS, Greenbrier County Ambulance, White Sulfur Springs EMS, Cass Rescue, and the Greenbank National Radio Astronomy Observatory, which is very close in Pocahontas. I'd also like to thank the Snowshoe Resort for their willingness to share equipment. We also had the Pocahontas County Emergency Management, West Virginia State Police, Pocahontas County Sheriffs Department, Pocahontas County 9/11, U.S. Forest Service, Bartow-Frank-Durbin Volunteer Fire and Rescue, along with the Department of Natural Resources and sheriff departments from the surrounding areas.

As you can see, it was a collegial effort, an enormous effort, and one that when we first received the news of this accident over our local television and radio stations, really had us on the edge of our seats because I think we knew how treacherous a rescue in this area could be at this time of year.

So I'd like to say congratulations. Again, I'd like thank my colleague Mr. Rahall for bringing this resolution forward, and I would like to ask my colleagues to join in congratulating not only our first responders and our National Guard, but also take the time to thank their local and State National Guard and local first responders for all the good work they do voluntarily every day for our benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

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

I rise today to thank my colleague from West Virginia's Third Congressional District (Mr. Rahall) for offering this resolution, honoring the passing of our senior Senator, Senator Robert C. Byrd. I want to thank the Speaker, my other colleague from West Virginia, for his dedication and friendship to Senator Byrd through many more years than I have served here in this Congress. As the three of us know, this is a difficult time for all West Virginians and the United States Senate.

As my colleagues know, Senator Byrd was an institution not only in West Virginia but also in the United States Senate. Coming from very modest beginnings, the young man from rural Raleigh County, West Virginia, rose from the mountains of Appalachia to become a lion in the greatest deliberative body on Earth, the United States Senate. His path to success is truly emblematic of the American Dream.

Few can travel through our great State of West Virginia without recognizing the effect Senator Byrd had on our State. While he is well recognized for the many roads and buildings that are named in his honor, it is the leadership he displayed in bringing our delegation together when it mattered most for West Virginia that is truly a testament to the effect he has had on our State.

During my tenure--which for him was recent, 10 years--he rallied our delegation to save the 130th Air National Guard unit from being cut, and he began working with all of us towards a consensus on mine safety legislation after the tragic Sago mine incident. He was an able leader and led us all as leaders for West Virginia.

Senator Byrd was also a wonderful ambassador for Appalachia. West Virginians are very proud of our heritage and our strong work ethic throughout our lives, and Senator Byrd continued to share Appalachian culture--we just heard from Mr. Obey on that--with his colleagues in Washington. Whether it was displaying his musical talents on the fiddle or his dedication to both American and world history or the process of the United States Senate or the protection of our Constitution, Senator Byrd was truly a man of many talents.

I will fondly remember, as I was attending a meeting in Charleston, West Virginia, probably 12 years ago--I knew about his fiddling, but I didn't know about his love of music and his vocal ability--when he joined Kathy Mattea in singing a duet of Amazing Grace. It was a great moment for me, but for him, he was celebrating his three loves: his music, his love of education, and his faith in God.

I also remember--and the other members of the delegation will remember this, too--we were in his office, and he served us lunch in his office. And when it came time for dessert, he asked all of us if we wanted dessert. And since we were all watching our waistlines, we sort of waived off dessert and said, No, we really don't need dessert. It's lunch. I think we are going to pass on dessert.

No, no. We must have dessert. We must have apple pie and ice cream.

And then he proudly told us how he had maintained the same weight for the last 57 years in the United States Congress. I think that's a feat to be celebrated, quite frankly.

He also talked a lot about--and we heard this, too--the love of his dogs. I remember when his beloved Billy died. He was crushed, and he wasn't afraid or ashamed or embarrassed to express the love and the compassion that he had and the companionship he felt with his dog. And I think that's a common bond that a lot of people here in the United States, but also in West Virginia, share.

So with Senator Byrd's passing, West Virginia has truly lost a favorite son. The United States Senate has lost an icon. And as any Senator will tell you, Senator Byrd served as a tremendous mentor in passing on Senate procedure to newly elected Senators. In many ways, Senator Byrd was an institution within the institution of the Senate, and the Senate will not be the same without him.

I will miss Senator Byrd's passion and ardent defense of our Nation's Constitution. He was certainly one of a kind, and I feel privileged to have served with him. I will never forget the advice that he gave me when I first sought his counsel when I first went in, in my first year serving in this body. And he said, ``Shelley, you need to be a workhorse, not a show horse.'' Senator Byrd will always be remembered for his hard work as a workhorse and also for his dedication to representing our great State of West Virginia.

I wish to extend to Senator Byrd's family my deepest sympathies and know that he is at peace and at home with his beloved Erma.

So I would again thank Mr. Rahall for presenting this. Senator Byrd will certainly be missed. And I want to pay tribute to his tremendous service, sacrifice, strength, honesty, and devotion to our State and Nation.

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. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

I would like to thank the chairwoman of the Housing Subcommittee for her good work on this bill and for this manager's amendment. We have worked together on this amendment, as we have with the rest of the bill.

As she summarized in her statement, this provides provisions that drops out a few provisions that were problematic, but it also increases the requirements for identification, for a valid Social Security number and to be a U.S. citizen to be able to have access to FHA programs. I think it goes to the core of a lot of discussion that we've had on this floor, and certainly we want to make certain that those who are eligible for programs are able to access them and those that are ineligible are unable to access them.

So as I said, we've worked together on this amendment, and I plan to support the manager's amendment.

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

I would like to claim the time in opposition, although I am unopposed to the amendment.

I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California.

As my colleague from California knows all too well, rising foreclosure and delinquency rates continue to affect all areas of the mortgage market. Secondary markets for mortgages have seen a significant drawback that has led to a reduction in the availability of credit. Lenders have tightened credit

standards making it more difficult for delinquent borrowers to refinance.

At the same time, because of falling home prices and certainly in many parts of the country, like the gentleman's home district, borrowers are finding themselves unable to refinance into more affordable or fixed-rate products because their outstanding mortgage loan balances exceed their homes' values.

States such as California, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada continue to dominate the national delinquency and foreclosure markets. The Cardoza amendment prioritizes assistance to the areas that have been hardest hit by foreclosure and unemployment compared to the rest of the country.

I am prepared to support the gentleman's amendment, and I would like to say that one area of the gentleman's amendment that I particularly am in favor of--because we kind of go through this discussion on a lot of different bills, where to put the greater emphasis, and I think the greater emphasis and the greater dollar assistance need to go to the places that are the hardest hit and do have the most difficult problems. And so I think this is well-intentioned, and I would support the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, I voice my support for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

As the gentlewoman from Illinois stated, this gives HUD the authority to increase FHA down payments and would require an annual report. I'd like to ask the gentlelady, if I could, a question about her amendment, if she would be willing to help me out with some clarification.

You mentioned in your statement that HUD had already raised the down payment requirements with those of credit scores of 580 and below up to 10 percent. So my question is, it seems apparent to me that HUD already has the authority that you are granting in this amendment. HUD can already now go in and raise down payments. I would like to know what the distinction is or what the difference of the authority is that you're granting in your amendment from the authority that HUD already has.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

But still, the authority they have to raise down payment requirements is already existing in current law.

Basically, the change is more in the annual report and the requirement that HUD has to look at those reports and make a statement to the committee and to Congress?

I thank the gentlelady for clarification, and as I said previously, I am prepared to support this amendment.

I don't believe I have any further requests for time; so I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I think the gentleman from Massachusetts brings forward an issue, and I have great sympathy for those who are caught basically, it sounds like, in a bureaucratic maze here, missed a date not really by their own doing but by maybe just because of the process they were involved in.

The question I have, and the reason I have skepticism on the gentleman's amendment, he began with, I think the number that the gentleman said, this may influence 15,000 folks.

Was that the number that you said in your statement?

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

The other question I would ask the gentleman, and I know we would have to go to Appropriations to get the money allotted for this particular amendment: What would be the approximate cost of something like this? This is something where we are in this time of debt and deficit, and we need to cut our spending here. I think we need to be very vigilant on the bottom line. What is the bottom line of this amendment?

Right.

Thank you. Very precise. I appreciate that.

I still have skepticism even about 10 million, which in everyday dollars is still quite a bit of money. And, as I said, we need to look at what we are doing on the bottom line here.

So, while I am very sympathetic and I think that the amendment has some merit, I would stand in opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I would like to thank both the sponsors of the bill. Certainly the intent is for more information and certainly more accurate information to look at the programs that we're putting forth and that have been put forth to see if the loss mitigation efforts are working and in what ways we can improve them. So I congratulate you and I urge support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

As the Congressman has stated, his amendment merely ensures that HUD will take no action between now and the end of FY 2011 to bar the Chinese drywall victims from eligibility from HUD's special mitigation and forbearance program. Since this does not create a new program or new spending, it just ensures an existing effort by HUD to extend aid to Chinese drywall victims remains in place through FY 2011, I commend the gentleman on his amendment, and I support the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I would like to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

The gentleman's amendment is similar to previous efforts by Republicans in past housing debates to ensure that convicted sex offenders are unable to receive the Federal aid to obtain housing through the FHA. I think the intent and the direction that the gentleman is going to absolutely appropriate. I support his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I would just reiterate that the Congressman's amendment seeks to ensure that the employees hired by FHA as a result of funds made available in this bill are in good standing and not guilty of viewing any previous pornography or any related disciplinary measures.

As the gentleman said, I think all of us, and certainly throughout the country, were stunned to learn some of the statistics of certain government employees not only viewing inappropriate material, but the absolute, incredible waste of government resources and waste of time that these employees have engaged in.

So, I think it's right and proper, as this amendment moves forward, to ensure that we protect against those abuses in the future. I support the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Sessions from Texas and I would like to thank Mr. Frank, the chairman of our committee, for the work that we've done on the underlying bill, the FHA reform bill. It is an important bill, and we will be debating that and talking about that quite a bit for the next 2 days.

What I've heard over the last week when I was home for the district work period is that people are really concerned about the spending and overspending that's going on here in Washington. Folks in West Virginia are tightening their belts and making difficult decisions, but they don't see that happening here in Washington.

Right today, we have before us in the previous question vote, we're going to have an opportunity to make a cut in government that makes a lot of sense. Over 315,000 Americans have voted to perform this cut on government spending by voting to reform Fannie and Freddie. We estimate that we could save approximately $30 billion over 10 years--that's significant--by ending some of the government conservatorship, shrinking their portfolios of Fannie and Freddie, establishing minimum capital standards, and bringing transparency to taxpayer exposure.

Since going into conservatorship--and many folks have been quoting this figure--the U.S. taxpayer has supported the GSEs to the tune of over $145 billion.

As we heard from Mr. Garrett from New Jersey, that is limitless, how far that can go.

One of the things I don't think taxpayers realize when they made this vote on YouCut was that recently the Treasury Department and the Federal Housing Finance Agency approved compensation packages for the chief executive officers of Fannie and Freddie of $6 million each, including $2 million incentive payments for each executive.

These compensation levels are 30 times that of a Cabinet Secretary, and they were approved for entities that are owned basically by the taxpayers and entities that have borrowed large sums from the taxpayers.

And I think by this YouCut vote what Americans are saying is, ``Enough is enough.'' We have heard a lot about the past and whose fault it is, quite frankly, over the last week. I didn't hear anybody wanting to cast blame; they want people to solve problems. That's what they have sent us here to Washington to do. We need to look forward to solve these problems.

So, as we all know, both Republicans and Democrats, lots of times the American people are a lot farther ahead of us in their thinking and in their commonsense solutions. And one of these is this YouCut proposal before us today, which will give us an opportunity to put their voices before us and for us to give them a sign of approval that, yes, $30 billion from Fannie and Freddie to save government money, to also end the conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie.

That's another thing I hear in town hall meetings across the district: People don't know who Fannie or Freddie are. They are costing each American taxpayer dollars every day to the tune of over $145 billion in total.

So, with that, I would ask that we vote ``yes'' on this YouCut proposal. It makes good, common sense.

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

I would like to thank the chairwoman, Chairwoman Waters, and the chairman of the full committee, Chairman Frank, and Ranking Member Bachus for their good, hard work on this legislation.

As I am an original cosponsor of this legislation, I rise in full support of H.R. 5072, the FHA Reform Act of 2010. H.R. 5072 amends the National Housing Act to include enforcement and premium changes to the FHA single-family mortgage insurance program that will improve the insurance fund's financial condition and enhance certain enforcement tools to protect against fraudulent or poorly underwritten and insured loans.

The bill incorporates a majority of the provisions in a bill that I introduced, H.R. 4811, the FHA Safety and Soundness and Taxpayer Protection Act. H.R. 4811, my bill, went further than the proposals put forth by the administration. My legislation included some additional enforcement, fiscal and risk-assessment tools necessary to adequately administer the program, detect fraud and abuse, strengthen underwriting standards, and protect the taxpayer. I appreciate Chairman Frank and Chairwoman Waters' willingness to include the additional provisions that were part of my bill which I believe made H.R. 5072 a stronger bill and one that is more able to address the pressing challenges before the FHA today.

I would also like to thank Secretary Donovan of HUD and Commissioner Stevens of the FHA for testifying before our committee, and also for working with me and my staff and the majority staff to formulate what I think is a very good bill.

The FHA was established by the National Housing Act of 1934 to broaden homeownership, protect lending institutions, and stimulate the building industry. I did not realize this, but prior to the creation of FHA, home mortgages did not exceed 50 percent of the home value and did not extend past the fifth year. At the end of 5 years, mortgages had to be either paid or renegotiated. But during the Great Depression, lenders were unable or unwilling to renegotiate many of the loans that came due. Consequently, many borrowers lost their homes and lenders lost money because property values declined significantly. The FHA program was established originally to provide stability and liquidity in the market. Its creation fostered the 30-year mortgage product and led to standardized mortgage instruments.

Once again, today, FHA has played an important role in a difficult housing market. As private sector lenders have scaled back their activities during the past 2 years, the FHA has significantly increased its share of the single-family mortgage market from less than 5 percent to more than 30 percent, but increased delinquencies and foreclosures across the Nation have had a detrimental effect on the financial health of the FHA program. An independent actuarial report which was published on November 12, 2009 showed that the capital reserve ratio for the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, the MMIF, dropped below the congressionally mandated threshold of 2 percent to a less-than-expected .53 percent, a serious red flag. The actuarial review also indicated that the economic value of the FHA declined over 75 percent from last year to $2.73 billion. In light of these facts, it is essential that Congress and the FHA enact reforms to ensure that a bailout of FHA is not and will not be necessary.

Madam Chair, the provisions of this bill are an important step in providing HUD with the tools it needs to supervise and monitor the FHA program and adequately assess risk. As the chairwoman has said, of the many important provisions included, H.R. 5072 authorizes FHA to increase annual insurance premiums and requires indemnification by lenders for loss on loans they originate.

The program is intended to be self-funded. Proceeds from the premiums paid by the homeowners for the FHA guarantee are used to operate the program and pay losses when loans default. The ability to increase annual premiums will allow HUD the ability to raise annual premiums above the .55 percent cap, which will allow FHA to more adequately price for risk and to build up its reserve ratio which, as we know, has fallen below its congressionally mandated level. The indemnification provisions in H.R. 5072 will give HUD the ability to seek restitution against unscrupulous lenders who make loans they never should have made.

H.R. 5072 is an important and necessary bill; it gives HUD the tools it needs to raise the annual premiums so that HUD can begin the process of putting the FHA program back on the road to a program that has an adequate reserve ratio and enough capital for the program to run in a safe and sound manner.

However, let me be clear: H.R. 5072 is not a panacea. The Department and this Congress and future Congresses must be ever vigilant in our oversight of this program to make certain that the program is operated in a way that assures the taxpayer is protected.

Recent reports indicate that FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are responsible for 100 percent of today's new mortgage originations, which means that the exposure for the taxpayer continues to grow day by day. That is why it was and still is imperative that reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be part of any attempt to fix our financial and regulatory system. Fannie and Freddie were a big part of what caused the financial collapse, and they must be part of the solution.

There are numerous issues currently being debated as part of the regulatory reform package such as risk retention, qualified mortgages, derivatives, hedge funds--and the list goes on--that could have significant implications for the future of the mortgage market as well as the direction of reform for Fannie and Freddie. H.R. 5072, the bill we are considering today, is extremely important because it provides the administration with the ability to increase the premiums which will improve FHA's current financial situation and prevent the need for any taxpayer bailouts.

I urge my colleagues to fully support H.R. 5072.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee and the Housing Subcommittee, my friend, Mr. Lee, from New York.

Madam Chair, I would just reiterate that this bill has my support. It passed out of the committee by voice vote. I think we did a good job meeting each other halfway on certain issues that we might have had some disagreement on, and I look forward to the passage of this bill.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor The Old Brick Playhouse of Elkins, West Virginia for the tremendous service they provide to the youth of Randolph, Upshur, and surrounding counties through its Apprentice program.

Founded in 1992 by Executive Director Missy Armentrout McCollam, the Old Brick's Apprentice program utilizes arts education to foster confidence, leadership and team building skills through a student-acted and produced play or musical.

One needs only to look at the numbers to see the strength of this program. From an initial cast of a mere 20 high school students, the Apprentices today overflow the theater doors with an enrollment of more than 100 students, spanning grades 6-12.

Instilling a commitment to continuing education and expanding one's horizons, the Apprentice program's legacy is unmistakable. Some of the more than 2,000 Apprentice alumni have gone on to attend some of our nation's most prestigious colleges and universities. Others have gone on to act professionally. Many have achieved distinguished careers in business, law, medicine, or teaching; and, nearly all have become model citizens worthy of emulation.

Truly one of those small, local treasures to all in the community it enriches, I commend the Old Brick Playhouse of Elkins, West Virginia for its outstanding leadership and commitment over the past 18 years. Having been recently recognized at the highest state and national levels, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this wonderful organization.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach Memorial Day we still have no budget. And now it appears we will not even be offered a budget resolution for the first time since the adoption of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act.

Across the country, people are hurting and being forced to cut back on their spending. An article in USA Today released today cited income from private wages fell to an all-time low during the first quarter of this year. While our private sector is losing jobs and cutting wages, the Federal Government, under the leadership of this Congress, has been irresponsibly seeking to spend trillions of dollars on a stimulus package full of pet projects, a job killing cap-and-trade proposal, and a budget-busting, if we had a budget, health proposal.

While Americans across the country are making a budget and sticking to it, I think it's time that we in Congress sit down under their leadership, make a budget, and stick to it.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me time.

I understand that there is no controversy really on this underlying resolution. I wish we could have done this, and I think we could have done it several days earlier to get started on this under unanimous consent. So I wish that was the direction that we had gone.

But as we have said, on April 5, 2010, an explosion occurred at the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia, killing 29 miners. And our hearts and prayers still are with the families and with the communities who have suffered greatly. This disaster was the worst mine disaster in West Virginia and the third mining disaster over the last 4 years. In 2006 in my district, 13 coal miners were trapped for nearly 2 hours at the Sago mine, and one miner miraculously survived.

I agree, my colleagues, that Congress has a very important oversight role to ensure that the laws are properly executed and to prevent future mining accidents. There must be a thorough investigation by Congress to determine whether the executive branch agencies charged with protecting miners are performing their job and whether changes need to be made to ensure that those agencies fulfill their obligations to the miners, their families, and the public.

Also, the Congress needs to have a thorough investigation into the company practices and whether safety is the top priority and the one priority first considered whenever beginning or starting to pursue coal mining and while it's in operation. Congress, however, must be wary not to compromise the integrity of any future or pending investigations and potentially jeopardize the executive branch's ability to enforce and hold violators accountable.

Keeping our miners safe requires all of us to work together to prevent mine disasters from happening in the first place. I support this rule, and I vow to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the safety and health of all miners.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman and gentlewoman for bringing this bill forth. I stand today in support of H.R. 2136, the Honorable Stephanie Tubbs Jones College Fire Prevention Act. I had the pleasure of serving with Congresswoman Tubbs Jones. She was a wonderful effervescent Member of our House. She was a very strong advocate for campus fire prevention, and she is greatly missed. But we are thinking about her today.

You know, every parent expects when they send their child off to college that they will be sending them to be protected and to be safe. For the most part, that is true, but unfortunately, that's not always the case. In 2007, a fire broke out in a 64-unit apartment building which was privately owned near Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia. It housed a number of students from Marshall. Nine people were killed in that fire, including one student who attended Marshall University and two of his siblings who were visiting him there. I was astonished to learn that there was no sprinkler system in the building, and several of the apartments didn't have smoke detectors.

Each year, unfortunately, college and university students on- and off-campus

experience hundreds of fire emergencies. Overall, most college-related fires are due to a general lack of knowledge about fire safety and prevention and also the lack of updating fire prevention equipment into the buildings. A lot of the buildings are older and were not equipped with sprinklers and other fire detection methods. This bill goes a long way, I think, to try to help solve that problem.

The great majority of student fire deaths occur in off-campus housing with insufficient exits and missing or inoperative smoke alarms or automatic fire sprinklers. These are deaths that can and should be prevented. H.R. 2136, would extend Stephanie Tubbs Jones' legacy by providing grants to institutions of higher education, fraternities and sororities to cover up to half the cost of installing fire sprinkler systems and other fire suppression or prevention technologies in student housing and in dormitories.

With that, I would like to thank the sponsors of the bill, and I urge the passage of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Joe W. Hatfield, Executive Director of the West Virginia Housing Development Fund, who is very deservedly being inducted into the 2010 West Virginia Affordable Housing Hall of Fame.

Joe has worked for the West Virginia Housing Development Fund since 1968, serving as its Executive Director since 1980. Joe has expanded the agency during that time to reach all 55 counties of the State with affordable housing programs, economic development initiatives and supportive housing services for West Virginians affected by flooding.

Realizing that one size does not fit all in the world of mortgage finance, Joe has created numerous mortgage programs that serve residents of all incomes. Joe has made it a goal to work with banks and housing partners all over the State so that borrowers in rural, harder to serve areas also have access to affordable housing programs.

Since its inception in 1970, the Housing Development Fund has sold more than $3 billion in tax-exempt bonds to finance more than 104,000 housing units. Under Joe's leadership, the Housing Development Fund has consistently been rated as one of the strongest in the Nation. As a testament to responsible lending, the West Virginia Housing Development Fund did not experience the great tide of foreclosures over the past two years as other loan servicers in this critical economic time.

Joe is a member of the West Virginia Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council, West Virginia Jobs Investment Trust, past Chairman of the West Virginia Disaster Recovery Board, West Virginia Homeless Task Force, the West Virginia Affordable Housing Trust, The West Virginia Housing Policy Advisory Committee and is a past Board Member of the National Council of State Housing Finance Agencies, who honored him in 1996 with its Housing Leadership Award at its Annual convention. Based on his experience and success, Joe is considered an icon among his peers in the housing industry.

Joe is a West Virginian through and through. He is a native of Newtown in Mingo County, West Virginia, and a graduate of Concord College in Athens, WV. Joe is married to Barbara and is the father of three children and eight grandchildren.

It is easy to understand why Joe is being honored by the West Virginia Affordable Housing Hall of Fame. Congratulations, Joe on this honor which is long overdue. Thank you for all of your hard work and dedication to providing safe, decent, affordable housing to West Virginians.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentleman from New York, not only for his support of this bill but also for his eloquent statement in support, not just of the coin but of mothers in general. I want to thank him for yielding time to me.

Madam Speaker, as he said, this Sunday, families across the Nation will gather to honor their mothers and grandmothers. By the way, I am a new grandmother. I had to put that in. They will show their gratitude for the contributions these women have made not only to their immediate families but also to their communities at large. The tradition of honoring our mothers on the second Sunday in May goes back almost a century. It is a very interesting and quite simple history.

The tradition of Mother's Day began in the mountains of Appalachia, when a woman named Anna Jarvis sought a more formal way to honor her mother. Her mother's name was Anna Reeves Jarvis, who had passed away in 1905. Ms. Jarvis, a native of Webster County in the wilds of West Virginia, began working with the Andrews Methodist Episcopal Church of Grafton, West Virginia, to honor her mother and her mother's contributions to the community.

In 1908, the church officially proclaimed the third anniversary of Anna Reeves Jarvis' passing to be Mother's Day, but Anna Jarvis was not to be deterred. She continued her efforts to honor mothers across the State of West Virginia. In 1910, she was successful in lobbying and in encouraging the Governor of West Virginia to issue the first Mother's Day proclamation, encouraging all West Virginians to attend church and to wear white carnations in honor of their mothers.

Ms. Jarvis built upon her success at home and began a nationwide effort to have Federal recognition of Mother's Day. After 4 years of hard work and dedication, President Woodrow Wilson issued a presidential proclamation in 1914 encouraging all Americans to fly the American flag at their homes on the second Sunday of May as a public expression of the love and reverence for mothers of our Nation.

West Virginians, we are very proud of our heritage and of the role that our State played in the creation and founding of Mother's Day.

Last year I introduced this underlying legislation, which calls for the minting of a commemorative coin in 2014 to honor the centennial of proclaiming and designating the second Sunday in May as Mother's Day. This coin will be minted in 2014, and as the gentleman from New York expressed, the proceeds of the sales of the coin will go to the Susan G. Komen Foundation and also to the National Osteoporosis Foundation. I wanted to pick foundations that I knew were dedicated to women's health so that the money will be used for research and development to help the mothers of the future cope with the tragic consequences of osteoporosis or cancer.

As an aside, I would like to wish my mother, Shelley Riley Moore, a very happy and wonderful Mother's Day this Sunday. She has been a very special person in my life and in the life of my entire family. And while that's a personal aside, I know we all feel the same way about our mothers, and taking the time to tell them. I would encourage everyone to do that.

I would like to thank the 291 Members of the House who have joined me in this effort allowing the bill to be considered today. I would encourage the passage of this bill, and again I would encourage the recognition of the place that the mothers of America and really across the world play in the lives of all of us here today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me time, and I would like to thank the sponsor of the bill.

As a cosponsor of this legislation, I rise today in support of H.R. 1722.

I represent the eastern panhandle of West Virginia that continues to welcome new residents seeking the lower cost of living and family- oriented environment that West Virginia offers. Many of these new West Virginians work in the Washington, D.C., area for the Federal Government.

Telework would further improve the quality of life for these commuters. Teleworking would allow these workers to perform their duties and responsibilities from home or at another worksite--we actually have a remote telework facility in Jefferson County--where they would be removed from their regular workplace.

Telework would be good for families because it provides employees the flexibility they need to meet daily demands. It's an environmental bill because I believe it will reduce traffic congestion and air pollution as well as gasoline consumption.

Additionally, employers benefit from the increased productivity. I think the private sector has studies out there showing that telework can be much more productive for the overall organization: improved morale, fewer sick leave days used, better worker retention, and reduced costs for office space.

As telework is more widely adopted by the private sector, it is critical that the Federal Government continue to keep pace and serve as a model for telework. Several agencies within the Federal Government have already established efficient and effective telework policies, but H.R. 1722 requires each executive agency to establish a policy under which employees would be authorized to telework to the maximum extent possible without diminishing employee performance or agency operations.

As both speakers have stated, many law enforcement, home security, and emergency preparedness agencies on all levels of government advocate formal agency telework policies because they can aid continuity of operations planning for crises--such as the February snowstorms that crippled the Washington, D.C., area--through organized dispersal of employees and computer/telecom technology.

I know that telework may not work for every job, but there are jobs today that lend themselves to telework. Nearly 20 million Americans telework today, and at least 40 percent of American jobs are compatible with telework. I believe that instead of sitting in traffic for hours during the daily commute, time is better spent sitting down to dinner as a family, helping kids with their homework, or other important events that happen during the day which teleworking would allow many of our Federal employees to do on a regular basis.

I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my deep concern over the rising tide of unemployment across America and particularly in my home State of West Virginia. In my State, the unemployment rate has risen now to over 10 percent with some counties reaching well over 12 percent.

Beyond these staggering figures, we must take a moment to pause and ask ourselves, are the policies we're pushing through this Congress creating real job growth? Absolutely not.

Sadly, we all know a family member, a friend, a colleague who has lost their job and is struggling to get back on their feet. The so- called stimulus bill, along with numerous so-called jobs bills, has failed to produce the jobs that the administration and the Democrats in this Congress promised. And worse yet, the policies of this administration are actually causing job loss in my State.

Instead we should be enacting policies that get Americans back to work and awaken Main Street across our country.

Mr. Speaker, at a time of increasing unemployment for American families, we must keep repeating, where are the jobs?