history of the state of georgia. we lost over 20,000 homes throughout the state, but no area was more impacted than my own congressional district. 10 people statewide lost their lives, there was a cost of over $500 million to lost businesses and homes. and on those 10 people that lost their lives, seven many them -- of them from from my congressional district, and to even make this more pointed, seven of them were from one county in my district. . the counties of douglas county and cobb county were devastated by this flood. the communities of powder springs and douglasville and lythia springs and college park had to all virtually start over. imagine yourself as a child, your whole school underwater.

it was an extraordinary unfortunate situation. and to make matters worse, madam speaker, so many, most of these individuals had no flood insurance. and the reason they didn't have any flood insurance was because of the cost of flood insurance and the requirement that you had to pay for your flood insurance in one lump sum. well, thanks to this committee, thanks to this bill, thanks to the work of ms. waters and mrs. biggert and chairman bachus, ranking member frank, we galvanized this and to the federal government and fema and now thanks to this bill and the amendment that you all were kind enough to adopt which was mine individuals now can purchase their flood insurance in monthly installments.

what a relief, what a great measure and this is what the american people expect of us, to come up here and immediately respond to oppress -- a pressing need. this is a great day, it's a great bill, i want to thank all of you for working with us in this and, madam chairman, again i want to thank mrs. biggert and ms. waters for their excellent work for a job well done and the people of this country thank you, too. so that we can pay our insurance . the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: madam chairman, may i inquire the chair how much time each side has remaining? the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois has 20 minutes, the gentlewoman from california has 16 1/2 minutes. mrs. biggert: thank you. with that i would yield two minutes to the gentlelady from

michigan, candace miller. the chair: the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. mrs. miller: thank you and i certainly thank the gentlelady for yielding some time to me and i hate to rain on this bipartisan parade, i know this is a bipartisan effort here, but i think this program needs to be eliminated, not be reformed. and i would start with this basic premise. why in the world is the federal government in the flood insurance business? if you read the constitution, what does it say? actually in the preamble it says the first and foremost responsibility of the federal government is to provide for the common defense. i can't find anywhere in that constitution it says we're supposed to be in the federal flood insurance business. i just can't find it. and i'll tell you what, this thing, i know we're trying to reform what i think is an unnecessary boondoggle, ridiculous program, but rather than reforming it, as i say, i think it needs to be eliminated.

this program started in 1968, we started writing policies in 1972 and the fema administrator just recently testified, i believe, before the financial services committee, has said this federal flood insurance program is in debt, as has been mentioned here, almost $18 billion in debt and we have to raise the debt ceiling for the federal flood insurance program to about $25 billion and the fema administrator is telling us it is always going to be in debt, forever. massive debt. the biggest issue facing the congress today is what we are going to do about the $14 trillion in debt which currently are faced with and raising the debt ceiling for that and as we're struggling with all of this it is almost ludicrous to me that we are talking about raising the debt ceiling on a program that the federal government should not be involved in and one of the reasons that it's not doing particularly well is guess what?

big surprise, the federal government is probably not the best insurance agent in the world. i mean, when you see that 1% of the policy holders are getting 40% of the claims, something is seriously wrong. and i'm going to be offering an amendment shortly to eliminate this program and i'll speak more to it at that time. thanks for the time. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: madam chairman, i would like to yield to the gentleman from texas three minutes. he has worked very hard to make sure that we open up communications with communities that are located in areas where flood insurance maps have not been updated in 20 years. he's worked hard on this, i yield to the gentleman three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to thank congresswoman waters for her leadership on

this issue. i also want to thank the subcommittee chairwoman biggert, also financial services chairman bachus, ranking member frank for their bipartisan work on this piece of legislation. i consulted with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on my amendment, i believe this will be included en bloc with other amendments. mr. cuellar: homeowners throughout the country are hit by flood disaster every year and i understand that in such dramatic and desperate times communities must be prepared and equipped with the most up-to-date information and resources. after meeting with my constituents and judges who experienced flooding issues recently, i learned that flood zone maps had not been updated for decades, decades and this hampered economic development when they were struck by a flood recently. the reason for maps from the 1970's are not uncommon, but

there is a need to strengthen the relationship between entities that handle flood insurance maps to address regional concerns. my amendment is simple and bipartisan. it encourages fema, state emergency agencies to increase communications to resolve outstanding issues and provide necessary tailored information in an effort to decrease the privilege lance of outdated flood zone maps. , -- prevalence of outdated flood zone maps. they are not only contradictory but can result in serious problems for the region. increasing fema, state, local relationships is a practical and effective way to assist communities and ensure a steady process to modernize flood maps. so we're ready when a disaster strikes and therefore i urge support for my commonsense amendment that will be included en bloc. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from north dakota, mr.berg. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. berg: thank you. it's been a very tough spring for north dakota. as well as many other districts along these overflowing rivers. unprecedented flooding has devastated many communities, leaving property destroyed and thousands without homes and hundreds of thousands of acres of farm land flooded. roads and bridges are severely damaged as well. this year's flooding is unusual, both in the scope of its damage as well as how long the flooding has lasted. many north dakotans purchased flood insurance to be prepared for the flood and protect themselves and their families from the losses that these floods cause. unfortunately fema's current policy fails to account for a

long lasting flood event. like the one that we've seen along the missouri river. i support the 30-day waiting period. if individuals purchase insurance 30 days before their property is damaged they should be protected, regardless of when fema declares a flood in progress. that declaration could be counties or even states away or that's unexpectedly worsened by the corps' decision to increase the outflows from dams and flooded rivers upstroo -- upstream and doing this with very little warning. the terry-berg amendment would protect these individuals who have played by the rules. we need responsible policies that help plan for the uncertainty of natural disasters. we also need to protect and help the people so i urge my colleagues to support these victims by voting in favor of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz, to talk about his part of the amendment that we're now debating. thank you. the chair: for how long is the gentleman recognized? ms. waters: three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for three minutes. mr. walz: thank you, madam chairwoman, and thank you to the ranking member for the work on this and to the chairwoman of the subcommittee. thank you for coming together to create a process that allowed us to interact and work for our constituents, recognizing the gentleman from north dakota, i have actually been on those flood flights that he's experiencing and am very appreciative of what he brought forward. but today i have a pretty simple amendment i think that addresses a real issue that we're having. over the past decade there have been two real changes to the levee system that protects our communities in this country. the first of course was fema

increasing the amount of information and the due diligence they're doing on recertification of levees. that's appropriate after hurricane katrina. secondly, the private engineering firms that perform the recertifications are facing at nomically increased costs from their private insurers, no one wants to insure a levee in a flood-prone area other than the rest of the community, thus the government. together these two changes have added increasingly high cost to our local communities as they're trying to protect their residents and keep their levees up to standards. it's created an extra burden on these communities that they can ill afford. this amendment offers a solution. the army corps of engineers stands ready and able to perform these levee certifications. in many cases they built the levees. they can do it at significantly reduced cost to the local communities. but under legislation passed in the 2000 water resources

development act state and local communities cannot hire the corps of engineers to do the work, they must first go to private contractors. it's exactly what happened in my town in minnesota. the levee which was designed and built by the corps needed to be recertified because of these changes. because they couldn't use the corps of engineers our local officials had to scramble and go out of their way to find a private contractor willing to do the work. at an added cost of tens of thousands of clars -- dollars. at no fault to the private contractors, only their insurance of liability was so high they had to pass the cost on to the local communitys. this was worked on in the last congress with then representative boozman, now senator boozman, it has the support of the national association of counties, the national league of cities and the national associations of towns and townships. and here's the good thing. the congressional budget office has certified this amendment will cost nothing to the taxpayers. our taxpayers on the local level are paying far more as it is. this is a way to get it right,

use the corps that we already have, save taxpayer moneys, increase the efficiency of our levees and reduce the claims made by. this i urge my colleagues to support this -- made by this. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: madam chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for two minutes. mr. terry: thank you, madam chairman, and i want to thank the gentlelady from illinois and the entire financial services committee for working with us on this amendment and recognizing the tragedy and disaster that's currently occurring along the missouri river in my -- and my constituents all the way -- my constituents in north dakota, south dakota, nebraska, iowa, missouri. what occurred here is that at

the beginning when they started realizing there was going to be flooding and the corps had to run the traps through the dam system, one government agency started telling people down river, buy flood insurance. then fema steps in and sets a start of flood or flood in progress date that nullified what the constituents and people bought. now, the terry -- what the terry-berg amendment does is protect those individuals during a flood in progress if the individual has purchased flood insurance and has not sustained damage or loss of property within that 30-day window. that's the clear language of the policies that they were purchasing that had been nullified by fema's declaration. this amendment does not dispute the 30-day waiting period which is designed to discourage people from waiting until a flood is

eminent to buy insurance, it simply ensures american families who purchase flood insurance are covered if they sustain daniel after the declaration of a flood -- damage after the declaration of a flood in progress, the 30-day waiting period. this resolves the conflict caused between two government agencies and adheres to the intent and i want to thank financial services committee for including this in the en bloc package and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. the chair: ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: thank you, madam chairman. i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, madam chair.

i'd like to thank the gentlelady from illinois for her leadership on this important issue. i rise in support of house resolution 1309 and to support of my en bloc amendment that aims to provide certainty for the flood insurance program. my amendment calls on fema to take into account the effects and implications of weather conditions when making -- flood in progress determination. currently fema's flood determinations are made independently by a fema adjustor allowing significant amount of room for subjectivity. i thank them for their flexibility but take a more formulated approach to flood events will provide increased certainty it our river communities. my amendment would also require fema to review the process for public -- providing for public notification of a flood event. when the missouri river started flooding earlier this summer fema was delinquent in reporting their flood in progress determination to the public. that determination was made june 1 but was not announced null june 6. for five days we had no way of

knowing fema had made this determination, impacting policyholders and new homebuyers. we believe fema must look at the policies in place and make recommendations for a more objective and more precise determination process, along with public notification standards that will keep policyholders better informed. it's important to increase communication to the public. i encourage support of the amendment and yield back. thank you, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california continues to reserve. ms. waters: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: thank you, madam chairman. i would recognize myself for such time as i may consume. you know, without the -- and i put authorization with this. it's set to expire on september 30.

it's very critical 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. it 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's no viable private insurance market, we're going to have to pay more, so i suggest we really look forward to passing this bill. and with that i would recognize the the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, for two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, madam chairman, and i'd like to thank my good friend from illinois for the time. she's been a wonderful advocate on behalf of homeowners and

renters of the united states, and especially in my area. so, madam chair, i rise in support of this bill, to re-authorize the national flood insurance program as administered by fema through the year 2016. granted, the bill before us isn't perfect, but homeowners and businesses in my congressional district that stretches from miami -- from miami beach all the way down to key west, they deserve to see stability brought to this vital program. since september of 2008, the nfip has had 11 short-term extensions, and just last year alone the program was allowed to lapse three times. that is inexcusable. these lapses meant that fema was not able to write new policies, renew expiring policies or increase coverage limits. and for a program that insures

over 90% of flood insurance policies nationwide, 40% of those being in my home state of florida, this is rightfully inexcusable. just as bad for each of the 53 days that the nfip was lapsed, over 1,400 homebuyers who wanted to purchase homes located in floodplains were unable to close on their home purchases. it is necessary to demonstrate these irresponsible lapses will not occur again. those of us in south florida and the miami beach area to the keys, as they prepare for any event that could occur during hurricane season, which is upon us again, and we need to know that the nfip is there to help us recover. let us not let another lapse happen right in the middle of hurricane season, and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this much-needed, way

overdue, important re-authorization. i know my time is up. i thank the gentlelady for the time, and let's pass this. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california continues to reserve. ms. waters: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: madam chairman, if i might inquire how much time we have remaining. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois has 10 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from california has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. mrs. biggert: with that, then, i yield to our distinguish chairman of the financial services committee from alabama nine minutes. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for nine minutes. mr. bachus: i thank the chairman. this month we are all focused on the debt and the deficit and

our negotiations to try to balance the budget, so it's with great pride that i tell the house that all 54 members of the financial services committee, both republicans and democrats, have brought before the committee unanimously, we passed out of the committee a bipartisan piece of legislation which will save the u.s. government and the american taxpayers $4.2 billion over the next 10 years. it does that without decreasing any of the benefits of the program. it does it in some commonsense ways. one is that premiums will be act wearl -- actuarily sound. they will be based on the risk,

and we will be eliminating subsidies to bring the program into balance. we further insulate taxpayers from losses by a reinsurance provision whereby part of the premium that people pay, just as if they do on their house or wind coverage if they have a home on the beach, part of it is in private insurance laid off into reinsurance. the risk, instead of being -- the program today, if you eat up the reserves, then the treasury is responsible for making up the difference. after this legislation goes into effect, there will be reinsurance that will be purchased. and the taxpayer will only be

exposed after risk-based premiums are exhausted, reinsurance in addition to that is exhausted, and so we reduce taxpayer exposure to a tremendous extent. we also -- people have said, why is there not private insurance. well, we have a provision in here supported by both parties that if the private market comes in and offers insurance for the same coverage that people will be free to choose that coverage as opposed to the national flood insurance offered by the government. you heard the gentlelady from florida express her concern that 11 times this legislation has been extended.

where it has been extended, it has retarded economic growth along our coastlines, along our rivers, and you can actually imagine that a lot of the economic activity and the job creation in our country comes in these areas. and today i think there will be no one in the house that says we want to put the economies of those areas on hold for three months or six months. we want the economy to have much less problems. we don't want to stop home sales. we don't want to stop commercial developments in those areas. there are other shortcomings with the present program. one is there are disputes over whether or not land should be

included within the floodplains, whether it should be coverage that is offered. we return to a program several years ago where there's a technical advisory committee that in addition to fema will make these decisions. it will be a more professional based decision. those areas which are spending money, local areas like los angeles, california, ms. waters' district, along the mississippi river where local governments have come together and made expenditures to protect against floods, there's acknowledgment of their work and the phase-in period for them is extended to encourage more of that. all in all i think that i would just go back to where i started

and say that the financial services committee is no different than any other committee in this house. there are conservatives. there are liberals. there are moderates that serve on that committee, both democrats and republicans, but all 54 members -- let me stress that again -- all 54 members of the financial services committee voted unanimously for this legislation. and we are prepared in our debate as we go forward to accept amendments offered by several other members, both democrats and republicans, to accept those amendments where it does not do violence to the program, where it doesn't increase cost or exposure to the taxpayer. all in all, i want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee who produced this legislation. i think our constituents for

months have been saying to the congress, please set aside your political differences, please try to work together, please try to cooperate when you can do so without violating your principles. and mrs. biggert and ms. waters, the ranking subcommittee member on her side, they put aside their differences. i worked with chairman frank. we had -- we had hearings. we had markups, and we produced something i thought was not possible and that's a bill that we all think will improve the program tremendously, will reduce the cost and reduce taxpayer exposure. and really make the mapping good -- better and the protection for our communities and flood -- in flood-prone

areas work more effectively. so with that i will reserve the balance of our time and i understand there may not be any other speakers, and with that i think i will yield back -- i'll reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. is the gentlewoman from california prepared to close? ms. waters: madam chair, i will close at this point. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: madam chair woman, thank you very much. i am very proud to be a co-sponsor of this tremendous comprehensive legislation. i would like to thank the chairwoman, chairwoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, for her work, her leadership and her cooperation, and i'd like to thank both the chairman of our committee, mr. bachus, and the

ranking member, mr. frank, for their support and their cooperation on this legislation. you heard mr. bachus, our chairman, recount for you that 54 members of the committee unanimously voted to support this legislation. that is pretty unheard of, and i think the committee, the entire committee is to be congratulated by the tremendous work that we all put into making sure that we have comprehensive legislation that would afford protection for our citizens at the same time, as was mentioned, reduce the cost, but recognize that this has been a long time in coming. so as a co-sponsor of this bill, h.r. 1309, the flood insurance reform act of 2011, this bipartisan effort that has brought us to this point, i

would like to say that all of the members who have spoken today, for the most part, on both sides of the aisle have been complimentary of this comprehensive work. of course we did have one member who disagreed with government's involvement in this flood insurance program, that's a rather radical view. i think most members of this congress believe that we have a responsibility to give support to those who are the victims of natural disasters that have been caused through, of course, no faultle -- fault of their own. i am very pleased that they have an opportunity to get some protection with the help of their government and to make sure that their homes and their families can be supported at a time that can be very traumatic in their lives.

again i'll have to remind all of my colleagues that unfortunately the lack of a long-term authorization has placed the flood insurance program at risk. the program lapsed three times last year. these lapses meant that fema was not able to write new policies, renewing expiring policies or increase coverage limits. today you have heard the members of congress again on both sides of the aisle give appreciation for the mapping reform that we have included in this legislation, for the outreach that we have included in this en bloc amendment that will allow the constituents of all of our districts to understand better what fema is doing, how it's doing and how they can be a part of it. i'm also pleased that included in this en bloc amendment is protection for small businesses

and i'm very, very pleased that we have seen this as an effort not only to re-authorize but to correct some of the weaknesses in the program and to strengthen the program in general. and with that, madam chair, i would ask for support for this bill, i know that there are some amendments that are being introduced a little bit later on and i think that again you will see bipartisan support for most of these amendments and i look forward to completing the bill with the amendments and to sending this bill on where i believe we will have like support on the senate side and eventually to the president's desk. it's about time. and i think that this country's going to be better off for it. with that i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.

the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes, the remaining balance of her time. mrs. biggert: thank you, madam chairman. i would first of all submit for the record two industry letters, one dated june 30, 2011, and the other one dated may 27, 2011. the chair: this will be covered under general leave. mrs. biggert: with that, madam chairman, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1309 and it's a bim to reform and re-authorize the -- a bill to reform and re-authorize the national flood insurance program. i think we've had a great debate and it certainly is a pleasure to have a bill that has such bipartisan support and i think it's such an important bill. it's going to enact a series of reforms designated to improve nf ib'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 razor and i think that that's very important -- racer -- raiser and i think that's very important, too. 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 are living in flood plains. so 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 our -- on our side, mr. bachus, the chairman.

do i have any time remaining? the chair: the gentlewoman has one minute remaining. mrs. biggert: with that i see another member of our committee who i would just like to leave the one minute for, mr. dold of illinois. the chair: mr. dold is recognized for one minute. mr. dold: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i do want to talk about the flood insurance program, one that i think enjoys great bipartisan support. i want to thank the chairwoman for her guidance and obviously ms. waters for her leadership as well. five million actually residential and commercial properties across the land rely on this flood insurance. they depend on it for stability and we have to recognize that there are indeed problems. we have debt, there's no question about that. it's undercapitalized which are placing the taxpayers at risk. but this bill would minimize taxpayer risk by making the program more self-sufficient

over time by expanding the private sector's role while allowing -- and not allowing for coverage gaps. it also moves towards actual air sound rates -- actual rare -- towards sound rates. this is exactly the kind of solution that we need to have here in the united states congress, to be able to still provide coverage in areas that need it so desperately and move us over to sound rates. with that i yield back and thank the gentlelady for her leadership. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all timer to debate has expired -- time for debate has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 1309 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1309 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to house resolution 337 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2354.

would the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, kindly take the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2354 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on monday, july 11, 2011, the bill had been read through page 24, line 23. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the

congressional record on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. an amendment by mr. sessions of texas. an amendment by mr. moran of virginia. an amendment by mr. markey of massachusetts. amendment number 5 by mr. lamborn of colorado. an amendment by mr. connolly of virginia. an amendment by mr. miller of north carolina. an amendment by mr. broun of georgia. an amendment by mr. welch of vermont. an amendment by mr. pompeo of kansas. an amendment by mr. tonko of new york. an amendment by mr. garrett of new jersey. an amendment by mr. wu of oregon. an amendment by mr. mcclintock of california. an amendment by mr. schiff of california. an amendment by mr. garamendi of california. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first

vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sessions of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 224. the nays are 196. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment offered by the

gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. moran of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 170. the nays are 250. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 154. the nays are 266.

the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9, congressional record, offered by mr. lamborn of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 164. the nays are 259. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 173. the nays are 249. the amendment is not adopted. the the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment -- an amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. miller, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.

the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. miller of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 179. the nays are 244. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 131. the nays are 292. the amendment is not adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. welch of vermont. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. leong -- members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 123, the nays are 300. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. pompeo of kansas. the clerk: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the

united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 127. the nays are 296. the amendment is not adopted. the next unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by

voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. tonko of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for recorded vote will rise. and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 149. the noes are 273. the amendment is not adopted. the next unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on

amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new jersey, -- the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, on which further proceedings were postponed an on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 149. the nays are 274. the amendment is not adopted.

a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from from oregon, mr. wu, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. wu of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 195 and the nays are 298.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 196. the nays are 228. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, on which further proceedings were postponed and the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the

u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 119. the nays are 305 and this amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. schiff of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 167 and the nays are 257. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 145, the nays are 276, the amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> mr. speaker, i move that the committee does rise. the chair: the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee will rise. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman.

the chair: the committee of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2354 direct mess to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2354 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2354. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will be in order.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house res. arelusion 340 and rule 18 -- house resolution 340 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1309. will the gentleman from louisiana, mr. landry, kindly take the chair?

the chair: the committee will be in order. when the committee rose earlier today all time for general debate had expired.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1309 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to extend the authorization of the national flood insurance program, to achieve reforms to improve the financial integrity and stability of the program and to increase the role of private markets in the management of flood insurance risk and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, all of the time for general debate had expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider

as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the house report 112-138. the amendments en bloc described in section 3 of the house resolution 340, each amendment printed in the report may be offered by -- may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. shall not be subject to amendment and shatshal not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. it shall be in order at any time for the chair of the committee on financial services or his designee to offer amendments en

bloc consisting of amendments printed in the report not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee or their he isingnies. shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. the original proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc shall -- may insert a statement in the congressional record immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? mrs. biggert: mr. chairman, pursuant to house resolution 340 i have an amendment en bloc at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment en bloc. the chair: amendments en bloc consisting of amendments numbered 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15,

18, 21, 22 and 24 printed in house report 112-138 offered by mrs. biggert of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 340, the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, and the gentleman from massachusetts , mr. capuano, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois -- the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent that amendment number 8 be modified in the form i have placed at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification to waters amendment number 8 offered by mrs. biggert of illinois. page 23, line 17, strike section 1361-ab and insert section 1361-j.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i claim the time. this is a bipartisan package of amendments that we are accepting. i urge my colleagues to support the amendments en bloc. the chair: the gentlewoman will suspend. does the gentlewoman seek unanimous consent to dispense with the reading? mrs. biggert: yes. the chair: of the modification? mrs. biggert: yes. the chair: without objection, so ordered. without objection, the amendment is so modified. and the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. chairman. this is a bipartisan package of amendments that we're accepting. i urge my colleagues to support the amendments en bloc and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time.

the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. capuano: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield time to the gentlewoman from california. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and i want to thank the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding me time. mr. chairman, i want to commend chairwoman biggert and ranking member waters for their leadership and their support for my amendment to phase in higher flood insurance rates with deferred risk policies are no longer available in the community. i represent the city of sacramento which is home to both the american and sacramento rivers. after new orleans we are the most at-risk river city in our nation. since hurricane katrina more than 25,000 homeowners in my district had a remap and for them flood insurance is now mandatory. ms. matsui: their flood insurance costs increased from the p.r.p. rate of $350 to over $1,350 overnight. the sticker shock to a homeowner, where it be a senior citizen on a fixed income or a family struggling to make ends meet, is unreasonable. my amendment would simply raise

the cost of flood insurance for remapped areas from the p.r.p. rate to the full price rate over a period of five years. specifically my amendment would start the phase-in for homeowners at their current p.r.p. rate. each year after that the price of flood insurance would rise by 20% until it reaches its full price in year five. my amendment will save the average policy holder in a remap area about $843 over five years while not impacting the solvency of the nfip. i believe this to be a fair and equitable way forward, especially in these trying economic times and again i thank chairwoman biggert and ranking member waters for their leadership. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: i reserve the balance of my time. mr. capuano: mr. speaker, we have no further speakers. this en bloc amendment is perfectly fine with us and i

urge its adoption. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from illinois. does the gentlewoman yield back her time? mrs. biggert: i would yield time to mr. platt zow to speak on this for as much time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. palazzo: thank you for yielding. i'd like to thank chairwoman biggert for her leadership on this issue. i rise today in strong support of the re-authorization of the national flood insurance reform act. as a representative of the katrina-devastated mississippi gulf coast, i understand both the importance of the national flood insurance program, you -- but also the need for its reform. i've introduced two amendments to the bill which will be part of the en bloc amendment. the first cost to the newly created technical mapping advisory council to include

members from coastal or other high-risk flood areas. this assures that the advisory council has members that are not just technical experts but have experienced firsthand the hardship and heartbreak catastrophic flooding and damage causes families and communities. my other amendment allows any claimant to obtain from the administrator any engineering reports or other documents relied on in determining whether the damage was caused by flood or any other peril. when the fema administrator or a participating company have the task of determining whether a home's damage was caused by wind or by water, the policy holder would now have the right to request those documents relied upon in making that determination. it is my belief that transparency in government is important, especially for policy holders. for those who may have lost their property, they have the right to know the details in the determination of their claim. i urge your support of both of my amendments as well as the full passage of h.r. 1309.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: i have no other speakers and i would urge support for the amendments en bloc and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendments en bloc as modified offered by the gentlewoman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments is adopted. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in the house report 12-138.

for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise as a designee for mr. bachus to offer amendment number 2. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-138 offered by mr. schock of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 340, the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. schock: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of amendment number 2 drafted by the chairman and my friend, mr. bachus, to help solve a problem that is prevalent in my district as well as many rural districts across the heartland. as you know, this flood insurance issue affects every

town but especially those along the river banks and fema's new requirements that require many of these small towns to make necessary improvements in their upgrades of their levees and dams require significant investment. investment that america's small businesses and family farms and private properties will have to come up with the revenue to pay for. this amendment in no way seeks to get anyone off the hook but rather to give them the necessary time given the large investment that many of these small towns will have to make, given the economic times that we're in right now, recognizing that many of these small towns will require more than the three years as is allowed in the underlying bill to make the necessary improvements. it does require, however, in year four and five, which this amendment allows for an extension up to years four and five to allow to make the improvement it's, but those communities have to show -- improvements but those

communities have to show a stated improvement or at least progress toward the final necessary improvements in year four and five in order to get the necessary extension. so i think it's -- it makes sense, it's a pretty commonsense amendment and i just want to say thank you personally to chairman bachus for his work with other members of my delegation in illinois and i know those along the mississippi and other waterways whose towns are feeling the pain of many of these new unfunded mandates put forward by fema. so with that i would urge passage of this underlying -- of amendment number 2 and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. capuano: i'd like to yield to the gentleman for five

minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to first thank the chairlady of the subcommittee, mrs. biggert from illinois, and also the ranking member, maxine waters, as well as chairman bachus and ranking member frank of the full committee. mr. costello: and also mr. schock and mr. shimkus from illinois. we all worked on this amendment together. it's a good amendment. as i think mr. schock explained, the bachus amendment gives the administrator the authority to allow for a possible fourth and fifth suspension of the mandatory purchase for certain communities that are making adequate progress in the flood protection system. it's a commonsense amendment. it's a bipartisan agreement, and i urge its adoption and not only support the amendment but the underlying bill as well. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. schock: thank you, mr. chairman. i would yield the balance of my time to the author of the amendment, the chairman of the committee, spencer bachus. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. three minutes. mr. bachus: i appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from illinois and simply think i believe it's a noncontroversial amendment. it will encourage local governments to undertake repairs and remedial efforts. i believe it is a more -- is a fair, equitable change in the bill to reward local and state governments for their efforts. with that i'd recommend passage of the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from

massachusetts. mr. capuano: mr. speaker, i support this amendment and i yield back the remainder of our time as well. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-138. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. speier: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-138 aurd by ms. speier of california. speier speier thank you, mr. chairman -- ms. speier: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlewoman will suspend. pursuant to house resolution 340, the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.

the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. speier: thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for jumping the gun there. i am pleased to present this amendment. it was actually adopted by a voice vote in the financial services committee in 2010, and my good friend and colleague, congresswoman biggert, may recall it. it was something that came up in my district where an elderly woman living on social security had a mortgage balance on her home of $13,000. but because she was being included in a newly mapped flood zone her bank required her to purchase the full $250,000 in flood insurance at a cost of more than $2,400 per year. now, i would venture to say we don't see ourselves as being in the insurance business by

choice. we are in the flood insurance business out of necessity, and it would seem to me it doesn't make a lot of sense to impose an obligation on homeowners to purchase insurance that exceeds the actual cost of their mortgage. especially when we note that the average flood damage claims are anywhere from $25,000 to $35,000. so to require someone that has a $13,000 loan balance to purchase flood insurance for $250,000 and pay a fee, a yearly premium of $2,400 is just i think unacceptable, and i would think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would like to do something for those people who have been responsible, paid down their mortgages, have small balances. and so this particular amendment makes it a violation for a lenders whose only interest in the property is the

amount of the outstanding mortgage indebtedness to use the national flood insurance program to require a homeowner to purchase more than the legally required amount of flood insurance, an amount equal to the outstanding principal balance. nothing, however, would prohibit a homeowner who wishes to purchase more and nothing would prevent a mortgage lender for requiring it in the mortgage contract upfront as long as it is fully disclosed. in each case, the homeowner would be able to make a choice and this would be full disclosure as well. in california where we have mandatory auto insurance, once a car owner has discharged their debt on the car they are no longer obligated to carry coverage for the damage to their own car, only the liability insurance if they crash into someone else's car. so this is very consistent with giving people a choice as well. so, again, i offer this amendment and i will yield back

the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back her time. the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would impose penalties against lenders who require borrow others who maintain flood insurance in an amount greater than the outstanding principal balance of the loan. i think that limiting the amount of coverage to an unpaid principal balance leaves consumers at risk of having to incur the cost of repairs on their own -- on their own. additionally, it's not reflective of the current state of the industry practices. in fact, with the exception of v.a. loans, eliminating insurance to the unpaid principal balance is not recommended under existing law. consumers, not lenders, will bear the financial brunt of a

disaster, so limiting flood insurance to the unpaid balance may protect the financial -- the lenders' financial interest in the property. however, it doesn't protect the consumers' equity and investment in the property. and this idea has established the minimum amount of coverage required at the lesser of the outstanding balance of the loan or the maximum available to nfip coverage which is today $250,000 and $500,000 for commercial properties. the standard in f.i.p. is one or two occupiers be -- for the cost to repair or replace the problem. if they are not insured, certainly 80% at the time of loss, the policyholder may not

receive sufficient funds to repair -- replace the property damage by the flood. guidelines issued by the federal regulators encourage and authorize lenders to require flood insurance at replacement cost not to exceed nfip maximum available coverage. so the guidelines also urge lenders to follow the same rules in calculating flood coverages as they do calculating hazard coverage. standard industry practice is to require coverage at replacement cost. in the case of condominiums, the guidelines issued by the federal regulators require lenders to ensure that flood protection has been obtained for the replacement value of the property improvements not to exceed nfip's maximum limit. so i would request a no vote on this amendment number 3 and i

would yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mrs. biggert: in that case i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in the house report 112-138. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition?

mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk, number 4. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-138 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 340, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chair. this amendment would strike additional flood-related coverage provided in the underlying bill for business interruption and cost of living expenses, specifically this arizona would prohibit from offering individuals up to $500,000 in living expenses and up to $20,000 for interruption of business expenses. i understand that the committee worked to ensure that the inclusion of this additional coverage would be provided at fully actuarial rates. let me remind this body that congress does not have a great track record when it comes to pricing risk. one has to look no further than fannie mae and freddie mac to see an example of this. or look at this program itself.

the national flood insurance program is about $18 billion in the red. let me say that again. we have a federal flood insurance program that currently owes the treasury department nearly $18 billion. so we shouldn't take at face value the notion that any new coverage that's offered is priced at fully actuarial rates. this expansion of coverage will only increase taxpayer liability, which is the last thing we ought to do, this congress ought to do with a program so severely in debt and with a country so severely in debt. instead, we should be passing legislation to narrow the scope of the nfip not to expand it. simply put, any reform to nfip should be moving toward privatization. i'm sure this belief is shared by a number of my colleagues. voting against this amendment is a vote to expand the current national flood insurance program.

again, a vote against this amendment is a vote to expand the current flood insurance program, a program that can currently $18 billion in to the u.s. treasury. my understanding as private market participants is hesitant to offer this coverage because it's not profitable for them to do so. i am not sure where i've seen government involvement in the market incentivize the private sector to compete. in fact, coordinate to testimony from taxpayers with common sense, quote, we've learned from federal flood insurance itself that the best way to stifle a private market is to have the federal government provide the same product. that simply makes sense. when you have a government, federal government borrowing 41 cents on the dollar the last thing we need to do is expand an insurance program that is already $18 billion in the red. again, voting for this amendment doesn't cut this program. i wish it were. but it's simply to not allow the program to expand further.

one estimated that had this same policy been enacted in 2005 before katrina and rita hit combined losses from additional expenses and business interruption would have been about $16 million -- i'm sorry -- $600 million in net losses. if you consider the increase in policies since 2005, the estimate is if we had another 2005-like year, this would result in $850 million in net losses just for 2011. we can't afford to do that, mr. chairman. there's no private market for this time of coverage we ought to understand why there's no private market and having government enter the marketplace will only ensure that there's no private market for it. and we shouldn't be comforted again by the notion that we'll hear, i'm sure, that these distribute premiums will be priced at fully actuary rates. that's saying there's no private

market out there, government has to be involved but we've priced it as if the private sector were involved. anybody who believes that, i've got a bridge somewhere to sell you. government entrance into this kind of marketplace is simply not right. we shouldn't be doing it and to my colleagues who think that we have a debt problem today, think what problem we'll have if we have another year like 2005. according to fema's own projections it could result in $850 million in net losses. so i would urge adoption of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. capuano: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. capuano: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield as much time ' might consume to the chairman of the full committee, mr. bachus. the chair: the gentleman from alabama voiced. mr. bachus: i thank the chairman. chairman, i don't think anyone in this congress is more sincere

on cutting government spending than mr. flake. and i believe that he comes here with pure motivation. i would simply say this to him and to my colleagues, this is an issue that we carefully considered. it was first proposed as a result of katrina and the losses there. as he said correctly this program is $16 billion in the red and after katrina the federal government through fema, s.b.a. and others paid out several billion dollars not on the flood insurance program but paid out an estimated $6 billion or $7 billion to businesses because of their losses from

business interpretation and temporary shelter and living expenses. in 2016, really as a result of that -- in 2006, really as a result of that, subcommittee chairman richard baker held hearings and determined that business interpretation and cost of living coverage should be included. it has passed the house, but we've actually since then never passed a flood insurance reform bill. as all of us know and i think all of us agree the legislation before us today has already been scored as a $4.2 billion savings . the reason that it saves money, the reason it takes a program that is costing taxpayers money every day is because it requires

a risk-based premium. now, beyond that it also requires reinsurance if the risk-based premium proves insufficient. so it has a cushion. it also says that if private insurers will offer this plan, that the government will not. it makes a finding that a competitive private market for such coverage does not exist. that was actually based on 20006 and again last year -- 2006 and again last year. and it certifies that the national flood insurance program will offer such coverage with a prohibition that it is supplemented by taxpayer money from the treasury. and this was of concern that many of us, including mr. flake,

you know, had that the taxpayer would end up subsidizing this. this legislation with this provision actually scores as a $4.2 billion savings over the next 10 years. actually i think it could be greater than that because, as mr. flake said, we don't know what's depg to happen next year or the year after that -- what's going to happen next year or the year after. that we do know this, though. we do know when we have one of these, in fact this year is a great example, when we had four $1 billion disasters what did this congress do? it appropriated disaster assistance. and that included reimbursement for living expenses and business interpretation. not only that but the s.b.a., the agricultural department, and i can't imagine how many others that we don't know about, fema,

in a realistic manner they're handing out checks every day. when we have these disasters local and state governments are doing the same. why not instead of this being handed out, why not have the people who own the businesses, who are living there, why not offer them coverage and let them pay the premium? and let them share the loss? there are many places in the west where flooding would be almost impossible. there are many places in this country where flood is not -- is simply not a problem. why should those people be required to pay taxpayer money for what has become basically the federal government coming in and reimbursing everyone that doesn't have insurance?

that's the question we've asked, we just had the largest outbreaks of tornados and death in the united states in alabama and i've seen time and time people say, we have a situation where there's no insurance and the federal government comes in and says, if you got insurance you got it cover, if you don't we'll make it up. i don't like that idea. i think it encourages people not to have coverage. this offers end coverage and i think the next step is telling them no to these other programs. you should have had insurance. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. chair. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-138. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. pursuant to the rules i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 11-138 offered by ms. ros-lehtinen of -- 112-138 offered by ms. ros-lehtinen of florida. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the chairman for the time. my amendment is quite simple. it removes the 100% increase in possible flood insurance rate increases from the underlying bill. currently rate increases are capped at 10% a year yet this bill would double that to 20% per year. homeowners in this downturned

economy can little afford to have this looming possibility. one in four floridians is covered under the national flood insurance program and they collectively pay nearly $900 million in premiums per year. since 1978 florida policy holders have paid $14.1 billion in premiums and have received only $3.6 billion in payments. that is $3.-- 3.9 times more in premiums than they received in claims. our residents usually in high risk flood areas pay disproportionally more in premiums than they will likely ever seep in payments on claims. despite this fact, floridians were near the cap of a 10% increase in the premium rates from the years 2009, 2010, while the average national increase during the same time was 8%.

despite these problems, my residents in my area say they need this program but they need this cap where it is. people outside of at-risk areas file over 20% of nfip claims and receive 1/3 of disaster assistance for flooding. floridians, my constituents, know that the doubling of the amount that fema can charge for their flood insurance is aimed at them. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment, one that will prevent unnecessary and unprecedented rate hikes for hardworking americans on their flood insurance bill and i would like to yield the remainder of our time to my good friend from florida, mrs. wilson. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. mrs. wilson: thank you, mr. chair. i ask the chair for unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mrs. wilson: i rise today in

support of this bipartisan amendment that strikes a blow for fairness for those consumers who need flood insurance. along with my colleagues from florida, representative ros-lehtinen and david rivera and also ruben hinojosa and rush holt, i am a floridian by birth, a proud floridian. i make florida my home. most of my family and friends live in the great state of florida. on top of our sunshine, florida has a regular hurricane season and torrential rainfalls. the majority of the people who live in florida live in this reality for the majority of our lives. however, flooding does not affect the state of florida. so i want to ensure that taxpayers who live in flood zones do not pay too much for their vitally needed flood

insurance. this amendment is very simple. it prevents flood insurance rates from potentially going up 100%. the current cap on flood insurance rate increases in a given year is 10%. my amendment would keep it that way. this commonsense bipartisan amendment is fiscally responsible, it protects consumers and it ensures that the national flood insurance program will remain sound. mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. biggert: thank you. congresswoman ros-lehtinen's

amendment, while well intentioned, would prevent the national flood insurance program there from moving toward a more actuary found 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 a flood policy holders by up to 20% once every 12 months until the premium being paid properly reflects the risk associated with the property. the intention is -- the amendment is intended to save policy holders from the sticker shock premium increases potentially posed. but the underlying bill addresses this concern by allowing for a gradual phase-in of the actuaryial rates instead of an abrupt adjustment. one of the core goals of this bill is to move the nfip towards

a more actual wear sound program and any amendment to slow down that effort must be opposed. and the amendment would strike part of section 5 would thank would increase annual limits on premium rates, increases from 10% to 20%, so the sponsors of the amendment have stated that their object sve to prevent 100% increase in possible premium hikes but what it is doing is going to delay us being able to have a more sound basis. and section 5 really addresses this concern by phasing in all the nonprefirm properties to full actuary rates over time to eliminate the subsidy and allow the premiums policies to reflect the risk covered by those policies so i would oppose this amendment and -- policies.

so i would oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have. it the amendment is not agreed to. -- have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. wilson: i yield the rest of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida controlled the time. ms. wilson: i yield the rest of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-138. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition?

mr. wal bergberg: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. -- mr. walberg: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 offered by mr. walberg of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 340, the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from michigan. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment is for the most pressing needs of my constituents for the flood insurance program and that is the problem of inaccurate flood maps. i understand that the nfip is on shaky financial ground, and i commend chairman bachus and congresswoman biggert and the financial services committee for crafting this legislation. as we put nfip on a path toward

insolvency, we must not let the strengthening pass us by. my office has been barraged with letters and phone calls expressing concerns about the new flood insurance rate maps that fema has rolled out in my districts. these maps determine whether property owners will be required to purchase flood insurance, and evidence shows that the current mapping methods are oftentimes inaccurate and onerous or punitive. while this insurance representing an essential lifeline to property owners who represents real risk to flood damage, it's a costly and unnecessary mandate on those who face no actual threat on being flooded. i'm encouraged that the underlying bill, h.r. 1309, establishes a technical mapping council to propose revised standards to be implemented by the fema administrator within 12 months of organization.

the map is required to report to congress and the administrator on how to improve mapping methodology. h.r. 1309 clearly instruct the tmac on their task, and that is to ensure that the flood insurance rate maps reflect true risk, that the most current and accurate data is used. i look forward to receiving this report and for the administrator's implementation of the new mapping standards. but in my view, this review is a task. that the current practices are not working and represent a poorly implemented government mandate that cannot continue. the maps that fema has been rolling out throughout the country is not the best and needs to stop. my amendment improves on the work simply requiring that while tmac studies the best possible mapping methods, no

one will have the faulty ones currently in place. simply put, this amendment would issue a moratorium on the issuance of new flad maps until they have done their due diligence and issued a report on new mapping standards. i'm glad to have the support of chairman bachus and i hope you support this commonsense amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does members seek time in opposition? the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. capuano: mr. speaker, while i understand the gentleman's concerns about the accuracy of the fema maps, this bill does contain a three-year delay of mandatory purchase and a five-year phase-in thereafter. that's eight years. so we already have mechanisms in this bill that helps from the sticker shock while still

alerting homeowners in the fact they actually live in a flood zone. i'm concerned of the absence of any maps we have in the dock about the risk they may be facing. this is why the bill does not delay the maps themselves but the mandatory purchase requirement. so i understand the gentleman's concerns. i must oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. it is in the opinion of the chair that the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in the house report 112-138. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. cardoza: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-138 offered by mr. cardoza of

california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 340, the gentleman from california, mr. cardoza, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. cardoza: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cardoza: mr. chairman, i rise today to offer an amendment that would remove the onerous requirements onto properties that already have existing flood protection and would prevent unnecessary economic harm to communities already struggling to recover. my amendment strikes the language in the -- requiring fema to include on its flood maps areas of residual risk. i'm offering this amendment because large areas across the country, such as larm parts of my central valley -- large parts of my central valley of los angeles and orange county are already protected by existing levees and have no

history of flooding but would find themselves in newly designated residual risk floodplains under h.r. 1309. such a policy would essentially map the entire area in the new residual risk flood zone as though the levee that had been protecting the community for years had never existed. this would have a significant economic impact and in many cases more than double the insurance premiums of those regions throughout the country. in the area i represent of stockton, california, and other affected areas of the san joaquin valley, this bill would place in the floodplain an additional 280,000 people who currently have flood protection provided by significant levees. in 1995, the annual premium payments were estimated at $30 million. the c.b.o. estimates that the rates will more than double under this bill totaling an estimated $68 million in the greater stockton area alone. floodplain building

restrictions for these protected areas will have an even greater impact on the cost of construction. these building restrictions would substantially increase the cost of building construction and impact housing affordability at a time when the housing market is on life support in my district. entire communities would be mapped into the floodplain. mapping areas that have existing flood protection for residual risk effectively amounts to double taxation of these regions where citizens are paying taxes for the local flood control agencies and then have to pay additional flood insurance as well as a result of being mapped into these areas. this mapping requirement would also remove an important incentive for state and local governments to invest in flood control projects. if communities will still have to buy flood insurance after they improve and protect their communities, then why would they devote precious resources to these expensive projects? the cost benefits just simply wouldn't exist.

mr. chairman, at this point i'd like to yield one minute to my colleague, mr. mcnerney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcnerney: thank you. i rise in support of the amendment offered by mr. cardoza. he and i are fortunate to represent san joaquin county in california which is home to many, many miles of levees and waterways. his amendment is especially important to our constituents. while the residual risk section of h.r. 1309 may be well intended, i believe it should be removed. we all believe that homeowners living in high-risk areas for flooding should have an insurance policy, but this language is overly broad and will hurt my constituents. i've consulted closely with flood control officials from my district who share this concern and have expressed strong support for this amendment. our country is experiencing tough economic times, and we should take great care to protect homeowners from unnecessary burdens.

our homeowners are losing their homes. let's not give them an extra burden that they will send many of them into the street. i'm proud to support the amendment offered by my friend, mr. cardoza, which will significantly improve the bill we are considering today. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. cardoza: mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to vote for this commonsense amendment and prevent undue economic harm to our communities, and i'd yield back my time at this point. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. biggert: under h.r. 1309, fema is required to update its flood maps according to the technical mapping advisory council's recommendations within six months or report to congress why it has rejected them. it's part of the new standard for the flood insurance rate maps.

fema must include any areas of residual risk including areas behyped levees, dams and other man-made structures. i'm afraid that the cardoza amendment would fail to provide homeowners with the real assessment of their risk, thereby combaring their ability to prepare for such natural disasters. and to address -- to address concerns about the mapping process, h.r. 1309 reinstates the technical mapping advisory council to bring in the expertise and prospectives of other stakeholders 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 and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from michigan -- the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. cardoza: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in house report 112-138. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in house report 112-138 offered by mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 340, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i will be brief.

my amendment is simple. if fema makes a mistake in mapping a flood map, the community will be reimbursed for the cost. if fema makes a mistake in mapping a flood area, then they should pay for it. doing so will result in significant savings for towns and homeowners, and to me this is something that should be noncontroversial. hopefully wins bipartisan support. i have a longer statement, and i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be inserted in the record. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: without objection, the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise. mrs. biggert: i would support the amendment. the chair: the question -- the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in house report 112-138. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. brady: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in house report 112-138 offered by mr. brady of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 340, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment might well be described as the homeowners right to know. the original bill, h.r. 1309, contained several very positive notification requirements to help ensure our constituents are more aware of the national flood insurance program, the flood mapping process and how they can protect their property from the risk of flood. however, one critical area in which the underlying bill needs to require adequate

notification is when a homeowner is being newly added into a revised or updated flood map. my amendment would require the fema administrator to provide a copy of a flood insurance risk map to property owners who are newly added to such a map, along with information regarding the appeals process at the time the map is issued. the purpose is simple. one, bring more transparency to the flood mapping process and, two, protect homeowners' rights by ensuring they have adequate notice their property is being added to the floodplain while ensuring they have the information about the appeals process. too often homeowners aren't even aware that fema is making changes to the flood map in their communities until it is finalized and they receive a notice from their mortgage lender that they're now required to purchase flood insurance. perhaps it is often that properties are not only unknowingly added to a flood plain but they are added by inconsistent or inaccurate data.

as a result many homeowners are forced to buy flood insurance for the first time and mandate they do so when in their fact flood risk hasn't changed. constituents in my own district have experienced these issues firsthand. one county in my district that have been going through the remapping process for the past couple of years, last year fema introduced a draft map that would have added literally thousands of homes into the flood plain. one portion of the county had to estimate nearly 10% in the total number of homes would be added by fema's draft map. yet few people were even aware. i know they weren't aware because i had conversations with insurance agents who write flood policies in communities and they weren't aware. had major developers who were building in that area talk to me about other related issues but didn't know about the new draft map to. make matters worse we believe the map was technically inaccurate. fema was doing -- using incongruent data. as a result new flood plains were proposed when in fact flood riss congress not increase.

the outcry was so great that fema had to come back for a public town hall meeting to discuss the mapping process and the national flood insurance program after the map went into effect. local residents started getting notifications from their lends that are they need to purchase flood insurance and they simply didn't know why. my office received calls from residents from one portion that have community where the homes have been confirmed as nearly eight feet above the highest recorded level of flooding in that area ever but they are now in the flood plain, no one had bothered to tell them. my amendment ensures that in all these scenarios the homeowner would be notified that their home is being added to a flood plain and tell them about their right to appeal. homeowners deserve to be informed when the government is making decisions that impact their property. this simple amendment will ensure that they do. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise?

mr. capuano: mr. speaker, i claim time in opposition, however as i understand it, the amendment is perfectly fine and we hope that it be adopted. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question now is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have. it the amendment is agreed to -- ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in house report 112-138 offered by mr. sherman of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 340, the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. sherman: i rise to offer an amendment that is co-authored by chairman bachus and by my friend, gregory meeks from new

york. it is a bipartisan and i hope noncontroversial amendment. this flood insurance program is usually a partnership between private companies and the federal government. the write your own program involves the companies servicing the policies and one major company that used to write policies in this area decided to pull out of the program and turned over $8 -- 800,000 policies to the federal government. the whole idea behind the program is that the federal government will administer as few of these insurance policies as possible and the purpose of this amendment is to require that the vast majority of these policies be made available to be handled by private insurance companies. it is simply a privatization amendment. this includes language in the amendment designed to protect

the agents of state farm which is the company that is no longer in this business, ensuring that they will be able to continue servicing the policies that shift from the federal government to private insurance companies. this is an effort to ensure that these policies are taken off the taxpayers' books without interfering in the relationship between consumers and their insurance agents. i would hope that this would be a noncontroversial amendment, as i said it is supported by the chairman of the committee and by -- and offered on his behalf as well as the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks, and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. bachus: to strike the last word. the chair: does the gentleman seek time in opposition? mr. bachus: time in opposition although i'm not in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. bachus: thank you.

mr. chairman, this is a commonsense amendment. as many of us on the financial services committee know, the flood insurance program is a public-private partnership where private insurance companies write the coverage and service the policies with the government setting the coverage and the requirements. recently state farm insurance decided that they no longer wanted to participate in the program and they transferred, i guess that's a nice word, an unflattering term which is more accurate would be that they dumped 800,000 policies back on the federal government. this was after they collected

premiums and their agents sold the coverage. this amendment would make changes to that where if an insurance company wants to participate in the plan they can, if they want to profit from the plan they can. but they don't have unilateral right to dump those policies back on the government agencies. prior to that there were about 150 policies that the government was administering directly. what this amendment would do, it's called a depopulation amendment, it directs fema and the national flood insurance program to take those policies and distribute them among insurance companies who are willing to service those contracts and i'm happy to report to the congress and the

members that many insurance companies have agreed to take up these policies. out of respect for state farm agents, many of who i think were displeased and surprised by their parent company abandoning these policies, it would give them the right to also service those policies. however, you know, there may be some legal problems with that but we at least don't rule that out. the depopulation of these policies and by that the return to what the program was set up to function like and that was with private servicers and agents handling the policies would be dove done over a one-year time frame -- would be

done over a one-year time frame. i actually believe we should are depopulated more than we did but we did this as an accommodation to fema and to some of the state farm agents. but with that i would -- and i think this is a noncontroversial amendment and would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alabama yields back his time. the gentleman from california. mr. sherman: i move the adoption of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has been yielded back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ace have it and the amendment is agreed to. -- ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 17 printed in

house report 112-138. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. loebsack: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 precipitationed in house report 11-138 offered by mr. loebsack of iowa. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 340, the gentleman from iowa, mr. loebsack, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. loebsack: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. loebsack: mr. speaker, i want to thank congresswoman biggert for bringing this bill to the floor. i look forward to supporting this important legislation that will address many of the issues i have been experiencing in my district and ones i know are occurring all across the country. in iowa we are all too familiar with the flood insurance program because of the devastating floods of 2008 and again on the missouri river in western iowa this summer. we also have many communities throughout the state going through the mapping process. unfortunately due to a lack of adequate notification during the process of flood mapping, many homeowners continue to be surprised when they find out that their homes are newly placed in a flood plain and they will be required to purchase flood insurance. my amendment will help ensure communities and property owners that are affected by new maps are made aware of the process

taking place from the beginning. currently fema is only required to publish notice of a new flood elevations in the local newspapers. for one community in my district, this translated literally to a paragraph in the legal notice section. my amendment will require fema to notify not only the local paper but also a local television and radio station because i think it's time we update this law to be more reflective of all the media our constituents use daily. ensuring communities have the information needed at the beginning is one step, the next is ensuring that there is appropriate time and ability for communities and property owners to appeal the drafts. currently there's a 90-day appeal period for property owners to dispute fema's draft maps. many property owners don't find out this process is taking place until after the map is finalized, meaning the 90-day

appeal period has long past and they -- passed and they no longer have the ability to make sure their houses aren't included in the final map in error. my amendment ensures that communities and property owners have an additional 90 days to appeal the draft maps if they weren't aware of the original appeal period. and believe there are property owners who haven't been made aware of the appeals process already. i think question all agree that every property owner who might be affected by flood maps should have the opportunity to fully participate in the established process and that we should strive to have the most accurate maps possible. my amendment will ensure that homeowners have the information they need to make informed decisions and preparations at the beginning of the process and fully participate in the existing appeals process. the more home owners that are aware of flood maps, the more participation there is in the process, in the program, and the

more accurate our maps will be. greater map accuracy will give us better awareness of the flood risks in our communities and allow homeowners and community leaders alike to take steps to mitigate and prepare for that risk. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment on behalf of property owners in all of our districts and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from iowa reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to the amendment even though i am -- i support the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of this amendment and 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 and i would support it and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from iowa. mr. loebsack: i -- the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from iowa. mr. loebsack: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from iowa wish to yield back his time? mr. loebsack: in closing i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. again i thank mrs. biggert for support of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i would recognize the chairman for two minutes. one minute. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one minute. mr. bachus: thank you. i'd like to commend mr. loebsack for his amendment. i also would like to say that because it does require or ask that tv and radio be utilized to get the word out, the next

amendment by the lady from michigan actually would -- and i've taken no position on her amendment, but it actually asks that the national flood insurance not incur advertising expenses and i think there's some good points to that, some bad points but as this amendment proves, the local stations themselves and the local media can get these things out so that might be a point in favor of her first amendment. i'm very opposed to her second amendment so i don't want it the members to -- want the members to confuse support or at least nonopposition to her first amendment as support for her second. but i commend the gentleman and i think it's a good sense amendment and would urge strong support to the loebsack amendment.

>> i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman veck niced for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, and i thank the distinguished sponsor and would preface my comments by saying i'm strongly supportive of congresswoman biggert's superb piece of legislation. however, i rise in opposition to this amendment offered by mr. sherman. i fully understand and support the goal of encouraging private sector involvement and exploring ways to decrease the responseability of the federal government, however i'm not convinced this gets us closer to that goal. it creates millions in new federal spending. regardless of whether a flood insurance policy is provided through mfip direct, the government is responsible for all losses under the policy.

fema has informed congress that private contractors handling policies can manage the policies for $50 million less, a saving of $250 million over the life of the bill. i don't have to tell any individuals in today's world what that means. redistribution of these policy destroys, in my judgment, consumer choice, dictates the company they're required to use for flood insurance and taking property from agents to use in business. really, the only thing this amendment does is the forcible transfer of policies from one group to another, with significant costs to the federal government. a lot of questions to answer. ibe the committee and representative biggert, took the right approach in requesting a study before acting on the issue. unfortunately, today, we seem to be acting contrary-wise, before we have the answers. with all due respect to the sponsor of the amendment and in

concert with the sponsor of the bill, i urge a no vote. thank you for your time. the chair: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: i think the gentleman from illinois was arguing on the last amendment, not this amendment. so if the members will take everything he said, transfer it to the amendment before, it would be appropriate, but i disagree with his argument. so with that, i yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentlelady from illinois yield back her time? mrs. biggert: i yield back. the chair: all time has expired on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes visit, the amendment is agreed to -- the ayes visit. the amendment is agree -- the

ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 19 offered by mr. westmoreland of georgia. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from georgia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. westmoreland: thank you, mr. chairman, and i would like to thank mrs. biggert and the gentlelady from california who is very -- who is the overseer of this program. this is a forward-thinking amendment to put the flood insurance program on sound footing. consider this the national flood insurance emergency fund. currently, premiums come in, pames go out but nothing is reserved for the -- for what no

one can predict. everyone crosses their fippingers that nothing really bad happens. if incoming premiums are not enough that a national flood insurance program has no other option than to ask for a bailout. in fact, the nfip program has carried debt in 18 of the past 30 years. most interesting of all is that not all of these years saw catastrophic flooding. fema just didn't do a good job managing premiums and claims. it's clear that in good years and in bad, the flood insurance program does not have a good grasp on how much they'll pay out in claims. however, when cat catastrophic flood does happen, nfip program is even less prepared for the claims. 2005 was one of those years that nobody could predict, hurricanes katrina, rita, and wilma together cost $17 billion in losses for the national flood insurance program. six years later, including

principal and interest, the nfip debt is now at $18 billion. every year it seems like flooding impacts a wide s.w.a.t. of the united states -- a wide swath of the united states and 2011 has been no different. no one can predict the weather. nfip needs the ability to save up to smooth out those unpredictable years. if the program could stash money away in good times, it would have money to pay for the years when estimates were incorrect. my amendment does just that. it establishes a reserve fund in the nfip program. this is just common sense. so much so that nfip is one of the few federal funds that does not have a reserve fund. f.h.a. has a 2% reserve requirement, the fdic deposit insurance fund is required to have a 1.35% reserve ratio. now i want to take a miami to address some of the possible concerns with the amendment. first this amendment does not

expand the nfi fombings other catastrophic events like earthquakes or tornadoes. this fund and the bill remain specific to flooding. second, the administrator gets funds from the existing premiums. the administrator and the amendment are bound to adhere to the parameters established in the underlying bill on premiums, raises and annual increases. third this amendment does not take away from debt repayment. any premium collected would be spent to cover losses because the program is running at a deficit this takes precedent. at some point in the future, the program might be able to collect enough to cover all costs in a -- and to set aside a reserve. but given the magnitude of the current debt, this is not likely to occur in the short-term. finally, this amendment does not stand in the way of reinsurance opportunity for the flood program. i support reinsurance for the flood program and firmly

believe that both reinsurance and reserve fund can co-exist. in fact, many private insurers reserve for losses and purchase reinsurance. private insurers will use reserve funds as a deductible for reinsurance coverage. however, i fundamentally believe that as long as taxpayers are involved, this program needs a reserve. it is not responsible to tell taxpayers no more bailouts but offer no solution to the ongoing bailout of nfip. if there's no reserve fund there will be more bailouts. it is just a matter of when. so adopting this amendment would address a fundamental deficiency in the program that is ripe for bailouts. i urge adoption of the amendment and with that, i are e-- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> to claim time in opposition.

the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: in drafting this bill, we sought to strike the right balance between protecting homeowners and strengthening the flood insurance program. i believe the bill before us today does just that. unfortunately, i do not believe that the gentleman's amendment strikes the same balance. specifically, by creating a reserve fund, the gentleman's amendment would allow the nfip to increase insurance premiums on homeowners so regardless of the flood risk, homeowners will have to pay more in order to fund a reserve fund that will never have enough money to pay out claims for catastrophic events. this isn't fair to our taxpayers, mr. chairman, and in fact, would stall the recovery of the housing market. i understand the problem the gentleman is attempting to soft.

we know the flood insurance program is over $17 billion in debt due to claims result from hurricane katrina. however, i think we have to be clear that hurricane katrina was a catastrophic, once in a lifetime event. prior to katrina, the flood insurance program operated completely in the black. in addition, i believe that the bill contain miss provisions that would allow the flood insurance program to reform its premium structure so it can collect the premiums it needs to pay out claims. for example, the bill ends subsidies for 350,000 preform properties including second homes, commercial properties, homes with new owners, homes substantially damaged or improved and homes with large claims. the board would make these properties pay their fair

share, thereby increasing the amount of funding to the flood insurance fund. while i believe the gentleman's amendment is very well intended, i believe it is unnecessary given the strong reforms in this bill and the potential problems it may cause for homeowners, particularly those being phased into actuarial rates. for this reason, i must oppose the amendment and urge a no vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentlelady yield back or reserve her time? ms. waters: i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. westmoreland: i respect the gentlelady's opinion. i know she is very familiar with this program but i don't think a reserve fund would cost anybody any additional money. it does not go up on premiums. the premium amount stays the same. s that rainy day fund, excuse the pun, a fund that would be there. it would not even be started until current $18 billion in

debt is paid off. but we're fooling ourselves if we think we can predict the weather, we think we know when katrina or rita or wilma is going to come. this fund would only be established after the debt is repaid. so it's a very common sense measure to have this reserve fund as many other government agencies do. i ask for a yes vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. all time has expired. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes visit. the ayes visit. ms. waters: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 20 printed in house report 112-13 .

for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan rise? mrs. miller: i have an amendment -- >> i have an amendment made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 20 printed in house report 112-18, offered by ms. mill over michigan. the chair: according to the -- pursuant to the rule, the gentlelady and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mrs. miller: fema has spent over half a million dollars on the production of what they call home personified flood insurance commercials. they deticket -- depict actors with roofs over their head talking about the need to obtain flood insurance and the fact that one in four homes are in a high risk flood zone and they pitch to contact fema about the flood program. these commercials between april of 2010 and april of 2011 cost

over $7 million in air time to broadcast all across the 50 states and they're slated to be aired for an additional year, at least. $7 million spent on promoting the national flood insurance program which is a federally mandated flood program, which as has been mentioned throughout the day is already almost $18 billion in debt. i would say why not spend that $7 million to pay back the american taxpayers? or better yet to begin paying off the program's $18 billion in debt? mr. chairman, last year in the election, in the fall, the american people sent a very clear message to washington and i don't think the message to congress here was urging us to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on tv commercials asking them to put money into a failing, bloated, and completely unnecessary government program. no, they were demanding that we get a grip on government spending. an out of control government spending. and they were asking us to end programs where the government is tiing to fill a role best

done by the private sector. shortly, mr. chairman, all of us in the house, in the congress, in both chambers, will be canned to raise our national debt limit because we have not been able to get our fiscal house in order. this week, here we are, being asked to renew a federal program that's over $17 billion this debt currently, all of which falls on the backs of the american taxpayers and we need to raise the debt ceiling of the flood insurance program as well to almost $25 billion. who cares, i guess, it's just taxpayers' money. if we want to stop adding to our national debt we should not continue the federal flood insurance program and i'm going to be offering an amendment to that in a moment, nor should we continue to spend millions each year on tv commercials for a program that constituents and many, many state, most of the state as i cross the nation are wondering about at a minimum and many of them are outraged. i certainly hear from my constituents back in michigan who are looking for some relief. these hard-pressed taxpayers

from my state are asking for less spending, for less government, for lower taxes and less government intrusion into their lives. they're certainly not asking us for wasteful government programs to be shoved down their throats on television with television ads. my amendment today, mr. chairman, to end unnecessary spending on tv commercials for the national flood insurance program will be a down payment on the relief that we owe to the american taxpayers who are concerned about these commercials, that seem to be on repeat all across the airwaves in all of the states across our nation. mr. chairman, i would ask think a thank my colleagues support this amendment today and vote in favor of saving money, taxpayers' money, for the american taxpayers and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from michigan revs her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. waters: to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

the gentlewoman's amendment would prohibit fema from spending any funds on television or radio commercials to promote the purchase of flood insurance. floods are the most common and natural disaster in the united states. unfortunately even areas that aren't in flood plains experience floods sometimes. when that haps the federal government provides -- when that happens the federal government provides aid and it is the taxpayer who pays for that aid. under the federal flood insurance program, insurance premiums pay for the cost of flood damage, therefore if homeowners outside flood plains buy flood insurance, taxpayers won't be on the hook if their properties flood. however, in order to have these homeowners buy flood insurance they have to learn about the program. and its benefits to them. this is where radio and television advertising are helpful. essential, that is. the ads reach a wide audience and present clear facts about the availability and affordability of flood

insurance. to take away fema's ability to let the people know what's available to them -- in place in of millions of americans who are at risk. given these times of record deficit, this is simply irresponsible. that is i would i urge a no vote on this amendment, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from michigan. mrs. miller: mr. chairman, i would simply observe that for the most part the reason that folks -- property owners get national flood insurance is because the federal government holds a gun to their heads and says that you cannot get a federally-backed mortgage unless you buy national flood insurance through the national flood insurance program. so i don't think we have to spend millions and millions of dollars to convince them to do something that in my mind i've questioned whether it's even constitutional that we are forcing people to do this kind of a thing. but i certainly don't think we need to spend millions of

dollars to notify them on something that we are mandating for them and certainly if you live in a flood prone area you probably know it. and i just don't think -- with everything going on in the nation, i just can't believe we're wasting money like this and i would certainly urge my constituents to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: mr. chairman, as i mentioned earlier when the gentlelady offered her views during the general discussion she certainly does not join with her colleagues who have joined with us in a bipartisan method, way, rather, to produce a bill that is in the best interest of all of the citizens of this country. as a matter of fact i have referred to her views on this issue as rather radical. i think that for us to have an

insurance program that allows participation by the average citizen so that they can be in a position to make themselves whole after a disaster, to basically repair their homes, to replace their furnishings, to basically have a way of continuing a decent quality of life is not too much to ask of your government. so i would oppose this amendment and consider this amendment also just as radical to. say that you have a program but you can't tell anybody about it simply does not make good sense. i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from michigan has yielded back her time. ms. waters: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question then is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from michigan. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye.

those oppose will say no. -- opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. miller: i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from michigan will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 23 printed in house report 112-138. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in house report 112-138 offered by mr. scott of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 340, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman, i offer this amendment -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i offer this amendment today to propose

what i believe would be a proactive solution for homeowners when they face unforeseen disasters. my amendment would ask the g.a.o. to report to congress the means and effects of facilitating a market for all peril insurance policies. this amendment comes directly from an issue faced by many of my constituents and nearly 4,000 households a around the country. problems associated with the unforeseen disaster caused by toxic chinese drywall. over the last five years nearly 4,000 homes in over 40 states have been discovered to contain toxic chinese dry wall. this dry wall has been tested by the consumer safety commission and found to be responsible for hazardous chemicals oozing into homes, americans living in these homes have experienced everything from cold and flu-like systems to migraine headache, chronic nose bleeds, gastrointestinal problems and other debilitating systems. zsh symptoms.

home owners have had the expectation that the cost associated with remediating their homes would be covered by their home owners insurance policy but virtually all of their policies exclude from coverage many of the different classes of damages. in the case of chinese dry wall, a standard homeowners policy does not cover, quote, losses to property resulting from faulty zoning, bad repair or workmanship, faulty construction material or defective maintenance. these families are stuck with paying their mortgages and have homes that are essentially uninhappentable. this problem is not limited to just chinese dry wall. in the aftermath of hurricanes many homeowners discovered that they are not covered for water damage and frequently have to argue whether or not their home is destroyed by water or by wind. sink holes which are normally associated with areas of miner or seismic activity or springing up outside of these typical areas, homeowners are learning

the hard way that they're not covered by damages caused by them. i believe that homeowners need all peril insurance, insurance that covers home owners from catastrophic losses regardless of cause, provided of course that the homeowners did not cause the loss themselves. all peril plans would be supplemental insurance policies that would cover losses resulting from any of the causes currently excluded from the standard homeowners policy. these policies could be limited to catastrophic losses and provide for substantial re-- deductibles and possibly only cover losses that rendered property uninhabbletable. with that in mind, mr. chairman, my -- uninhabitable. with that in mind, mr. chairman, my amendment would conduct the study of the policy. why can't a policy be brought now? is there no interest in it because the federal government successfully markets the plans with the private sector? i feel answers to these questions are needed but what we do know is that when circumstances beyond a home

eners' control makes the home uninhabitable, the last thing they want to do is look through a policy and make sure that their completely destroyed home isn't protected by the insurance policy that they bought. so for this reason they offer the amendment forever a g.a.o. study and ask that the amendment be adopted and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment which would direct g.a.o. to conduct a study on an all-peril insurance policies for residential property 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 nfip are essentially insolvent and remain grossly underfunded. if the gentleman would like to have an all-peril study, something that he has an option to write a letter to the g.a.o. 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. so i really think that this is way beyond what we should be doing and it would really -- 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 and i think, you know, that if he's

really interested in the drive wall particularly that this is something that he can ask for a study in that and it really should not be within the scope of this bill and i would urge opposition to this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. chairman, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. scott: mr. chairman, this study would not affect the underlying provisions of the bill. the priorities of the bill remain the priorities of the bill. this would just affect the situation where people find their homes uninhabitable and are looking for help. this does not have to be a government program, the g.a.o. could recommend that it could be a private program and possibly get out of the flood insurance business altogether if it covers all perils. i would hope that we would at least study the issue to see if it is feasible.

if anybody has talked to people with chinese dry wall and find that their house is uninhabitable, they're paying their mortgage, they don't have anywhere to go, they can't afford another mortgage and their insurance policies, they paid premiums for every month month, month after month after month doesn't cover anything. i think if you're buying insurance it ought to insure you for unforeseen circumstances and that's what this study would provide. i hope you'd adopt the amendment, mr. chairman, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back his time. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i would yield back the balance of my time and request a no vote. the chair: all time has been yielded back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i would ask for the yeas and nays.

the chair: the gentlelady asks for a recorded vote? mrs. biggert: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 25 printed in house report 112-138. for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan rise? mrs. miller: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 25 printed in house report 112-138 offered by mrs. miller of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 340, the gentlelady from michigan, mrs. millers, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from michigan. mrs. miller: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i would begin by asking a fundamental question -- why in the world is the federal government in the flood insurance business? really, i do not understand it.

i don't think anybody should be surprised to learn that the federal government is not a very good snurnt agent, that they run a terrible insurance program, as evidenced by the $18 billion in debt that the nfip has racked up over the years and will probably never repay. i don't think they'll ever repay it. and if you don't believe me, you can consider the testimony that the administrator of fema made before the financial services committee in congressional testimony he said the program will likely always be in debt, massive debt. congress set up the nfip to ostensibly be an insurance company but it is not held to the same standards as a private insurance company. instead of holing cash reserves, they have a bottomless pit of money it shamelessly taps into. that money pit is also known as the u.s. treasury or the american taxpayers. if the nfip were a private insurance company it would have gone bankrupt years ago or been in need of a federal bailout.

in other words, when this government-authorized ponzi scheme runs out of money, it simply gets more by dipping into the pockets of taxpayers. this is a program that would make bernie madoff blush. this bill is just a bailout for another broken program. if we want to stop adding to our national debt, we should not continue the national flood insurance program. my home state of michigan is one of the many states disadvantaged by this ponzi scheme. the state legislature passed a statement that states their kiss approval. ill like to somewhere that into the record. the chair: the request must be made in the full house.

mrs. miller: there's no way that a one-size-fits-all insurance that charges more to those in less risk, states will opt out. i think it is important to allow the private market to get into the flood insurance business without politically based premiums which would allow premiums to be set on actual risk. if you want to get a handle on federal spending, do away with programs that do nothing but support reckless policy. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise in ms. waters: to claim time knopp sigs. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.

ms. waters: i strongly oppose this amendment. the gentlewoman's amendment would terminate entirely the flood insurance program which provides much-needed insurance for 5.5 million homeowners. the flood insurance program was created in 1968 after record flooding led the private insurance industry to stop writing flood policies. the private sector didn't want to write these policies because floods are common and expensive. however, the federal government didn't want to simply write a blank check to homeowners every time there was a flood. that's why this program was created. i'm going to yield the balance of my time to chairwoman biggert who has worked so hard on this legislation. the chair: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for the plans of four minutes. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding and i know we've had quite a bit of discussion about this already

but i guess maybe we will bring this to a close with this amendment for a while anyway. let me just say that the underlying bill doesn't ask for additional por roing authority. in fact, the reforms in the underlying bill will accelerate the ability of nfip to pay down ids debt this bill is a revenue raiser and will bring in $4.2 billion to the program according to the office of budget -- of congressional budget authority and i think that this -- that this means that we are -- we've addressed the fact that there has been some problems with nfip. there was some mismanagement and the need for reform. that's why we spent so much time on this bill to talk to all the different groups, talk to the members who had concerns

and i've got here a list of -- according to a broad coalition of industry experts and trade associations, who also -- who all support this, more than 5.6 million policyholders depend on nfip as their only sort of protection against economic devastation from a flood. in fact, i could read all of these -- those that asked for a no vote on this amendment, we've got the american insurance association, american land title, building owners and management association, ccim institute, chamber swl, council of insurance agents and brokers, independent insurance agents and brokers of america, institute of real estate management, manufactured home housing institution, mortgage bankers association, national association of home builders, national association of mutual insurance companies, national

association of realtors, national ready mix concrete society, property and casualty insurance, association of america, the risk and management society and the u.s. chamber of commerce. 5.-- if 5.6 million trot owners can't rely on this, what's going to happen? what's going to happen is we wouldn't have the flood insurance. on maye 13rks the financial service committees favorably the -- reported the act by a unanimous vote of 54-0. anybody that doesn't think that's something about how much time we put into this and how much people cared about, 54-0, i don't think that's happened in this congress for a bill this important for a long, long time. it reflects the hard work and

bipartisan support of the financial services committee and again, it has a series of reforms that are going to make this a much better program. it improves the financial sfabblet of the nfip, it reduces the burden on taxpayers, it restores integrity to the fema mapping system, and shows ways to increase private market anticipation. i would oppose this amendment strongly and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentlelady from michigan. mrs. biggert -- mrs. miller: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins. the chair: the gentleman is recognize. mr. higgins: i rise in strong support of this amendment to terminate the national flood insurance program. the flood insurance program is both in its design and

execution the worst federal program i have encountered in my time in congress this program levies a mandatory flood tax on homeowners who are at virtually no risk of flooding and see no benefit from the program. in western new york, the requirement to purchase flood insurance has increased mortgage costs and created economic dead zones in once-vibrant neighborhoods this amendment will finally end this up fair burden on homeowners in communities like buffalo and lack wana, new york, who neither want nor need to purchase flood insurance. i urge my colleagues to support it as well. i thank the yealt from michigan and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from michigan. mrs. miller: i would reiterate, i don't think this is something the federal government should be in. i appreciate the bipartisanship that happened and the hard work about reforming this program, i understand the need to reform programs but i also understand

the need to get a handle on the federal debt and deficit and one way to do that is to eliminate unnecessary programs, not just nibble around the edges, which i think is what we are doing here today. so i would certainly urge my colleagues to support this amendment with. that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from illinois has 30 seconds remaining. mrs. biggert: thank you. if this bill were not to pass and 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 that would cost so much more money and the president would have to sign on to any devastation that might be made. that's what happened in louisiana and -- after katrina. i oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill and

yield back. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from michigan. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. miller: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from michigan will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-138 under which further proceed wrgs postponed in the following order. amendment number three, amendment number four by mr. flake of arizona, amendment number 11 by mr. cardoza of --

amendment number three by mr. scott of virginia, amendment number 25 by mrs. miller of michigan. the chair will reduce to two minutes amendment time for any electronic vote after the first series of votes. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded -- recorded vote on amendment number three printed in house report 112-138 by the gentlelady from california, ms. speier, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the which clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three a offer -- printed in house report 112-138, offered by ms. speier of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and remain standing. a a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. this is a 15-minute vote.

members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]