Amendment Text: H.Amdt.719 — 111th Congress (2009-2010)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (07/15/2010)

This Amendment appears on page H5644 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H5626-H5656]
             FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM PRIORITIES ACT OF 2010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5114.

                              {time}  1128


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5114) to extend the authorization for the national flood 
insurance program, to identify priorities essential to reform and 
ongoing stable functioning of the program, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Pastor of Arizona in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentlewoman from 
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to bring my bill, H.R. 5114, the Flood 
Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010, to the floor today; and I 
stand in strong support of its passage. Moreover, I'm proud that this 
bill has the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
having passed out of the Financial Services Committee in April on voice 
vote.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is essential. The Flood Insurance Program 
provides valuable protection for approximately 5.5 million homeowners; 
but, unfortunately, the lack of a long-term authorization has placed 
the program at risk. The program has lapsed three times now since the 
beginning of this year: for 2 days in March, for 18 days in April, and 
again from June 1 to July 2, when President Obama signed my bill to 
provide for a short-term extension of the program through the end of 
September of this year.
  These lapses meant that FEMA was not able to write new policies, 
renew expiring policies, or increase coverage limits. These delays also 
meant that each day 1,200 home buyers who wanted to purchase homes 
located in flood plains were unable to close on their homes. Given the 
current crisis in the housing market, this instability in the Flood 
Insurance Program is hampering that market's recovery and must be 
addressed.
  Mr. Chairman, in drafting this bill, I also wanted to address the 
challenges posed to communities by the imposition of new flood maps. I 
saw these challenges firsthand in my home city of Los Angeles. Earlier 
this year I was able to assist homeowners in the Park Mesa Heights area 
of Los Angeles who had been mistakenly placed in a flood plain. In this 
case, FEMA acted quickly to respond to new data and correct the 
mistake. However, there are thousands of homeowners nationwide who now 
find themselves in flood zones and subject to mandatory purchase 
requirements.
  H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010, would 
restore stability to the Flood Insurance Program by reauthorizing the 
program for 5 years. It would also address the impact of new flood maps 
by delaying the mandatory purchase requirement for 5 years and then 
phasing in actuarial rates for another 5 years.
  The bill also makes other improvements to the program by phasing in 
actuarial rates from pre-firm properties, raising maximum coverage 
limits, providing notice to renters about contents insurance, and 
establishing a flood insurance advocate similar to the taxpayer 
advocate at the Internal Revenue Service.
  Mr. Chairman, we must reauthorize the National Flood Insurance 
Program and pass the reforms included in H.R. 5114. This country is 
reeling from major floods in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Oklahoma; and we 
are now officially in hurricane season, with south Texas still 
recovering from Hurricane Alex. I urge my colleagues to stand with me 
in support of this important extension.
  In closing, I would like to recognize the many Members on both sides 
of the aisle who have approached me with their concerns about flood 
insurance programs. I'm further gratified that, through this bill, 
we're able to address many of those concerns. I remain committed to 
working with Members on ensuring that this program works for their 
communities and their constituents.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to thank the chairwoman, Chairwoman Waters, for her hard 
work on this very important piece of legislation.
  H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act, provides for 
the long-term reauthorization reform of the National Flood Insurance 
Program, extending it for 5 years, through September 30, 2015. The bill 
would phase out subsidized premium rates for certain properties, 
increase the annual limit on premium rate increases, and impose minimum 
deductibles for all policies.
  The bill before us today, I believe, makes constructive reforms to 
eliminate certain subsidies and strengthens the financial soundness of 
the NFIP. Unfortunately, it also includes wasteful government spending. 
While I wish the bill went further to place the program on a path 
toward self-sufficiency and limit taxpayer exposure, I will support the 
final passage of this bill.
  The NFIP is currently operating under a short-term extension through 
September 30, 2010, after experiencing its third lapse this year. H.R. 
5114 makes constructive reforms to eliminate certain subsidies and 
strengthen financial soundness. In addition, several Republican 
proposals have been incorporated in H.R. 5114 to strengthen the reforms 
in this bill, including provisions to eliminate subsidized rates over 
time for homes that were sold to a new owner, impose minimum 
deductibles for all insured properties, require a report on the 
feasibility of incorporating national recognized building codes into 
the NFIP flood plain management criteria, and to direct the NFIP to 
report to Congress with a plan to repay its debt to the Treasury within 
10 years.
  The NFIP is facing serious financial challenges and cannot afford to 
continue on its current path. The GAO has included the NFIP on its 
annual list of high-risk government programs since 2006 because of its 
ongoing potential to incur billions of dollars in losses. With

[[Page H5627]]

an $18 billion debt to the Treasury now and the persistence of 
subsidized premium rates for properties in high-risk areas, the NFIP 
continues to be underfunded and Federal taxpayers remain at risk.
  Unfortunately, recent temporary lapses of the NFIP created 
uncertainty in the housing market and resulted in negative consequences 
for home buyers trying to purchase flood insurance protection in high-
risk areas where it is required. While many property owners depend on 
flood insurance for some measure of financial security, and many more 
should consider purchasing it to protect themselves from potential 
losses, fundamental reforms are needed to make the flood insurance 
program more self-sufficient, reduce the potential for losses, and 
minimize the financial risk to taxpayers.
  In the long run, it is my hope, along with most of my Republican 
colleagues, that all flood insurance premium rate subsidies should be 
eliminated and underwriting risks should be transferred to the private 
insurance market to the maximum extent possible.
  In this respect, the provisions of H.R. 5114 that phase out and 
eventually eliminate certain premium rate subsidies represent very 
positive steps. The bill includes constructive measures to eliminate 
subsidized rates over time for nonresidential properties and nonprimary 
residences, including second homes and vacation homes.
  H.R. 5114 also raises the cap on rate increases from 10 to 20 
percent, which will allow the NFIP to charge premiums more appropriate 
to the risk within a shorter period of time. These useful reforms are 
overshadowed, unfortunately, by provisions authorizing almost $500 
million in new Federal spending for new mitigation and outreach grant 
programs and to establish an Office of Flood Insurance Advocate within 
FEMA, which administers the Flood Insurance Program.
  While there is a definite need to improve FEMA's communication with 
communities and to increase advocacy about the impact of the new flood 
risk maps, Republicans believe that this effort should be undertaken 
using the existing NFIP funds, rather than new Federal spending in this 
time of historic deficits.

                              {time}  1140

  I know some of my Republican colleagues offered amendments to do just 
this, to address these concerns. And I wish that they had been made in 
order today, as their inclusion would have enhanced our debate.
  The NFIP was originally intended to reduce the need for emergency 
disaster assistance from Federal taxpayers to local communities, and 
the program has a long ways to go to reach the point of being self-
funded and self-sustaining. Furthermore, I believe that Congress has an 
obligation to U.S. taxpayers to challenge the premise that most 
flooding hazards will never be insurable by the private insurance 
market.
  I remain committed to enacting comprehensive reforms that not only 
modernize the National Flood Insurance Program so that homeowners will 
continue to have access to flood insurance, but at the same time 
protect the American taxpayer.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois, Representative Costello, who has been the leader on this 
issue of the maps, the remapping. And because of him we have a strong 
bill. He worked very hard, and I am very grateful.
  Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5114. I have worked on 
this issue, as Representative Waters has said. She chairs this 
committee, has provided great leadership, along with Chairman Frank. 
And I thank them for their leadership in bringing the bill to the floor 
today.
  We have worked together with them and members of the Congressional 
Levee Caucus. We authored provisions included in this bill to delay the 
onset of mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements in the newly 
remapped areas for 5 years, and then phase in insurance rates for the 
next 5 years. This will give communities the time necessary to rebuild 
levees and address other flood control projects and allow our 
constituents to make their own decision regarding the purchase of flood 
insurance.
  In August of 2007, FEMA announced that through the remapping process, 
the levees protecting the Metro East area of Illinois along the 
Mississippi River, which had been protecting our area for decades, 
including in the major flood of 1993, would be decertified and treated 
for flood protection purposes as if they didn't exist. As soon as the 
new maps became final, any homeowner or small business with federally 
backed mortgages would have to purchase flood insurance. It could cost 
literally thousands of dollars annually.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that we have made a lot of progress as part 
of this process. Local officials continually ask for some relief. What 
we do in this legislation is, in the provisions that I described 
earlier in this legislation, the bill allows FEMA, the flood remapping 
process to proceed, and requires communities to have evacuation and 
communication plans in place, which must include information about the 
availability of flood insurance and the consequences of having a flood.
  I want to be very clear at this point, while it is not mandatory, I 
continue to encourage all of my constituents in the affected area to 
purchase flood insurance. But that decision should be theirs.
  The Federal Government needs to work with local officials to solve 
these local and national issues. I strongly support H.R. 5114. I thank 
Chairman Frank and Chairlady Waters for all of their work and ask my 
colleagues to support the bill.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, this House recently passed a financial markets regulatory 
restructuring bill which in essence, unfortunately, will create a new 
Federal insurance program, or bailout authority, for large financial 
companies that take on too much risk. I wish we would leave, given the 
state of the national debt, I wish we would leave the safety net where 
it currently is, under federally insured depository institutions. And 
instead, ultimately I fear we will one day be looking at taxpayer 
subsidies to cover the likes of Goldman Sachs, AIG, and Lehman 
Brothers.
  I wish we had learned our lesson from the National Flood Insurance 
Program, which we know was supposed to never require any taxpayer 
funds, any general revenue. But unfortunately, we know today already 
$19 billion is owed to the Federal taxpayer. And we look at the other 
federally administered insurance programs: Social Security, long term 
deficit of $15 trillion; Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 
debt of $22 billion, projections of $34 billion by 2019; Federal crop 
insurance, Medicaid--the list goes on and on and on.
  This bill adds to the tab. And the Congressional Budget Office has 
projected this bill will increase spending by roughly a half-billion 
dollars over 10 years. Even by Washington standards, I hope we still 
consider that to be significant funding.
  Now, I wish the Federal Government wasn't in this business, but we 
are in this business. And if we are in this business, we have to ensure 
that we are not subsidizing and incenting people to live, essentially 
put them in harm's way and put them in harm's way at taxpayers' 
expense. If they are going to put themselves and their property in 
harm's way, that's a decision they need to be making. But we shouldn't 
be a party to incenting them to that.
  So we still have a program that oversubsidizes certain properties, 
including condos and vacation homes, and we're asking people in my 
district, the factory worker in Mesquite, Texas, and maybe making 
$50,000 a year, to subsidize the flood insurance of somebody who may be 
making a half a million dollars a year, maybe because they have a condo 
on a beach. That's not a program that's particularly fiscally sound or 
one that I believe is fair.
  I certainly want to thank the chairman, I want to thank the ranking 
member for their work. And there are a number of improvements in this 
legislation that will help improve the program. I want to thank the 
chairman for incorporating a modest amendment I offered in 2007 that 
would at least require the NFIP to conduct a study

[[Page H5628]]

within the next 6 months of how do you end up repaying the taxpayer at 
least over a 10-year period so they can recoup their losses on a 
program they were never supposed to bail out in the first place.
  I appreciate the fact that the underlying legislation will raise the 
annual cap on premium rate increases. I appreciate the leadership of 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) who offered an amendment 
that was incorporated that would eliminate subsidies over time for 
homes that are sold to new owners and phases in actuarially sound 
premiums on second homes.
  There is also language in here that will impose minimum deductibles 
for all insured properties. All of these are several steps in the right 
direction to help ensure that the taxpayer doesn't suffer further 
losses.
  But unfortunately, the bill really doesn't do anything to deal with 
the current almost $19 billion of funds that are owed to the taxpayer 
today. Nothing in the bill will help recoup that particular loss. It 
delays the implementation of actuarial rates, which I think again puts 
the taxpayer in further harm. It does not phase out the taxpayer 
subsidies. We still have insurance at subsidized rates, creating 
perverse incentives that encourage people to essentially live in harm's 
way. And just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have already cost 
the taxpayer $150 billion roughly and counting, those programs 
ultimately need to be returned to competition, and so does this program 
ultimately need to be returned to market competition.
  Now, I know we can't outlaw hurricanes, we can't outlaw floods, but 
we can at least make sure that the factory worker in Mesquite, Texas, 
in my district, doesn't have to keep picking up the tab over and over. 
And very importantly, this is a program that authorizes almost a half a 
billion in new spending on an outreach program when one already exists. 
We cannot afford it.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas, who has fought so hard for his constituents and making sure 
that they have a strong advocacy program in this bill, Marion Berry.
  Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the great job you have done 
and the concern for the people that you have exhibited.
  For the time that FEMA has existed, the exception being during the 
Clinton administration when James Lee Witt ran that agency, FEMA has 
exhibited an incredible inability to get anything done and 
accomplished. FEMA, in my part of the world, is worse than the natural 
disaster that they came to deal with. When we see FEMA show up, it 
strikes fear in the hearts of grown men and women and small children.
  So I thank the chairman for this bill, the constraints she put in 
this bill as it relates to the floodplains and the designation of them, 
and urge the passage of this bill.

                              {time}  1150

  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mrs. 
Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me some 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this program and to this bill, 
and I would once again remind my colleagues that this program is a 
very, very bad deal for my constituents in the great State of Michigan, 
the Great Lake State. In fact, it's a bad deal for most all the States 
that are in the Great Lake States.
  As an example, my constituents in Michigan are paying very high flood 
insurance premiums, yet we rarely receive any claims, and I will give 
you examples. Since we've instituted this flood program in the Nation 
since 1978, in Michigan we've received $44 million in claims; however, 
we've paid in over $200 million during that time in premiums. This year 
alone, in Michigan, our citizens are going to pay $19 million in 
claims, which means that in just 2 years of paying premiums, we will 
have covered all of our losses for the last 32 years. In fact, the GAO 
report on this program that was published in April found that one in 
four property owners are paying subsidized rates for their flood 
insurance that do not reflect the full risk of their flooding.
  That same report found that repetitive losses represent only 1 
percent of policies but over 25 percent of all of the claims. In short, 
we keep paying over and over and over again claims for some Americans 
to live in flood-prone areas, and it is no wonder that this program is 
$19 billion in debt.
  Unfortunately, the Rules Committee didn't make one of my amendments 
in order that would have addressed this problem of repetitive losses, 
and this is a case in so many properties. They just keep rebuilding and 
refiling their claims over and over and over again, and I just don't 
think that's fair to the rest of the Nation. If you insist on 
rebuilding, then you should assume the risk.
  Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, my home State of Michigan feels like the 
ATM machine for this flood debt program. I think this program is very, 
very unfair. One thing I would say, in Michigan, we actually look down 
at the water. We don't look up at the water. And we are very 
sympathetic, Mr. Chairman, very sympathetic to areas of other parts of 
the country that are prone to floods, that are prone to hurricanes, et 
cetera. We appreciate the challenges that they face, but I don't think 
it's fair that citizens in a State like Michigan have to pay for those 
kinds of things.
  I think we need to have a national catastrophic fund that establishes 
more fairly the burden on this rather than looking for States like 
Michigan. I'm not opposed to redigitizing the maps and using the state-
of-the-art technology that's happening. I think that's very important. 
We want to know the proper elevations. You can use it for planning. 
Local municipalities need it, et cetera. But in Michigan, I can tell 
you tens of thousands of properties that are now being included in this 
floodplain that have never been included previously, that have no 
history of flooding. In the last couple of years, the Great Lakes have 
had historic lows.
  I'm going to be voting against this. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this bill, Mr. Chairman.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to make sure that 
the gentlelady understands that we are moderating the subsidy in 
several ways on second homes, on nonresidential property, and when the 
homes are sold, and that's an important point that we will have some 
discussion on later.
  At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Scott), who's been responsible for making sure that we give homeowners 
an opportunity to pay installments instead of up front all of these 
premiums that they will be responsible for.
  Thank you so very much for your work.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you so very much.
  I want to extend tremendous accolades to our chairperson, Ms. Waters, 
who has done just an absolutely excellent job on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, you know, there is nothing more devastating, more 
heartbreaking than for individual families to lose their homes and all 
of their possessions. And if there ever was a time that the role of 
government plays its most important role, it is to come to their rescue 
immediately, quickly, and help them to recapture their lives as quickly 
and to make sure that they have the insurance that is needed.
  Nowhere has that been more devastating in terms of flooding than in 
my own district. As you all recall, many of you sent out prayers and 
best wishes. As you know, in my district, about a year ago, we had a 
tremendous flood, the worst flood in Georgia in this century, 
especially in the Cobb County/Douglas area where we lost seven lives.
  This amendment, which will help to provide people the opportunity, 
that don't have to pay that insurance in one lump sum but will pay it 
in installments, will go a long way to helping them.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Florida, Ms. Brown-Waite.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today actually 
in support of H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act. And 
since the word ``priorities'' is mentioned in the title, I wanted to 
share a few of my constituents' priorities.
  On balance, they would say this is a good bill, particularly given 
the fact that over the last few weeks I received numerous calls from 
Realtors and

[[Page H5629]]

would-be home buyers who could not close on houses because of the lapse 
in the National Flood Insurance Program.
  While the situation has been taken care of temporarily and while the 
home buyer tax credit closing deadline was pushed back, I think my 
colleagues can understand the frustration back home in Florida that 
this simply is not how we should be handling issues in Washington, D.C.
  As for the bill we have on the floor today, I want to draw my 
colleagues' attention to one provision in particular that gives me 
pause. Section 5 of the legislation effectively raises homeowners' 
insurance costs for struggling homeowners. There are a lot of things 
that keep Floridians up late at night: unemployment, hurricane season, 
the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, and among others, 
homeowners insurance premiums.
  We have to remember that the NFIP was self-sufficient until Hurricane 
Katrina and, frankly, it should continue to be. But raising rates 
during this recession in Gulf States already devastated by hurricanes, 
oil spills, and failed stimulus plans is a horrifically bad idea.
  I offered an amendment at the Rules Committee that would have 
prevented these increases, but unfortunately my Democrat and Republican 
colleagues in flood-prone areas around the country will not have an 
opportunity to vote on that amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New 
York (Mrs. McCarthy), who has worked very hard on these issues, and we 
have, in the manager's amendment, some of the work that she did.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I thank the chairwoman, and I thank her 
for the work on bringing this issue to the floor. She basically has 
covered everything that certainly a lot of my constituents were 
concerned about.
  I want to thank her also for accepting a number of my amendments that 
will encourage local government agencies who receive grant funds under 
the Outreach Program to coordinate with entities and agencies that have 
experience with certain populations in the communities, such as the 
disabled, older Americans, and minorities. We know that this is a 
complicated formula, but I believe that with this legislation, it's 
going to be much easier to go through it.
  My other amendment would clarify that once a borrower sufficiently 
demonstrates to a lender they have purchased flood insurance within the 
45 days, the lender must terminate the ``force-placed'' insurance. The 
force-placed insurance is something that's put in place until the 
insurance comes through, and I thank Ms. Waters for her work with me on 
getting this legislation through. It is going to help our constituents.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. I yield 1 minute to my colleague from California, Linda 
Sanchez, who has given a lot of her time to this effort.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. I rise today on behalf of 
residents of southern California who are struggling to make ends meet. 
In recent months, I've heard from a number of constituents who will 
soon be required to pay more than a thousand dollars a year in flood 
insurance premiums even though they live in a virtual desert. That's 
right. Southern California is officially a semi-arid, near-desert 
region, but many of my constituents are being told to pay a thousand 
dollars a year or more to guard against floods.
  These families want to know why their homes were considered safe just 
months ago but are now considered to be in a flood zone under new FEMA 
maps. They want to know what has changed in such a short time to 
threaten their safety, particularly given the recent infrastructure 
investments in the L.A. River Basin.
  Let me be clear, I support the National Flood Insurance Program 
because floods can devastate a community, but where flood maps are 
outdated, they should be corrected to better protect communities.

                              {time}  1200

  However, local residents should be involved in the process and given 
a chance to be heard before their homes are rezoned. This bill will 
also allow families the choice to pay their premiums in installments 
and allow families to lessen the burden on their budget.
  I thank Congresswoman Waters, and I urge passage of the bill.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from D.C., Ms. Eleanor 
Holmes Norton.
  Ms. NORTON. I'd like to thank Chairwoman Waters for not only today's 
bill but for her comprehensive bill, the first since 1994; also 
Chairman Frank for his work, making sure we got to the floor today as 
well.
  I chair the subcommittee with primary jurisdiction over FEMA and 
understand how important the chairwoman's comprehensive bill is. I 
understand also that Katrina was a wake-up call. As controversial as 
these maps are, and they have been controversial in my district, the 
most important thing we do in this bill is the 5-year grace period and 
appeal period delay. It's the least we can do instead of facing 
property owners with a new and expensive mandate in the middle of an 
economic crisis that began in a mortgage crisis with hundreds of people 
waiting to close on homes, others newly in a flood map zone. This is 
needed relief and the least we can do before we go home. We've had our 
separate fights. Let's get this temporary bill done and then get on to 
comprehensive reform.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. I yield 1 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al 
Green). His State has experienced a lot of hardship with Katrina and 
Alex, and I thank him for his hard work.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank Ranking 
Member Capito for her assistance as well.
  Quickly, I would add two things. One, this bill helps us to stabilize 
the housing market. There are many persons who seek to buy homes who 
have not been able to buy homes because the flood insurance was not 
available, yet required, to make the purchase. We also have persons who 
are concerned about the hurricane season. We have extended the flood 
insurance program, but this helps us to stabilize it and stabilize the 
housing market
  My final point is this: auto insurance is not something that I 
necessarily want to have. I don't use it regularly. There are many who 
purchase it and never use it, but it sure is good to know that you have 
it in the event of an accident. Flood insurance is something that we 
need, not because we know it will happen to us but because of the 
possibility.
  I thank the chair. I thank the ranking member. I beg that we pass 
this legislation.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Could I ask the chairwoman if she has any additional 
speakers.
  Ms. WATERS. I have no other speakers, Mr. Chairman; and I would 
reserve the right to close.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Then I would just like to say that this has been an 
effort that has been moving forth. As we've said, we've had a lot of 
lapses in this program across the country. It's caused a lot of 
disturbances for folks who are trying to purchase new homes or 
refinance, and I think that we need a permanent extension of this for 5 
years.
  So, again, I do have reservations about the additional spending; $500 
million at this time of high debt and deficit and high unemployment is, 
I think, improperly placed, but this bill does have another purpose, 
and that is to make sure that homeowners and home purchasers can have 
the access that they need to the flood insurance program.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the ranking member 
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for her cooperation and the work that 
she has put into the formulation of this very, very important bill.
  I would like to thank Members on both sides of the aisle for the 
cooperation that we have seen exhibited on this bill, and I think that 
the Members on both sides of the aisle have done a fabulous job 
representing their constituencies on this issue.
  It is time for us to have a reauthorization for 5 years, given the 
lapses that we have had and the risks that we have placed homeowners at 
when we

[[Page H5630]]

don't have flood insurance coverage. And so Members have come one by 
one on this issue explaining what is going on in their districts, and 
of course, we have had a lot of criticism about FEMA. We have had 
Members explain that neighbors are getting together to fight some of 
the mapping that is being done. All of that has been brought to our 
attention, and we've been able to deal with most of those complaints, 
not only in this bill but, of course, in the manager's amendment.
  We have some people who are going to bring amendments to the floor 
from both sides of the aisle, and I'm confident that with the work that 
has gone into this bill, the amendments that we will have on the 
floor--many of them will be adopted--that we will see a good, solid 
piece of legislation move from this floor that will address the 
concerns of so many of our constituents across this country.
  I'm proud of this legislation. I thank not only the Members on both 
sides of the aisle but the staffs from both sides of the aisle who have 
worked so hard to ensure that we address these concerns.
  So, now, with this authorization for 5 years, with the delayed time 
so that people have the opportunity to prepare, with the installment, 
with the way that we have done all of this, including putting an 
advocate in, our constituents are going to get some justice, some real 
attention; and I think they will be proud of the work that we have 
done.

                               American Insurance Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 2010.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Spencer Bachus,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Representative Bachus: The American 
     Insurance Association (AIA) would like to express its strong 
     support for the House Financial Services Committee reported 
     bill reauthorizing and reforming the National Flood Insurance 
     Program (NFIP), H.R. 5114. The recent lapses in the NFIP 
     followed by the use of short-term extensions have caused 
     disruptions to homeowners, businesses and hindered real 
     estate closings nationwide. A long-term NFIP reauthorization 
     will bring much-needed stability to the market and fiscal 
     soundness to the program.
       However, we strongly oppose the amendment to be offered by 
     Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS). The Taylor amendment would 
     negatively impact ``Write Your Own'' (WYO) companies and 
     significantly alter the way in which claims are processed by 
     the NFIP. Consumers want reasonably priced insurance for the 
     risks they confront. To help meet that objective, insurers 
     must be able to contractually define the parameters of their 
     exposure. Adopting the Taylor amendment will cause WYO 
     companies to take a hard look at their continued 
     participation in the program and jeopardize our support for 
     the underlying bill.
       We look forward to continuing to work with you to enact a 
     long-term NFIP reauthorization.
           Sincerely,

                                              Leigh Ann Pusey,

                                                President and CEO,
     American Insurance Association.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                          REALTORS'

                                    Washington, DC, July 13, 2010.
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.1 million members 
     of the National Association of REALTORS' (NAR), 
     thank you for the progress that Congress is making toward 
     comprehensive reform of the National Flood Insurance Program 
     (NFIP). Later this week, the House of Representatives is 
     scheduled to consider H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform 
     Priorities Act, to strengthen the NFIP and bring certainty to 
     real estate markets that are much in need. NAR strongly 
     supports the provision to reauthorize the NFIP through fiscal 
     year 2015, which continues to be a top priority of our 
     membership.
       Reauthorizing the NFIP through 2015 is critical to millions 
     of taxpaying American families who rely on the program for 
     flood insurance, which by law, is required to obtain a 
     mortgage in nearly 20,000 communities across the nation. 
     Since September of 2008, Congress has approved eight short-
     term extensions of the NFIP's authority to issue new and 
     renewal flood insurance policies. Twice, this authority has 
     been allowed to expire, resulting in multi-week delays if not 
     cancellation of thousands of real estate transactions. The 
     many shut-downs and short-term reauthorizations of this 
     program over the past two years have caused many hardships 
     and lost sales for property buyers, sellers, and their 
     communities. Enacting a multi-year NFIP reauthorization would 
     restore flagging confidence in this vital program by ensuring 
     its continuation for several years without further disruption 
     to real estate markets upon which the U.S.'s economic 
     recovery depends.
       We continue to have concerns with provisions of H.R. 5114 
     that would phase-in actuarial rates for most pre-Flood 
     Insurance Rate Map (pre-FIRM) properties. Section 5 would 
     increase rates on these properties by up to 20 percent a 
     year, beginning on the date of enactment for those non-
     residential properties and non-primary residences and at the 
     point of sale for the primary residences. The bill already 
     reauthorizes the mitigation program for ``severe repetitive 
     loss'' properties; there is a sound public policy argument 
     for increasing rates on such properties where there is 
     demonstrated history of repeated losses, representing a 
     disproportionate share of claims on the program. That is not 
     the case for other pre-FIRM properties that would be impacted 
     by the proposed changes included in H.R. 5114.
       As a result, the bill in effect increases insurance rates 
     on properties where the risk of flooding has not necessarily 
     changed. Yet, these properties were built before the 
     community's flood risks were known or mapped and therefore 
     could not have been built to NFIP standards. Retrofitting 
     reduces housing affordability, which has a multiplier effect 
     on the tax base of surrounding communities that are older or 
     rely on tourism. We will continue to work with the House and 
     Senate to ensure the fair and effective application of 
     reforms through the home transaction process.
       We support moving H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform 
     Priorities Act, to the Senate and pledge to continue to work 
     with you on these and other important issues.
           Sincerely,

                                        Vicki Cox Golder, CRB,

                           2010 President, National Association of
     REALTORS.'
                                  ____


 [Statement on Behalf of the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of 
  America Before the Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on 
           Housing and Community Opportunity April 21, 2010]

       IIABA is the nation's oldest and largest trade association 
     of independent insurance agents and brokers, and we represent 
     a nationwide network of more than 300,000 agents, brokers, 
     and employees. IIABA represents independent insurance agents 
     and brokers who present consumers with a choice of policy 
     options from a variety of different insurance companies. 
     These small, medium, and large businesses offer all lines of 
     insurance--property, casualty, life, health, employee benefit 
     plans, and retirement products. It is from this unique 
     vantage point that we understand the capabilities and 
     challenges of the insurance market when it comes to insuring 
     against flood risks.


                               Background

       The Big ``I'' believes that the NFIP provides a vital 
     service to people and places that have been hit by a natural 
     disaster. The private insurance industry has been, and 
     continues to be, largely unable to underwrite flood insurance 
     because of the catastrophic nature of these disasters. 
     Therefore, the NFIP is virtually the only way for people to 
     protect against the loss of their home or business due to 
     flood loss. The NFIP currently provides 95% of flood 
     insurance in the United States and five and a half million 
     taxpayers depend on the NFIP as their main source of 
     protection against flooding, the most common natural disaster 
     in the United States.
       Prior to the introduction of the Program in 1968, the 
     Federal Government spent increasing sums of money on disaster 
     assistance to flood victims. Since then, the NFIP has saved 
     disaster assistance money and provided a more reliable system 
     of payments for people whose properties have suffered flood 
     damage. It is also important to note that for almost two 
     decades, up until the 2005 hurricane season, no taxpayer 
     money had been used to support the NFIP; rather, the NFIP was 
     able to support itself through the premiums it collected 
     every year.
       Under the NFIP, independent agents play a vital role in the 
     delivery of the product through the Write Your Own (WYO) 
     system. Independent agents serve as the sales force of the 
     NFIP and the conduits between the NFIP, the WYO companies, 
     and consumers. This relationship provides independent agents 
     with a unique perspective on the issues surrounding flood 
     insurance, yet also means that the role of the insurance 
     agent in the delivery process of flood insurance is 
     considerably more complex than that of traditional property/
     casualty lines. Agents must possess a higher degree of 
     training and expertise than their non-NFIP participating 
     counterparts, which requires updating their continuing 
     education credits through flood conferences and seminars. 
     This is done regularly and can involve traveling to different 
     regions of the country, costing personal time and money. 
     Every agent assumes these responsibilities voluntarily and 
     does so as part of being a professional representative of the 
     NFIP. In an effort to bring the education process to as many 
     people as possible, many of our State associations now 
     provide Internet based seminars. This training has been 
     extremely popular and a tremendous tool. We believe in the 
     effectiveness of the Program and would like to see it 
     continue and offer consumers even greater protections in the 
     years ahead.


                          Long Term Extension

       The NFIP has traditionally been authorized for periods of 
     five years in order to provide much needed stability to the 
     marketplace and to instill confidence in consumers

[[Page H5631]]

     that the program will be there for future years. Since 2006, 
     however, the program has unfortunately been caught up in a 
     series of short term extensions while Congress considers 
     large scale reforms of the program. The Big ``I'' strongly 
     supports Congress' efforts to reform the program in order to 
     bring much needed stability to the program for the benefit of 
     consumers and taxpayers. However, of paramount concern to the 
     IIABA is that the program receives a long term extension, 
     preferably five years.
       In 2009 and the first few months of 2010, Congress was 
     forced to pass seven short term extensions of the program. 
     This problem has been exacerbated recently as flood insurance 
     has been included in extensions of unemployment extensions 
     and COBRA subsidies that last for only 1 or 2 months. In 
     fact, twice during the last few months Congress failed to 
     extend the flood insurance program before its expiration and 
     the program was allowed to lapse, most recently in the 
     beginning of April when the program was expired for nearly 3 
     weeks.
       The Big ``I'' urges Congress to recognize that each time 
     the program expires there are real consequences for the 
     American people. Expirations inevitably lead to confusion and 
     harm to real estate markets, consumers are potentially put at 
     risk of uninsured losses, and there is the potential of 
     additional tax money put at risk to cover any relief efforts 
     that may occur during such expiration. The effect on the real 
     estate market, in particular, should not be overlooked. 
     During the most recent expiration, IIABA fielded numerous 
     inquiries from agents across the country asking how to 
     proceed with real estate closings for properties in flood 
     zones. Though the federal banking regulators thankfully did 
     the right thing and allowed closings to proceed even without 
     the required flood insurance coverage, unfortunately IIABA 
     heard anecdotal stories from some agents saying that some 
     banks did not, after all, agree to proceed with the closings. 
     At the very least, there was significant confusion 
     immediately following the expiration, evidenced by the fact 
     that the federal banking regulators did not issue their 
     guidance until approximately four days after the program had 
     already been expired.
       We are grateful Congress passed another short term 
     extension last week, and that the extension was retroactive 
     to cover the timeframe of the expiration. Unfortunately the 
     program is set to once again expire on May 31, 2010. Congress 
     will likely be forced to pass its eighth extension in the 
     next few weeks. The National Flood Insurance Program is meant 
     to provide some level of stability and protection for 
     homeowners and businesses against dangerously unpredictable 
     and costly flooding events, not to be an unpredictable `here 
     one minute-gone the next' program subject to monthly 
     congressional action. The Big ``I'' strongly urges Congress 
     to pass a long term extension of this critical program.
       For this reason, the IIABA supports Chairwoman Waters and 
     Ranking Member Capito's draft legislation to reform and 
     extend the program for five years. Though IIABA has some 
     recommended improvements to the draft legislation, the 
     underlying long term extension is vital to provide stability 
     and security to consumers.


                       Modernization of Coverages

       The Big ``I'' also urges the Committee to include much 
     needed modernizations of the NFIP. The draft legislation 
     includes one such modernization of the program by increasing 
     maximum coverage limits. The NFIP maximum coverage limits 
     have not been increased since 1994 and since then, the United 
     States has seen a housing market boom of epic proportions. 
     Labor and materials costs have skyrocketed, and yet the 
     maximum indemnity a homeowner can receive for a flood loss is 
     $250,000, Similarly, a total loss on a commercial property 
     would only net the occupant $500,000. These figures are 
     caught in time, and they do not provide reasonable 
     financial relief for policyholders facing a complete 
     rebuilding process. The hurricanes of the last several 
     years have clearly showed that homeowners and businesses 
     need higher NFIP coverage limits in order to properly 
     insure their properties. An increase in the maximum 
     coverage limits will better allow both individuals and 
     commercial businesses to insure against the damages that 
     massive flooding can cause, and we're grateful that this 
     increase was included in the draft legislation.
       The IIABA urges the Committee to also include two other 
     very important modernizations in any flood insurance reform 
     bill that they consider. These are optional business 
     interruption insurance and additional living expenses. Both 
     of these additions, which would be purchased at the option of 
     the consumer at actuarial rates, would offer essential 
     coverage to consumers, bring the program additional revenue, 
     and make the program more attractive to consumers.
       The inclusion of optional business interruption coverage is 
     particularly crucial to Big ``I'' members and their 
     commercial customers. If a flooding catastrophe causes 
     business premises to be temporarily unusable, that business 
     may have to relocate or even close down temporarily. Property 
     owners are still required to pay employees, mortgages, leases 
     and other debts during this process, and these ongoing 
     expenses can mount up quickly for a business that has reduced 
     income or no income at all. For property insurance policies, 
     business interruption insurance provides protection against 
     the loss of profits and continuing fixed expenses resulting 
     from an interruption in commercial activities due to the 
     occurrence of a peril. The inclusion of an optional business 
     interruption provision will provide stability to the local 
     economies in the areas affected by flood damage and will 
     offset government disaster relief payments should the flood 
     peril result in widespread destruction across a region. 
     Business interruption coverage, and the security and peace of 
     mind it provides, is crucial to our members and to small 
     businesspeople across America.
       The other provision which we strongly recommend that the 
     Committee add to the flood insurance reform legislation is 
     the option to purchase additional living expenses. This 
     provision would provide consumers with greater security 
     during the often bewildering post-flood period, and will do 
     so in an actuarial basis as opposed to relying solely on FEMA 
     grants and assistance. Both business interruption and 
     additional living expenses are common options available to 
     consumers for private commercial and homeowners' property/
     casualty insurance.
       These provisions have been a part of the flood insurance 
     reform bills going back to 2006, when Chairman Mike Oxley and 
     Subcommittee Chairman Richard Baker included these optional 
     coverages in their ``Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization 
     Act of 2006'' (H.R. 4973) that passed the House. These 
     provisions were again included in H.R. 3121, introduced by 
     Chairwoman Waters in 2007 and also passed by the full House.
       Increased coverage limits, optional business interruption, 
     and optional additional living expenses are all pieces of the 
     puzzle that will fit together to modernize the NFIP for the 
     21st century, and the Big ``I'' strongly urges the Committee 
     to include all three provisions in the flood insurance reform 
     legislation. These modernizations will hopefully have three 
     positive effects on the NFIP as a whole. First, it will allow 
     consumers to more adequately insure their properties and 
     valuables against their true risks. This will in turn make 
     the NFIP as a whole a more attractive product for consumers, 
     thereby increasing participation in the program. And finally, 
     as optional purchases that would be sold at actuarial rates, 
     these modernizations of coverages will result in a NFIP that 
     is closer to being on actuarially sound footing--which is a 
     goal that the Big ``I'' strongly supports.


                               Conclusion

       The IIABA is very pleased that the Subcommittee is 
     conducting today's hearing on comprehensive flood insurance 
     reform and we urge the Financial Services Committee to pass 
     the Waters-Capito flood insurance legislation and send it to 
     the full House of Representatives for approval. The 
     legislation is critical to ensure the long-term stability of 
     the NFIP. The NFIP is essential to Americans and to the U.S. 
     economy, and we strongly support your efforts to update it to 
     reflect today's risks. Extending this program for five years, 
     and avoiding the recent short term extensions and occasional 
     expirations, would have a profound effect on consumers' 
     confidence in the program. Finally, we also strongly support 
     your efforts to increase the maximum coverage limits and urge 
     you to consider adding provisions to provide for the optional 
     coverage of business interruption insurance and additional 
     living expenses to your draft legislation.
       We thank the Committee for the opportunity to express the 
     views of the IIABA on this important program. We hope very 
     much that this hearing will contribute to additional action 
     taken by Congress to pass flood insurance reforms and to 
     ensure the stability of the National Flood Insurance Program.
                                  ____

                                          The Council of Insurance


                                           Agents and Brokers,

                                    Washington, DC, July 13, 2010.
     Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski, 
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     ATTENTION: Financial Services Staff
     Re H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform and Priorities Act 
         of 2010.

       Dear Representative Kanjorski: Legislation reauthorizing 
     the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) may be considered 
     by the House of Representatives this week. H.R. 5114, the 
     ``Flood Insurance Reform and Priorities Act of 2010,'' would 
     restore predictability to a market that is often jolted by 
     unrelated political battles, resulting in four lapses since 
     September 2008. As representatives of the nation's largest 
     and most successful commercial insurance brokerages, who 
     collectively sell 90 percent of the nation's business 
     insurance, we strongly encourage you to support H.R. 5114, 
     the ``Flood Insurance Reform and Priorities Act of 2010.''
       The legislation would reauthorize NFIP for five years, 
     increase outdated coverage limits for residential and 
     commercial properties, and encourage consumers in newly 
     designated flood zones to purchase coverage by phasing in 
     rates. The current authorization of NFIP expires on September 
     30, 2010.
       This long-term strategy to maintain the program, as opposed 
     to short-term reauthorizations passed by Congress over the 
     past two years, is the responsible policy to pursue. H.R. 
     5114 is key to providing predictability in flood-prone 
     economies, and seeks to responsibly increase coverage in 
     flood zones.
       We strongly urge you to support H.R. 5114, the ``Flood 
     Insurance Reform and Priorities Act of 2010.'' If we can 
     answer any of your questions, or be of assistance in any way,

[[Page H5632]]

     please feel free to contact us at (202) 783-4400. Thank you 
     very much.
           Sincerely,
     Ken A. Crerar,
       President.
     Joel Wood,
       Senior Vice President, Government Affairs.
     Joel Kopperud,
       Director, Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                        Property Casualty Insurers


                                       Association of America,

                                  Des Plaines, IL, April 26, 2010.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     House Financial Services Committee, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Spencer Bachus,
     House Financial Services Committee, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus: On behalf of 
     the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI), 
     I strongly urge your support of H.R. 5114, the ``Flood 
     Insurance Reform and Priorities Act of 2010'', sponsored by 
     Representative Maxine Waters. The Committee is scheduled to 
     mark-up this bill on Tuesday, April 27.
       Floods are the most common natural disasters to occur in 
     the United States. Over 5.5 million Americans rely on the 
     National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). But with over $18 
     billion in debt, the NFIP needs meaningful reform.
       Since 2008, Congress has entered into a cycle of passing 
     short-term extensions for the NFIP, leading to lapses in 
     program coverage. This year, there have already been two gaps 
     in the program, including March 1-2 and March 29-April 15. 
     This disjointed approach to NFIP leaves homeowners vulnerable 
     and adds greater uncertainty to the real estate market in 
     flood-prone areas.
       The NFIP is currently set to expire again on May 31, 2010, 
     one day before the start of hurricane season and just three 
     months before the 5th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. We 
     need a long-term, sustainable solution to the flood program. 
     Rep. Waters' bill takes a very responsible approach to making 
     the NFIP more financially stable, providing the program with 
     an important multi-year extension through 2015 and limiting 
     additional federal exposure to natural disasters. The bill 
     also works to increase local awareness of the devastating 
     effects of flooding and the need to purchase flood insurance. 
     This legislation also addresses the cost of flood insurance 
     for consumers who now find themselves in a special flood 
     hazard area and are required to purchase the product by 
     phasing-in the cost.
       H.R. 5114 promotes safer building practices to prevent and 
     reduce flood losses. Significant property development, 
     population growth, and rapidly rising real estate prices in 
     areas prone to natural disasters exacerbate the potential for 
     larger human and economic losses, requiring stronger loss 
     prevention, mitigation and greater financial resources for 
     recovery. Stronger building codes are one of the most 
     effective ways to mitigate storm damage. We believe that 
     state and local governments must address the need to restrict 
     development in flood-prone areas and discourage irresponsible 
     development. The first step is to improve outdated and 
     inconsistent requirements for building codes and code 
     enforcement.
       We look forward to passage of this important and well-
     balanced legislation. We would be happy to discuss any 
     questions regarding our support with you. We believe that 
     H.R. 5114 will make buildings stronger, families safer, and 
     the insurance market in flood-prone areas more stable over 
     the long-term. We highly recommend its passage and urge your 
     support of H.R. 5114, the ``Flood Insurance Reform and 
     Priorities Act of 2010.''
           Sincerely,
                                                 David A. Sampson,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                Professional Insurance Agents,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 13, 2010.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Republican Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner: On behalf of the 
     National Association of Professional Insurance Agents (PIA) 
     and our independent insurance agency owners, we are 
     encouraging swift passage this week of H.R. 5114, the Flood 
     Insurance Reform and Priorities Act of 2010, sponsored by 
     Congresswoman Maxine Waters.
       It is imperative for our members and the consumers they 
     serve to have a stable flood insurance program available. 
     H.R. 5114 will reauthorize the National Flood Insurance 
     Program (NFIP) for five years, providing stability to the 
     marketplace and fulfilling its vital role in helping citizens 
     protect themselves from the devastating losses floods can 
     cause.
       Flooding events are the most common natural disaster in the 
     United States. Since the NFIP's inception, tens of billions 
     of dollars have been paid out to flood insurance customers, 
     providing protection to the citizens of this nation that 
     often can't be found in the private market.
       Quickly passing this essential bill will help ensure that 
     the Senate has ample time to consider it before the NFIP 
     lapses again, currently set for September 30, 2010. Allowing 
     the program to regularly lapse, something that has occurred 
     multiple times this year alone, makes it much more difficult 
     for us to convince those who need flood insurance to buy it, 
     leaving America's homes and businesses uninsured.
       Permitting uncertainty regarding the long-term future of a 
     program that enjoys broad bipartisan support has had the 
     unintended consequence of delaying real estate closings at a 
     time when our nation is struggling to build a sustainable 
     economic recovery. This has occurred at the same time that we 
     are dealing with an environmental disaster in the Gulf of 
     Mexico and facing the prospect of an active hurricane season.
       H.R. 5114 provides much-needed reforms to the NFIP, 
     including increasing NFIP coverage limits, phasing in 
     actuarial property rates and phasing out premium subsidies 
     for second and vacation homes and making business 
     interruption and additional living expense coverages 
     available at actuarial cost.
       There is broad consensus that the National Flood Insurance 
     Program is a vital component of America's economic prosperity 
     that provides affordable protection to homeowners and 
     business owners. PIA strongly supports the NFIP because it 
     has been protecting us from flood risks since its inception 
     over 40 years ago. We urge you to bring this bill to the 
     floor and that it be passed quickly.
       Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. If you 
     need additional assistance from PIA, please contact Mike 
     Becker at 703-518-1365.
           Sincerely,
     Jon D. Spalding,
       President.
     Len Brevik,
       Executive Vice President.
                                  ____

                                   National Multi Housing Council,


                               National Apartment Association,

                                   Washington, DC, April 20, 2010.
     Hon. Maxine Waters,
     Chair, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Outreach, U.S. 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Shelley Moore Capito,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
         Outreach, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member Capito: The 
     National Multi Housing Council (NMHC) and The National 
     Apartment Association (NAA) appreciate the opportunity to 
     express our views to the Committee as you consider 
     legislative proposals to reform the National Flood Insurance 
     Program (NFIP) to ensure long term financial stability. Our 
     members rely on this critical program to not only protect 
     their property investment but to help manage the increasing 
     costs of providing housing. Therefore, efforts to ensure the 
     long term financial stability of the program are of critical 
     importance to the apartment industry and we applaud your 
     leadership.
       The NMHC and NAA represent the nation's leading firms 
     participating in the multifamily rental housing industry. Our 
     combined memberships are engaged in all aspects of the 
     apartment industry, including ownership, development, 
     management, and finance. The NMHC represents the principal 
     officers of the apartment industry's largest and most 
     prominent firms. The NAA is the largest national federation 
     of state and local apartment associations. NAA is a 
     federation of 170 state and local affiliates comprised of 
     more than 50,000 multifamily housing companies representing 
     more than 5.9 million apartment homes. NMHC and NAA jointly 
     operate a federal legislative program and provide a unified 
     voice for the private apartment industry.
       Our membership is extremely concerned about the future 
     stability of the overall property insurance market and its 
     ability to withstand the continued occurrence of not just 
     floods but all natural disasters. Policyholders need some 
     assurances that the resources will be available to cover the 
     risks both now and in the future. As Congress continues its 
     deliberations on how best to address this critical issue, we 
     hope to participate in this broader discussion.
       We support the discussion draft legislation as offered by 
     Chairwoman Waters, the Flood Insurance Reform and Priorities 
     Act of 2010, and specifically the following provisions that 
     have the greatest impact on the multifamily industry:
       Long Term Reauthorization of NFIP--Continuous short term 
     extensions create uncertainty in an already challenging 
     economy. The inability to issue new policies, renew existing 
     policies, change limits or pay claims upon program expiration 
     creates unnecessary problems for consumers and businesses 
     alike. A 5 year reauthorization of the NFIP is appropriate 
     and necessary.
       Maximum coverage limits: Raising the policy limits for 
     multifamily properties from $250,000 to $335,000 recognizes 
     that current limits are outdated and do not reflect the 
     increased real estate values.
       Subsidized rates for pre-FIRM properties--The draft bill 
     proposes to phase in actuarial rates for non-residential and 
     non-primary residences. We support the clarifying language in 
     Section 5 that effectively maintains the subsidized rate for 
     multifamily properties of 4 or more dwelling units.
       Currently pre-FIRM multifamily properties located in flood 
     zones and thus eligible for subsidized rates through the 
     NFIP, most likely represent a significant segment of the 
     affordable housing market. The country is

[[Page H5633]]

     already experiencing a shortage of affordable housing. As 
     operating costs increase, these properties will be forced to 
     pass along these costs to their residents in the form of 
     higher rent, thus exacerbating this shortage. The impact can 
     be far more severe for those property owners who are 
     prohibited from raising rents due to rent stabilization 
     restrictions or federal assistance program rules. These 
     property owners cannot adjust their rents and must therefore 
     determine their ability to continue in this market. Many may 
     be forced to withdraw. And those that choose to remain may 
     simply decline adequate coverage, exposing their properties 
     to deterioration and declining property value.
       We thank you for your work to ensure the future viability 
     of the NFIP and look forward to working with you to secure 
     reauthorization of this critical program. If however, a 
     reform measure cannot be enacted prior to the May 31, 2010 
     expiration, we encourage Congress to enact a long term 
     extension of the program to ensure the confidence of 
     policyholders and stability in the market.
           Sincerely,
     Douglas M. Bibby,
       President, National Multi Housing Council.
     Douglas S. Culkin, CAE,
       President, National Apartment Association.

  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5114, the 
Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010, which extends the flood 
insurance program that provides peace of mind and security for millions 
of Americans. This measure also enacts important reforms that make the 
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) more financially sustainable 
and provide much-needed assistance to individuals in newly mapped flood 
zones.
  I thank Chairman Frank for his leadership in bringing this bill to 
the floor. I also thank Congresswoman Waters for her commitment to 
ensuring that this bill is equitable and does riot disadvantage 
struggling families and businesses.
  Mr. Chair, the NFIP is an important government program that makes 
flood insurance available to many vulnerable families that otherwise 
would be unable to find coverage. However, it is critical for us to 
ensure that this program does not unnecessarily disadvantage 
individuals in newly mapped flood zones by imposing immediate insurance 
mandates and crippling premiums.
  Fortunately, H.R. 5114 contains important provisions ensuring that it 
will not overburden families and businesses, many of whom are already 
struggling in these tough economic times. This bill delays for five 
years the mandatory purchase requirement for flood insurance. Following 
this five year delay, the bill allows for a five year phase-in of 
actuarial rates for newly mapped areas. These provisions provide 
necessary relief to families who have not been required to purchase 
flood insurance in the past and may be unprepared for this new expense.
  For example, areas in my district with little or no history of 
flooding have recently been remapped into a flood zone that assigns a 
``once in 100 years'' risk of flooding. The five year delay in the 
purchasing requirement and the five year phase-in of actuarial rates 
will give my district a grace period in which we can improve our levee 
and flood protection systems and ultimately lose our ``at risk'' 
designation. This bill gives districts like mine all across the country 
the opportunity to make improvements without taking on the financial 
burden of flood insurance premiums in this period of economic recovery.
  Mr. Chair, this bill is important for the people for whom it provides 
flood insurance and the people that it protects from unnecessary 
financial burdens. It is an appropriate measure that is worthy of our 
support. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5114.
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5114, The 
Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010. This legislation would 
give families in my district and across the Nation the peace of mind 
that comes with knowing they'll be protected from the financial 
insecurity caused by flooding.
  I'd like to thank Chairwoman Waters for her leadership on this issue 
and for working with me to include language in the managers amendment 
that would require FEMA to update its flood maps for an area that has 
had its levee system improved to eliminate the risk of flooding.
  My language also clarifies that updated flood maps that are issued 
will result in the elimination of the mandatory purchase requirement 
for the improved areas.
  My district in Illinois lies on the banks of the Mississippi River 
and contains large parts of the Illinois and Rock Rivers--a district 
obviously that is impacted greatly by policies dealing with the 
National Flood Insurance Program.
  It is why I strongly support the underlying bill and urge my 
colleagues to do the same--this legislation reauthorizes the National 
Flood Insurance Program for five years and puts an end to Congress 
passing short-term flood insurance extensions that leave the program in 
a state of uncertainty.
  There are several other provisions of this bill that are common sense 
and long overdue which I would like to briefly highlight. The bill: 
Phases in Premium Increases; creates a flood insurance premium payment 
installation plan for low-income families; and establishes the Office 
of Flood Insurance Advocate within FEMA, which would help communities 
and homeowners interpret, implement and appeal flood insurance rate 
maps.
  These are just a few of the provisions of this bill that I thank the 
chairwoman for including, and I again urge my colleagues to support 
both the manager's amendment and the underlying bill.
  Passage of this important legislation will benefit all Americans who 
live in flood-prone areas of our Nation.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this legislation to 
reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which is 
essential for people who live in hazardous areas. The bill makes a 
number of important reforms that will help increase the fiscal 
soundness and stability of the Program.
  First, I am especially pleased that the bill extends the successful 
Severe Repetitive Loss Pilot Program, which was created in the Flood 
Insurance Reform Act of 2004. This program provides resources to 
communities to mitigate properties that have flooded repeatedly.
  Repetitive loss properties cost the NFIP about $400 million annually. 
While they comprise approximately 2 percent of the program, they 
account for more than 25 percent of the claims paid.
  By extending the Pilot Program, this legislation will help reduce the 
cost burden of these properties on the Program and will release 
homeowners from the cycle of flood, rebuild, and flood again. I 
appreciate that Chairwoman Waters included a provision in the manager's 
amendment making a technical fix to ensure that FEMA is implementing 
the Pilot Program as Congress intended.
  I also support language in this bill that will phase in actuarial 
rates for non-residential properties and non-primary residences. Many 
houses in hazardous areas were built before the NFIP was put in place 
and those hazards was identified. For too long, these properties have 
enjoyed subsidized rates that drive up costs for everyone else in the 
program and send the wrong signals to property-owners about their 
risks. By setting rates based on risk, this legislation bolsters the 
stability of the NFIP and may result in lower costs for all policy-
holders.
  I am disappointed, however, that the bill includes provisions that I 
believe will result in consumers not understanding the flood risks they 
face and will potentially harm both policyholders and taxpayers.
  Under direction from Congress, FEMA has undertaken a map 
modernization process around the country. The purpose is to identify 
areas at risk, as flooding patterns have changed over time.
  Section 6 of this bill essentially says that even if the new maps 
find that a property is at risk, property owner will not have to 
purchase flood insurance for 5 years. This undermines the mandatory 
purchase requirement of the Program. If there's a flood in the next 
five years, taxpayers will be on the hook to bail these property owners 
out.
  Section 7 of the bill takes this denial of risk even further, saying 
that after the five year delay, a property owner newly identified as 
living in a flood hazard area will enjoy subsidized rates for another 4 
years.
  Finally, I'm concerned about Section 10, which automatically deems 
safe properties ``protected'' by a levee or other flood protection 
system, effectively removing the mandatory purchase requirement even if 
the flood protection system no longer works. As my friends from New 
Orleans know, levees can break. With this provision, we send a signal 
to homeowners that they do not need to mitigate their risks.
  While the bill includes some important reforms, it doesn't go far 
enough to address the structural problems that have cost taxpayers 
money, harmed the environment, and kept people in harm's way.
  The challenges for the program will only increase with time, as 
increased development and climate change put more people at risk. 
Already, over the past thirty years, the number of billion dollar US 
weather disasters has increased. From 1980-1989, there were 10 
disasters that resulted in over $1 billion in damage. From 2000-2009 
there were 44. If we don't take steps now to reform the system, this 
number will only continue to increase exponentially.
  For this reason, I would have preferred that this bill extend the 
program for less than five years. I understand that FEMA is undertaking 
a comprehensive review of the program, long overdue, and will come to 
Congress in two years to make administrative and legislative 
recommendations to strengthen the Program for the future. I hope that 
as this bill moves

[[Page H5634]]

forward through the process we can better coordinate the extension with 
this review so that Congress can keep the focus on reform.
  In the interest of moving this legislation forward and ending the 
short-term extensions that the NFIP has been facing this year, I urge 
passage of H.R. 5114. But I look forward to working with my colleagues 
to make further forms to protect taxpayers, policyholders, and the 
environment.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of 
H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010.
  The National Flood Insurance Program makes federally-backed flood 
insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in 
participating communities in exchange for those communities adopting 
and enforcing floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood 
damage. Unfortunately, Congress did not reauthorize the program by the 
May 31 deadline of this year, and as a result many Americans living in 
flood-prone areas, including people in my congressional district, have 
been unable to obtain flood insurance or renew their coverage. 
Hurricane season is now upon us, and therefore this is an issue on 
which Congress must show urgency.
  The Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010 would reauthorize 
the National Flood Insurance Program through the year 2015, along with 
making certain reforms. One such reform involves a five year phase-in 
of flood insurance rates for newly mapped areas not previously 
designated as having special flood hazard. This is particularly 
important for low-income citizens living in where flood maps change 
frequently.
  I have always been a supporter of the National Flood Insurance 
Program because I believe that hard-working Americans deserve the peace 
of mind that comes from knowing that their homes and businesses will be 
protected in the event of a major flood. I urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 5114 and reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program 
so that people are once again able to obtain this peace of mind.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5114, 
``the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010.'' I want to thank 
Chairwoman Waters and Chairman Frank for their hard work on H.R. 5114. 
This bill will provide enhanced security, better organization, 
increased participation, and a clear and improved direction for the 
future of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). By addressing 
the financial and administrative issues regarding NFIP, this bill will 
help protect millions of Americans from the potentially devastating 
economic effects created by a flood.
  Communities like mine in Houston rely heavily on NFIP to provide 
security against the risk of flood. Without this national flood 
insurance program, many communities across the U.S. would cease to 
exist because it is virtually impossible to buy flood insurance in the 
private market. The importance of this insurance program has grown 
significantly over the last decade as more and more communities have 
increased their dependence on the NFIP.
  As a direct result of certain natural disasters, including the 2005 
hurricanes, and increased annual rain and flooding, NFIP has reached 
its highest participation rate in its 42-year history. Today, over 5 
million homes and businesses rely on NFIP for flood coverage security. 
It is of extreme importance that this program continues to grow and 
develop to serve this population.
  Mr. Chair, as you know, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) has authority to issue, renew, or increase coverage of flood 
insurance policies under the NFIP; and this authority will again lapse 
on September 30, 2010. H.R. 5114 will extend these authorities to 
fiscal year 2015 and continue this program in a renewed and revitalized 
direction. This bill represents a great opportunity to improve and 
redefine NFIP and to provide greater security to the American people.
  Not only will this bill clean up the NFIP requirements and expand 
coverage with ``phase-ins'' of actuarial rates to more properties and 
in newly mapped high flood risk areas; this bill will also address 
outreach issues, risk analysis, and economic effects. It will initiate 
studies to report the impact, effectiveness, and feasibility of NFIP 
policies as well as potential methods, practices, and incentives that 
would increase participation by low-income families owning residential 
properties located within special flood risk areas. The bill will also 
create an office to oversee and better manage all of the 
responsibilities of NFIP and provide assistance to communities, 
businesses, and homeowners with all flood insurance issues.
  Furthermore, this bill will require a comprehensive strategy 
assessing the goals of NFIP to ensure that the program has a clear plan 
to pay off its debt and ensure itself a healthy future. This not only 
benefits the recipients of the flood insurance coverage, it also 
benefits the program, the U.S. budget, and the American people.
  I submitted several amendments to complement the goals of this 
legislation. One would have required a study to analyze important data 
regarding the damages resulting from floods. The amendment would have 
directed the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
to conduct a study on the impacts of excessive rainwater on residences 
located in areas at high risk for flooding from bayous and highways. 
The results of this study would have been reported to Congress no later 
than 5 years after the enactment of this bill. Through this study, my 
amendment would have provided vital information necessary to assess the 
dangers of an at-risk area and better prepare communities to protect 
themselves from flood.
  Mr. Chair, the only way to achieve the maximum security and 
preparedness for at-risk communities is to understand these risks with 
updated, relevant data and analysis. In the Houston area, there is 
already an on-going study, analyzing the effects of the bayou and 
rainfall, as flooding and its detrimental consequences are often a 
concern for the Houston area. The White Oak Bayou Federal Flood Damage 
Reduction Project is an existing project in Houston which is a 
partnership project between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the 
Corps) and the Harris County Flood Control District (the District). In 
developing a flood damage reduction project for White Oak Bayou, the 
Harris County Flood Control District has performed extensive data 
collection and analysis. The District has held public meetings within 
the community several times over the course of developing the project 
to determine the community's interests and flood damage reduction 
needs. Using this information, the District developed the flood damage 
reduction project for White Oak Bayou.
  In 1998, the District began a feasibility study for the White Oak 
Bayou Federal Flood Damage Reduction Project. This investigation has 
involved an extensive study of the White Oak Bayou watershed. 
Components to address flooding were analyzed and evaluated in great 
detail, which generated several alternatives for consideration as part 
of the project. Some of the components are already being implemented.
  Unfortunately, there are many other areas in Houston/Harris County, 
Texas and other communities throughout this country that experience an 
inordinate amount of flooding. In Houston, these areas that are 
frequently flooded from excessive rainwater include the Buffalo Bayou, 
the Greens Bayou, and the Halls Bayou. These areas could greatly 
benefit from a study and analysis to determine the impact of excessive 
rainwater on residences located in areas at high risk for flooding from 
bayous and highways. Such a study would allow for investigators to 
better determine the amount of flood damage and create and implement 
measures to prevent such future damage.
  Another amendment I offered would have stated that it is the sense of 
Congress that it is important to provide resources to address the 
devastating effects of flooding; that homeowners are particularly 
negatively affected by flooding; that excessive rainfall often leads to 
unsafe and hazardous living conditions; that flooding presents 
unexpected destruction and damage; and that it is necessary to provide 
consumers the opportunity to buy flood insurance.
  This amendment declares to the American people in a loud voice, that 
Congress understands the seriousness of flooding and the importance of 
flood insurance. It is important that we candidly illustrate our 
reasoning for the issuance of this legislation.
  Mr. Chair, it is clear that we have not been taking this issue as 
seriously as we should. We have had three lapses of authority this year 
alone with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). We must not 
continue to simply extend this program for 30 days at a time. We must 
not continue to play with the security of the American people when it 
pertains to an issue so serious and potentially devastating as floods. 
The people who own homes in these areas and the businesses who own 
property deserve better. The communities and the many potential 
homeowners, who cannot purchase homes without access to flood 
insurance, deserve better. We must take the first step by making it 
perfectly clear that we as a Congress will no longer play and toil with 
this issue. We must affirm that we are very serious about protecting 
our constituents and securing our nation from the devastating 
consequences of floods.

  Finally, I also offered a well crafted amendment that would have 
effectively prohibited states and local governments from misusing new 
federal flood insurance program requirements to disadvantaged 
businesses and homeowners in any way. Unfortunately, federal law is 
often misinterpreted by state and local officials, resulting in 
unintended consequences in many communities across this country. My 
amendment was a practical and reasonable response to a previously 
enacted Houston ordinance that had just such unintended consequences. 
This ordinance prohibited property construction on vacant land or

[[Page H5635]]

substantially damaged property located in major floodways and bayous 
and almost resulted in the wrongful taking of property from innocent 
homeowners, merely because their property was located in the wrong 
place.
  In 2006, I began meeting with hundreds of homeowners in Houston from 
areas such as Shady Acres, a 100-year-old neighborhood, as a result of 
the implementation of changes to Chapter 19, the City of Houston's 
floodplain ordinance. Listening to their testimonies and frustration 
made the impact of this bill very relevant. Just think, in my home 
district an ordinance was passed that resulted in the massive reduction 
in property values for almost 10,000 developed and vacant properties, 
including 2,400 single family homes. The ordinance took advantage of 
the fact that FEMA would be expected to decrease flood insurance 
premiums by 5 percent for those areas. Although the communities could 
pay less for flood insurance, the difference was minimal compared to 
the losses to their property values. Many owners were afraid that they 
would have to sell their homes because of the dramatic drop in value.
  By firmly stating that state and local governments should not 
misinterpret these flood insurance laws to put property owners at a 
disadvantage, I believe we could have sent a strong message that 
Congress will protect the property rights and interests of American 
citizens and the people this bill is intended to aid. It is important 
to make it known that the use of any unforeseen circumstances to treat 
flood insurance program requirements as a proxy for the wrongful taking 
of property is utterly unacceptable.
  I truly believe my amendments would have complemented H.R. 5114. 
However, I still believe the bill is a proactive measure that has been 
long overdue to address the urgent needs of Americans throughout this 
country, many of whom experience damage and losses to their homes, 
property and businesses from flooding.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to pass this important bill.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chair, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act makes 
a number of changes to the National Flood Insurance Program. Some of 
these changes are in the interests of taxpayers, such as the new 
restrictions on subsidies for second houses and vacation homes, while 
others, particularly the coverage limits, are in the interest of those 
who own property in flood plains. However, taken in its entirety this 
bill is not really in the interest of taxpayers or property owners 
because it creates new federal programs that appear to serve no useful 
purpose and it continues to allow the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) to impose unnecessary costs on local communities.
  At a time when the flood insurance program is running a deficit of 2 
billion dollars this legislation wastes millions of taxpayer dollars on 
``outreach'' and ``education'' programs designed to make sure people 
living in flood prone areas are aware of the need for flood insurance. 
Madame Speaker, as a homeowner in a flood plain, I can assure you that 
property ownership these areas are very aware of the need for flood 
insurance and do not need any outreach or reminders of the need for 
flood insurance.
  Many critics of flood insurance have pointed out that federally-
subsidized insurance encourages people to develop land in areas where 
under a free market system flood insurance would be prohibitively 
expensive. This is a valid point; however, it is also true that the 
flood insurance program often imposes flood insurance mandates on 
property owners in areas where there is little actual risk of flooding. 
Much of the controversy over the redrawing of the flood plain maps 
revolves around concerns that FEMA may force local communities to spend 
millions of dollars refurbishing levees and dams even though these 
structures were constructed specifically to protect against the worst 
conceivable storms.
  In some cases, FEMA is even demanding that communities spend money to 
alter levies that were constructed after consultation with the Corp of 
Engineers! While I am pleased the bill at least provides a phase-in of 
the flood insurance mandate for property owners living in the newly-
mapped flood plains, I am concerned that it does not do enough to 
ensure communities and individuals are not forced to incur needless 
expenses simply to satisfy FEMA bureaucrats. At the least, Congress 
should not give FEMA the ability to impose new flood maps without 
adequate oversight. Yet, under this bill, it would be five years before 
Congress seriously re-examines the flood program.
  The basic problem with the flood insurance program is that it assumes 
government officials are capable of knowing who should and who should 
not be required to purchase flood insurance, and also determine the 
premiums for every individual living in a flood-prone area. However, 
there is no way that government bureaucrats can determine correct 
amounts of coverage and premium prices for millions of individual 
homeowners.
  If flood insurance were allowed to be provided by the market, private 
insurance could do an accurate job of pricing risk so that those who 
wished to live in flood-prone areas could do so as long as they were 
willing to pay for the risk. Under this market system, property owners 
and insurance companies would have incentives that are lacking when the 
program is subsidized by the government; i.e., incentives to adopt 
innovative ways to mitigate the damage from floods.
  My district has experienced numerous storms and floods, including 
Hurricane Ike in 2008. After each incident, my office inevitably 
receives complaints from my constituents regarding FEMA's failure to 
provide them with timely assistance and compensation. My constituents' 
dissatisfaction with FEMA, along with the shameful way extension of the 
flood insurance program was held hostage last month in order to 
blackmail representatives into supporting adding billions more to the 
national debt, has strengthened my conviction that private markets, 
local communities, and states can more efficiently and humanely deal 
with the demand for flood insurance than the federal government.
  The Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act does take some steps toward 
fixing some of the problems with the flood insurance system, but it 
also needlessly spends taxpayer money and does not adequately address 
concerns that FEMA may impose unnecessary costs on local communities--
communities which do have plenty of incentive to make sure they are 
adequately prepared for a flood. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5114, the 
Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010. This legislation makes 
several significant changes to the National Flood Insurance Program 
(NFIP) and extends the authorization of the program through 2015.
  I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the Chairman 
of the Committee on Financial Services, and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters ) for their efforts to advance this important 
legislation. I thank them for the cooperative spirit in which they have 
worked with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on flood 
issues.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has jurisdiction 
over the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and its programs 
authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act (Stafford Act). Flooding is the most common risk 
communities across the country face and floods are the most frequent 
type of disaster declared by the President. The NFIP works hand in hand 
with FEMA's pre- and post-disaster programs authorized by the Stafford 
Act.
  The NFIP provides assistance to communities through all the phases of 
emergency management: preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. 
Initially, the program helps communities prepare by providing 
incentives to participate in the program; in return for improved zoning 
and other ordinances, communities received subsidized flood insurance. 
Further, flood maps under the NFIP help communities prepare for floods 
by helping to predict where flooding will occur and the likely 
severity. This in turn helps first responders know which communities 
need to be evacuated, or where people may need to be rescued, and where 
flood fighting efforts need to take place.
  The NFIP helps in recovery by providing payments to policy holders 
above and beyond what disaster assistance under the Stafford Act will 
cover and by transferring these costs from the Federal taxpayers to 
insurance rate payers. The NFIP pays numerous claims each year for 
events that do not warrant Federal disasters assistance under the 
Stafford Act. The NFIP and flood mapping also helps mitigate damage to 
property and risks to lives by identifying and mandating steps 
communities can take to rebuild safer and smarter after a flood, or, 
proactively, before a flood strikes a community. This assistance works 
in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Grant Program authorized by the Stafford Act.
  The amendments to the NFIP made by H.R. 5114 will provide for both a 
strong insurance program and strengthen the NFIP's risk communication 
and mitigation functions. The bill provides for outreach to communities 
and residents to ensure that they are aware of the risks they face and 
the insurance available to them. Even where this bill provides 
temporary relief from insurance purchase requirements, it requires 
communities to have the appropriate notice, risk communication, and 
emergency management plans in place to protect their citizens from the 
risks posed by floods.
  Mr. Chair, I also wish to note several additional issues related to 
the nation's efforts to address the risk of flooding that are not 
addressed in this legislation and to state the commitment of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to continue to work on 
these issues in the hopes of bringing forward

[[Page H5636]]

comprehensive reform of the nation's flood damage reduction efforts in 
the near future.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has a longstanding 
interest in the maintenance and safety of our nation's infrastructure. 
Over the past few years, the importance of maintaining the safety of 
our nation's flood control structures, including our levee systems, has 
been reinforced by pictures of the catastrophic consequences of their 
failure.
  Since the events of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure has held numerous hearings on the 
condition of the nation's flood damage reduction infrastructure. Most 
shocking was the realization that our nation had never conducted a 
simple inventory of all the levees in this country. We learned that 
Federal, State, and local agencies did not have comprehensive knowledge 
about where all of the levees in our Nation were located, what 
condition they are in, or what resources are at risk if they fail or 
should they be overtopped.
  In the 110th Congress, this body voted, by a vote of 361-54 to 
override a Presidential veto of the Water Resources Development Act 
2007, in order to authorize critical but long overdue spending on our 
nation's water infrastructure. Section 9003 of WRDA 2007 created the 
National Committee on Levee Safety to develop plans and recommendations 
for a National Levee Safety Program.
  Earlier this Congress, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment held a hearing on the draft recommendations of the National 
Committee and on proposals to take a more holistic view towards 
sustainable flood damage reduction including: improvements to the 
Nation's system of flood control structures; the establishment of 
clear, national standards for the condition of levees and for 
maintaining these critical structures; for communicating to the public 
the inherent risks associated with potential flooding events; and for 
encouraging the incorporation of nonstructural approaches into the 
overall system of flood protection.

  Over the past year, our Committee has reached out to numerous 
Federal, State, and local agencies responsible for flood protection, as 
well as numerous non-governmental organizations to begin the 
discussions on how to comprehensively reform our Nation's efforts to 
protect the lives and livelihoods of its citizenry. I want to thank the 
Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services (Mr. Frank) for his 
participation in these discussions and for his willingness to find 
longterm, comprehensive solutions to the flooding issues facing this 
Nation.
  The answers to these questions are likely to be lengthy and 
expensive, but investing in our levee systems now will save billions of 
dollars and many lives later.
  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates 
that hurricanes and floods cost the country over $10 billion in damages 
in an average year. However, extreme events in the past several decades 
push this number up. For example, Hurricane Katrina, the costliest and 
most deadly hurricane we have seen this century, caused an estimated 
$100 billion in damages and the loss of hundreds of lives. 
Additionally, the Midwest has seen two 500-year floods in the past 15 
years. Flooding in 2008 alone resulted in upwards of $15 billion in 
damages and the loss of two dozen lives.
  Our goal is to prevent such massive losses in the future by creating 
an effective national flood damage reduction and levee safety program. 
We must be clear that no program can effectively eliminate all risk of 
flooding. However, implementing certain policies will lower this risk.
  We must have an accurate assessment of the condition of our current 
levee system and based on that assessment, create national standards 
that will apply to all levee systems. Taking into consideration new 
risk factors, such as changing hydrological conditions, increased 
development within floodplains, and the effects of global climate 
change, will be essential in this process. In light of these factors, 
the current 100-year flood model may no longer be sufficient as a 
minimum standard for some levees.
  Some would have liked the legislation before the House today to 
address both reforms to the NFIP and to the Nation's overall flood 
damage reduction efforts. Such broad reform to our system of flood 
control requires careful consideration and additional work, which the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure stands ready to do. I 
look forward to continuing to work with Chairman Frank and other 
Members to address this important issue in the near future.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5114.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010. This 
legislation would reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program 
(NFIP) through fiscal year 2015 and make several improvements to the 
program.
  My Congressional District is home to some of the most flood prone 
rivers and streams in the United States. Nearly every major rain event 
causes some type of the flooding for residents and businesses. As a 
result, the NFIP is a tremendously important program for my 
constituents and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this 
legislation.
  H.R. 5114 contains provisions I authored to help communities that are 
currently constructing flood control projects where new scientific data 
would require changes in the design of the levee systems. In this 
situation, residents and businesses would be required to pay flood 
insurance rates as if the levees were not even constructed.
  Mr. Chair, it is enormously unfair for communities that have 
contributed millions of dollars toward a flood control project to be 
penalized with higher flood insurance rates because of conflicting 
scientific data. Communities invest in flood control projects with not 
only the expectation of being protected from future floods but also 
having the expectation of receiving reduced flood insurance rates.
  My provisions ensure that when this situation arises the community 
will be treated fairly for purposes of purchasing flood insurance 
during the construction of flood protection measures.
  Ms. WATERS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 5114

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Flood 
     Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Extension of national flood insurance program.
Sec. 4. Maximum coverage limits.
Sec. 5. Phase-in of actuarial rates for nonresidential properties, 
              certain pre-FIRM properties, and non-primary residences.
Sec. 6. 5-year delay in effective date of mandatory purchase 
              requirement for new flood hazard areas.
Sec. 7. 5-year phase-in of flood insurance rates for newly mapped 
              areas.
Sec. 8. Increase in annual limitation on premium increases.
Sec. 9. Consideration of construction, reconstruction, and improvement 
              of flood protection systems in determination of flood 
              insurance rates.
Sec. 10. Treatment of certain flood protection projects.
Sec. 11. Notification to homeowners regarding mandatory purchase 
              requirement applicability and rate phase-ins.
Sec. 12. Coverage for additional living expenses and business 
              interruption.
Sec. 13. Exception to waiting period for effective date of policies.
Sec. 14. Minimum deductibles for claims.
Sec. 15. Payment of premiums in installments for low-income 
              policyholders.
Sec. 16. Enforcement.
Sec. 17. Notification to tenants of availability of contents insurance.
Sec. 18. Flood insurance outreach.
Sec. 19. Notice of availability of flood insurance and escrow in RESPA 
              good faith estimate.
Sec. 20. Authorization of additional FEMA staff.
Sec. 21. Plan to verify maintenance of flood insurance on Mississippi 
              and Louisiana properties receiving emergency supplemental 
              funds.
Sec. 22. Flood insurance advocate.
Sec. 23. Eligibility of property demolition and rebuilding under flood 
              mitigation assistance program.
Sec. 24. Study regarding mandatory purchase requirement for non-
              federally related loans.
Sec. 25. Study of methods to increase flood insurance program 
              participation by low-income families.
Sec. 26. Report on inclusion of building codes in floodplain management 
              criteria.
Sec. 27. Study on repaying flood insurance debt.
Sec. 28. Study regarding impact of rate increases on pre-FIRM 
              properties.
Sec. 29. Study of effects of Act.
Sec. 30. Rulemaking.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) since the enactment of National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968, the national flood insurance program has been the 
     primary source of reliable, reasonably priced, flood 
     insurance coverage for millions of American homes and 
     businesses;
       (2) today over 5,500,000 homes and businesses in the United 
     States rely on the national flood insurance program to 
     provide a degree of financial security;
       (3) although participation in the national flood insurance 
     program has, in the past, largely been limited to properties 
     required to participate in the program because of the 
     program's

[[Page H5637]]

     mandatory purchase requirement for properties in special 
     flood hazard areas with loans from federally regulated 
     lenders, recent annual and extraordinary flooding has 
     resulted in the program enjoying its highest voluntary 
     participation since the establishment of the mandatory flood 
     insurance purchase requirement;
       (4) several years of below-average flood claims losses and 
     increased voluntary participation in the national flood 
     insurance program have allowed the program to fully service 
     the debt incurred following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and 
     allowed the program to pay $598,000,000 of the principal of 
     that outstanding debt;
       (5) though significant reforms are needed to further 
     improve the financial outlook of the national flood insurance 
     program, long-term and reliable authorization of the program 
     is an essential element to stabilizing the already fragile 
     United States housing market;
       (6) increased flooding in areas outside designated special 
     flood hazard areas prompted the Executive and the Congress in 
     2002 to begin calling for the national flood insurance 
     program to develop and disseminate revised, updated flood 
     insurance rate maps that reflect the real risk of flooding 
     for properties not previously identified as being located 
     within a special flood hazard area;
       (7) dissemination of accurate, up-to-date, flood-risk 
     information remains a primary goal of the national flood 
     insurance program and such information should be disseminated 
     as soon as such information is collected and available;
       (8) communities should be encouraged to make their 
     residents aware of updated flood-risk data while communities 
     are assessing and incorporating updated flood-risk data into 
     long-term community planning;
       (9) the maximum coverage limits for flood insurance 
     policies should be increased to reflect inflation and the 
     increased cost of housing; and
       (10) phasing out flood insurance premium subsidies 
     currently extended to vacation homes, second homes, and 
     commercial properties would result in significant average 
     annual savings to the national flood insurance program.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to identify priorities essential to the reform and 
     ongoing stable functioning of the national flood insurance 
     program;
       (2) to increase incentives for homeowners and communities 
     to participate in the national flood insurance program and to 
     improve oversight to ensure better accountability of the 
     national flood insurance program and the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency; and
       (3) to increase awareness of homeowners of flood risks and 
     improve the information regarding such risks provided to 
     homeowners.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Extension.--Section 1319 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking 
     ``September 30, 2008'' and inserting ``September 30, 2015''.
       (b) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     4016(a)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2008'' and 
     inserting ``September 30, 2015''.
       (c) Extension of Pilot Program for Mitigation of Severe 
     Repetitive Loss Properties.--Section 1361A of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4102a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (k)(1), by striking ``2005, 2006, 2007, 
     2008, and 2009'' and inserting ``2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 
     2015''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (l).

     SEC. 4. MAXIMUM COVERAGE LIMITS.

       Subsection (b) of section 1306 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$250,000'' and 
     inserting ``$335,000'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``$100,000'' and 
     inserting ``$135,000''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``$500,000'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``$670,000''; and
       (B) by inserting before ``; and'' the following: ``; except 
     that, in the case of any nonresidential property that is a 
     structure containing more than one dwelling unit that is made 
     available for occupancy by rental (notwithstanding the 
     provisions applicable to the determination of the risk 
     premium rate for such property), additional flood insurance 
     in excess of such limits shall be made available to every 
     insured upon renewal and every applicant for insurance so as 
     to enable any such insured or applicant to receive coverage 
     up to a total amount that is equal to the product of the 
     total number of such rental dwelling units in such property 
     and the maximum coverage limit per dwelling unit specified in 
     paragraph (2); except that in the case of any such multi-
     unit, nonresidential rental property that is a pre-FIRM 
     structure (as such term is defined in section 578(b) of the 
     National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4014 
     note)), the risk premium rate for the first $500,000 of 
     coverage shall be determined in accordance with section 
     1307(a)(2) and the risk premium rate for any coverage in 
     excess of such amount shall be determined in accordance with 
     section 1307(a)(1)''.

     SEC. 5. PHASE-IN OF ACTUARIAL RATES FOR NONRESIDENTIAL 
                   PROPERTIES, CERTAIN PRE-FIRM PROPERTIES, AND 
                   NON-PRIMARY RESIDENCES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1308(c) of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015(c)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (5); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(2) Nonresidential properties.--Any nonresidential 
     property, which term shall not include any multifamily rental 
     property that consists of four or more dwelling units.
       ``(3) Non-primary residences.--Any residential property 
     that is not the primary residence of any individual, 
     including the owner of the property or any other individual 
     who resides in the property as a tenant.
       ``(4) Recently purchased pre-firm single-family properties 
     used as principal residencies.--Any single family property 
     that--
       ``(A) has been constructed or substantially improved and 
     for which such construction or improvement was started, as 
     determined by the Director, before December 31, 1974, or 
     before the effective date of the initial rate map published 
     by the Director under paragraph (2) of section 1360 for the 
     area in which such property is located, whichever is later; 
     and
       ``(B) is purchased after the date of enactment of the Flood 
     Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010.''.
       (b) Technical Amendments.--Section 1308 of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``the limitations provided under paragraphs (1) and (2)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (e)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, except'' and all that 
     follows through ``subsection (e)''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``paragraph (2) or (3)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraph (5)''.
       (c) Effective Date and Transition.--
       (1) Effective date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall apply beginning upon the expiration of the 3-
     year period that begins on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection.
       (2) Transition for properties covered by flood insurance 
     upon effective date.--
       (A) Increase of rates over time.--In the case of any 
     property described in paragraph (2), (3), or (4) of section 
     1308(c) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as 
     amended by subsection (a) of this section, that, as of the 
     effective date under paragraph (1) of this subsection, is 
     covered under a policy for flood insurance made available 
     under the national flood insurance program for which the 
     chargeable premium rates are less than the applicable 
     estimated risk premium rate under section 1307(a)(1) for the 
     area in which the property is located, the Director of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency shall increase the 
     chargeable premium rates for such property over time to such 
     applicable estimated risk premium rate under section 
     1307(a)(1).
       (B) Annual increase.--Such increase shall be made by 
     increasing the chargeable premium rates for the property 
     (after application of any increase in the premium rates 
     otherwise applicable to such property), once during the 12-
     month period that begins upon the effective date under 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection and once every 12 months 
     thereafter until such increase is accomplished, by 20 percent 
     (or such lesser amount as may be necessary so that the 
     chargeable rate does not exceed such applicable estimated 
     risk premium rate or to comply with subparagraph (C)).
       (C) Properties subject to phase-in and annual increases.--
     In the case of any pre-FIRM property (as such term is defined 
     in section 578(b) of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act 
     of 1974), the aggregate increase, during any 12-month period, 
     in the chargeable premium rate for the property that is 
     attributable to this paragraph or to an increase described in 
     section 1308(e) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     may not exceed 20 percent.
       (D) Full actuarial rates.--The provisions of paragraphs 
     (2), (3), and (4) of such section 1308(c) shall apply to such 
     a property upon the accomplishment of the increase under this 
     paragraph and thereafter.

     SEC. 6. 5-YEAR DELAY IN EFFECTIVE DATE OF MANDATORY PURCHASE 
                   REQUIREMENT FOR NEW FLOOD HAZARD AREAS.

       (a) In General.--Section 102 of the Flood Disaster 
     Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Delayed Effective Date of Mandatory Purchase 
     Requirement for New Flood Hazard Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any area that was not 
     previously designated as an area having special flood hazards 
     and that, pursuant to any issuance, revision, updating, or 
     other change in flood insurance maps that takes effect on or 
     after September 1, 2008, becomes designated as an area having 
     special flood hazards, if each State and local government 
     having jurisdiction over any portion of the geographic area 
     has complied with paragraph (2), such designation shall not 
     take effect for purposes of subsection (a), (b), or (e) of 
     this section, or section 202(a) of this Act, until the 
     expiration of the 5-year period beginning upon the date that 
     such maps, as issued, revised, update, or otherwise changed, 
     become effective.
       ``(2) Notice requirements.--A State or local government 
     shall be considered to have complied with this paragraph with 
     respect to any geographic area described in paragraph (1) 
     only if the State or local government has, before the 
     effective date of the issued, revised, updated, or changed 
     maps, and in accordance with such standards as shall be 
     established by the Director--
       ``(A) developed an evacuation plan to be implemented in the 
     event of flooding in such portion of the geographic area; and
       ``(B) developed and implemented an outreach and 
     communication plan to advise occupants in such portion of the 
     geographic area of potential flood risks, the opportunity to 
     purchase flood insurance, and the consequences of failure to 
     purchase flood insurance.

[[Page H5638]]

       ``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in paragraph (1) may 
     be construed to affect the applicability of a designation of 
     any area as an area having special flood hazards for purposes 
     of the availability of flood insurance coverage, criteria for 
     land management and use, notification of flood hazards, 
     eligibility for mitigation assistance, or any other purpose 
     or provision not specifically referred to in paragraph 
     (1).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The second sentence of 
     subsection (h) of section 1360 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101(h)) is amended by 
     striking ``Such'' and inserting ``Except for notice regarding 
     a change described in section 102(i)(1) of the Flood Disaster 
     Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a(i)(1)), such''.
       (c) No Refunds.--Nothing in this section or the amendments 
     made by this section may be construed to authorize or require 
     any payment or refund for flood insurance coverage purchased 
     for any property that covered any period during which such 
     coverage is not required for the property pursuant to the 
     applicability of the amendment made by subsection (a).

     SEC. 7. 5-YEAR PHASE-IN OF FLOOD INSURANCE RATES FOR NEWLY 
                   MAPPED AREAS.

       Section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4015), as amended by the preceding provisions of 
     this Act, is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``or notice'' after ``prescribe by 
     regulation'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``and subsection (g)'' 
     before the first comma; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) 5-Year Phase-In of Flood Insurance Rates for Newly 
     Mapped Areas.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     relating to chargeable risk premium rates for flood insurance 
     coverage under this title, in the case of any area that was 
     not previously designated as an area having special flood 
     hazards and that, pursuant to any issuance, revision, 
     updating, or other change in flood insurance maps, becomes 
     designated as such an area, during the 5-year period that 
     begins upon the expiration of the period referred to in 
     section 102(i)(1) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 
     1973 with respect to such area, the chargeable premium rate 
     for flood insurance under this title with respect to any 
     property that is located within such area shall be--
       ``(1) for the first year of such 5-year period, 20 percent 
     of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable 
     under this title to the property;
       ``(2) for the second year of such 5-year period, 40 percent 
     of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable 
     under this title to the property;
       ``(3) for the third year of such 5-year period, 60 percent 
     of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable 
     under this title to the property;
       ``(4) for the fourth year of such 5-year period, 80 percent 
     of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable 
     under this title to the property; and
       ``(5) for the fifth year of such 5-year period, 100 percent 
     of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable 
     under this title to the property.''.

     SEC. 8. INCREASE IN ANNUAL LIMITATION ON PREMIUM INCREASES.

       Section 1308(e) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4015(e)) is amended by striking ``10 percent'' and 
     inserting ``20 percent''.

     SEC. 9. CONSIDERATION OF CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, AND 
                   IMPROVEMENT OF FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEMS IN 
                   DETERMINATION OF FLOOD INSURANCE RATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1307 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``construction of a 
     flood protection system'' and inserting ``construction, 
     reconstruction, or improvement of a flood protection system 
     (without respect to the level of Federal investment or 
     participation)''; and
       (B) in the second sentence--
       (i) by striking ``construction of a flood protection 
     system'' and inserting ``construction, reconstruction, or 
     improvement of a flood protection system''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``based on the present value of the 
     completed system'' after ``has been expended''; and
       (2) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in the first sentence in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``(without respect to the level of Federal 
     investment or participation)'' before the period at the end;
       (B) in the third sentence in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``, whether coastal or riverine,'' after 
     ``special flood hazard''; and
       (C) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a Federal agency in 
     consultation with the local project sponsor'' and inserting 
     ``the entity or entities that own, operate, maintain, or 
     repair such system''.
       (b) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall promulgate regulations to 
     carry out the amendments made by subsection (a). Section 5 
     may not be construed to annul, alter, affect, authorize any 
     waiver of, or establish any exception to, the requirement 
     under the preceding sentence.
       (c) Implementation.--The Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall implement this section and 
     the amendments made by this section in a manner that will not 
     materially weaken the financial position of the national 
     flood insurance program or increase the risk of financial 
     liability to Federal taxpayers.

     SEC. 10. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECTS.

       Section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4015), as amended by the preceding provisions of 
     this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(h) Treatment of Certain Flood Protection Projects.--
       ``(1) Inapplicability of mandatory purchase requirement; 
     premium rates.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     upon full completion, as designed, of a flood protection 
     system that was intended to provide flood protection with 
     respect to a covered area, such covered area--
       ``(A) shall not be considered to be an area having special 
     flood hazards for purposes of this Act or subsections (a), 
     (b), or (e) of section 102, or section 202(a) of the Flood 
     Disaster Protection Act of 1973; and
       ``(B) shall be eligible for flood insurance under this Act, 
     if and to the extent that such area is eligible for such 
     insurance under the other provisions of this Act, at premium 
     rates not exceeding those that would be applicable under this 
     section if the flood protection system referred to in 
     paragraph (2) for such area had been completed and accredited 
     as providing protection from floods at the level that the 
     system was designed to provide (before construction, 
     reconstruction, or improvement of the system, as applicable, 
     began).

     The flood insurance rate maps shall indicate, for each 
     covered area, the status of the area under subparagraphs (A) 
     and (B).
       ``(2) Covered area.--For purposes of this subsection, a 
     covered area is an area that was intended to be protected by 
     a flood protection system--
       ``(A)(i) for which, as of April 15, 2010--
       ``(I) construction, reconstruction, or improvement has not 
     been completed;
       ``(II) adequate progress, within the meaning of section 
     1307(e), has been made on such construction, reconstruction, 
     or improvement; and
       ``(III) is in an area having special flood hazards; or
       ``(ii) for which, as of such date--
       ``(I) construction, reconstruction, or improvement has been 
     completed;
       ``(II) a determination regarding accreditation has not been 
     made; and
       ``(III) is in an area having special flood hazards;
       ``(B) that was designed to provide protection for at least 
     the 100-year frequency flood; and
       ``(C) that has been determined, pursuant to waterflow data 
     or other scientific information of a Federal agency obtained 
     after, or that has changed since, commencement of 
     construction, reconstruction, or improvement, will not 
     provide protection from floods at the level referred to in 
     subparagraph (B).''.

     SEC. 11. NOTIFICATION TO HOMEOWNERS REGARDING MANDATORY 
                   PURCHASE REQUIREMENT APPLICABILITY AND RATE 
                   PHASE-INS.

       Section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 
     (42 U.S.C. 4105) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(f) Annual Notification.--The Director, in consultation 
     with affected communities, shall establish and carry out a 
     plan to notify residents of areas having special flood 
     hazards, on an annual basis--
       ``(1) that they reside in such an area;
       ``(2) of the geographical boundaries of such area;
       ``(3) of whether section 1308(h) of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 applies to properties within such area; 
     and
       ``(4) of the provisions of section 102 requiring purchase 
     of flood insurance coverage for properties located in such an 
     area, including the date on which such provisions apply with 
     respect to such area, taking into consideration section 
     102(i); and
       ``(5) of a general estimate of what similar homeowners in 
     similar areas typically pay for flood insurance coverage, 
     taking into consideration section 1308(g) of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968;''.

     SEC. 12. COVERAGE FOR ADDITIONAL LIVING EXPENSES AND BUSINESS 
                   INTERRUPTION.

       Subsection (b) of section 1306 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) by inserting ``pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), or (4)'' 
     after ``any flood insurance coverage''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
     semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(6) in the case of any residential property, each renewal 
     or new contract for flood insurance coverage shall provide 
     not less than $1,000 aggregate liability per dwelling unit 
     for any necessary increases in living expenses incurred by 
     the insured when losses from a flood make the residence unfit 
     to live in, which coverage shall be available only at 
     chargeable rates that are not less than the estimated premium 
     rates for such coverage determined in accordance with section 
     1307(a)(1);
       ``(7) in the case of any residential property, optional 
     coverage for additional living expenses described in 
     paragraph (6) shall be made available to every insured upon 
     renewal and every applicant in excess of the limits provided 
     in paragraph (6) in such amounts and at such rates as the 
     Director shall establish, except that such chargeable rates 
     shall not be less than the estimated premium rates for such 
     coverage determined in accordance with section 1307(a)(1); 
     and

[[Page H5639]]

       ``(8) in the case of any commercial property or other 
     residential property, including multifamily rental property, 
     optional coverage for losses resulting from any partial or 
     total interruption of the insured's business caused by damage 
     to, or loss of, such property from a flood shall be made 
     available to every insured upon renewal and every applicant, 
     except that--
       ``(A) the Director may provide such coverage under such 
     terms, conditions, and requirements as the Director considers 
     appropriate to meet the needs of small businesses while 
     complying with the requirement under subparagraph (C); and
       ``(B) any such coverage shall be made available only at 
     chargeable rates that are not less than the estimated premium 
     rates for such coverage determined in accordance with section 
     1307(a)(1).''.

     SEC. 13. EXCEPTION TO WAITING PERIOD FOR EFFECTIVE DATE OF 
                   POLICIES.

       Section 1306(c)(2)(A) of the National Flood Insurance Act 
     of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013(c)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting 
     before the semicolon the following: ``or is in connection 
     with the purchase or other transfer of the property for which 
     the coverage is provided (regardless of whether a loan is 
     involved in the purchase or transfer transaction), but only 
     when such initial purchase of coverage is made not later 30 
     days after such making, increasing, extension, or renewal of 
     the loan or not later than 30 days after such purchase or 
     other transfer of the property, as applicable''.

     SEC. 14. MINIMUM DEDUCTIBLES FOR CLAIMS.

       Section 1312 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4019) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Director is'' and inserting the 
     following: ``(a) In General.--The Director is''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Minimum Annual Deductibles.--
       ``(1) Pre-FIRM properties.--For any structure that is 
     covered by flood insurance under this title, and on which 
     construction or substantial improvement occurred on or before 
     December 31, 1974, or before the effective date of an initial 
     flood insurance rate map published by the Director under 
     section 1360 for the area in which such structure is located, 
     the minimum annual deductible for damage to or loss of such 
     structure shall be--
       ``(A) $1,500, if the flood insurance coverage for such 
     structure covers loss of, or physical damage to, such 
     structure in an amount equal to or less than $100,000; and
       ``(B) $2,000, if the flood insurance coverage for such 
     structure covers loss of, or physical damage to, such 
     structure in an amount greater than $100,000.
       ``(2) Post-FIRM properties.--For any structure that is 
     covered by flood insurance under this title, and on which 
     construction or substantial improvement occurred after 
     December 31, 1974, or after the effective date of an initial 
     flood insurance rate map published by the Director under 
     section 1360 for the area in which such structure is located, 
     the minimum annual deductible for damage to or loss of such 
     structure shall be--
       ``(A) $750, if the flood insurance coverage for such 
     structure covers loss of, or physical damage to, such 
     structure in an amount equal to or less than $100,000; and
       ``(B) $1,000, if the flood insurance coverage for such 
     structure covers loss of, or physical damage to, such 
     structure in an amount greater than $100,000.''.

     SEC. 15. PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS IN INSTALLMENTS FOR LOW-INCOME 
                   POLICYHOLDERS.

       Section 1306 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4013) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) Payment of Premiums in Installments for Low-income 
     Policyholders.--In addition to any other terms and conditions 
     under subsection (a), such regulations shall provide that, in 
     the case of any residential property that is owned by a 
     family whose income level is at or below 200 percent of the 
     poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 673 
     of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 
     9902)) applicable to the size of such family, or a family 
     that has no adult member who is employed, premiums for flood 
     insurance coverage for such property may be paid in monthly 
     installments.''.

     SEC. 16. ENFORCEMENT.

       Section 102(f) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 
     (42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking ``or'' at the 
     end;
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) in connection with the making, increasing, extending, 
     servicing, or renewing of any loan, requiring the purchase of 
     flood insurance coverage under the National Flood Insurance 
     Act of 1968, or purchasing such coverage pursuant to 
     subsection (e)(2), in an amount in excess of the minimum 
     amount required under subsections (a) and (b) of this 
     section.'';
       (2) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``$350'' and 
     inserting ``$2,000''; and
       (B) in the last sentence, by striking ``$100,000'' and 
     inserting ``$1,000,000; except that such limitation shall not 
     apply to a regulated lending institution or enterprise for a 
     calendar year if, in any three (or more) of the five calendar 
     years immediately preceding such calendar year, the total 
     amount of penalties assessed under this subsection against 
     such lending institution or enterprise was $1,000,000''; and
       (3) in paragraph (6), by adding after the period at the end 
     the following: ``No penalty may be imposed under this 
     subsection on a regulated lending institution or enterprise 
     that has made a good faith effort to comply with the 
     requirements of the provisions referred to in paragraph (2) 
     or for any non-material violation of such requirements.''.

     SEC. 17. NOTIFICATION TO TENANTS OF AVAILABILITY OF CONTENTS 
                   INSURANCE.

       The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is amended by 
     inserting after section 1308 (42 U.S.C. 4015) the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 1308A. NOTIFICATION TO TENANTS OF AVAILABILITY OF 
                   CONTENTS INSURANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director shall, upon entering into a 
     contract for flood insurance coverage under this title for 
     any property--
       ``(1) provide to the insured sufficient copies of the 
     notice developed pursuant to subsection (b); and
       ``(2) require the insured to provide a copy of the notice, 
     or otherwise provide notification of the information under 
     subsection (b) in the manner that the manager or landlord 
     deems most appropriate, to each such tenant and to each new 
     tenant upon commencement of such a tenancy.
       ``(b) Notice.--Notice to a tenant of a property in 
     accordance with this subsection is written notice that 
     clearly informs a tenant--
       ``(1) whether the property is located in an area having 
     special flood hazards;
       ``(2) that flood insurance coverage is available under the 
     national flood insurance program under this title for 
     contents of the unit or structure leased by the tenant;
       ``(3) of the maximum amount of such coverage for contents 
     available under this title at that time; and
       ``(4) of where to obtain information regarding how to 
     obtain such coverage, including a telephone number, mailing 
     address, and Internet site of the Director where such 
     information is available.''.

     SEC. 18. FLOOD INSURANCE OUTREACH.

       Chapter I of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 4011 et seq.), as amended by the preceding provisions 
     of this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 1326. GRANTS FOR OUTREACH TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND 
                   RENTERS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director may, to the extent amounts 
     are made available pursuant to subsection (h), make grants to 
     local governmental agencies responsible for floodplain 
     management activities (including such agencies of Indians 
     tribes, as such term is defined in section 4 of the Native 
     American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 
     1996 (25 U.S.C. 4103)) in communities that participate in the 
     national flood insurance program under this title, for use by 
     such agencies to carry out outreach activities to encourage 
     and facilitate the purchase of flood insurance protection 
     under this Act by owners and renters of properties in such 
     communities and to promote educational activities that 
     increase awareness of flood risk reduction.
       ``(b) Outreach Activities.--Amounts from a grant under this 
     section shall be used only for activities designed to--
       ``(1) identify owners and renters of properties in 
     communities that participate in the national flood insurance 
     program, including owners of residential and commercial 
     properties;
       ``(2) notify such owners and renters when their properties 
     become included in, or when they are excluded from, an area 
     having special flood hazards and the effect of such inclusion 
     or exclusion on the applicability of the mandatory flood 
     insurance purchase requirement under section 102 of the Flood 
     Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a) to such 
     properties;
       ``(3) educate such owners and renters regarding the flood 
     risk and reduction of this risk in their community, including 
     the continued flood risks to areas that are no longer subject 
     to the flood insurance mandatory purchase requirement;
       ``(4) educate such owners and renters regarding the 
     benefits and costs of maintaining or acquiring flood 
     insurance, including, where applicable, lower-cost preferred 
     risk policies under this title for such properties and the 
     contents of such properties; and
       ``(5) encouraging such owners and renters to maintain or 
     acquire such coverage.
       ``(c) Cost Sharing Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--In any fiscal year, the Director may not 
     provide a grant under this section to a local governmental 
     agency in an amount exceeding 3 times the amount that the 
     agency certifies, as the Director shall require, that the 
     agency will contribute from non-Federal funds to be used with 
     grant amounts only for carrying out activities described in 
     subsection (b).
       ``(2) Non-federal funds.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `non-Federal funds' includes State or local 
     government agency amounts, in-kind contributions, any salary 
     paid to staff to carry out the eligible activities of the 
     grant recipient, the value of the time and services 
     contributed by volunteers to carry out such services (at a 
     rate determined by the Director), and the value of any 
     donated material or building and the value of any lease on a 
     building.
       ``(d) Administrative Cost Limitation.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (b), the Director may use not more than 5 percent 
     of amounts made available under subsection (g) to cover 
     salaries, expenses, and other administrative costs incurred 
     by the Director in making grants and provide assistance under 
     this section.
       ``(e) Application and Selection.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall provide for local 
     governmental agencies described in subsection (a) to submit 
     applications for grants under this section and for 
     competitive selection, based on criteria established by the 
     Director, of agencies submitting such applications to receive 
     such grants.

[[Page H5640]]

       ``(2) Selection considerations.--In selecting applications 
     of local government agencies to receive grants under 
     paragraph (1), the Director shall consider--
       ``(A) the existence of a cooperative technical partner 
     agreement between the local governmental agency and the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency;
       ``(B) the history of flood losses in the relevant area that 
     have occurred to properties, both inside and outside the 
     special flood hazards zones, which are not covered by flood 
     insurance coverage;
       ``(C) the estimated percentage of high-risk properties 
     located in the relevant area that are not covered by flood 
     insurance;
       ``(D) demonstrated success of the local governmental agency 
     in generating voluntary purchase of flood insurance; and
       ``(E) demonstrated technical capacity of the local 
     governmental agency for outreach to individual property 
     owners.
       ``(f) Direct Outreach by FEMA.--In each fiscal year that 
     amounts for grants are made available pursuant to subsection 
     (h), the Director may use not more than 50 percent of such 
     amounts to carry out, and to enter into contracts with other 
     entities to carry out, activities described in subsection (b) 
     in areas that the Director determines have the most immediate 
     need for such activities.
       ``(g) Reporting.--Each local government agency that 
     receives a grant under this section, and each entity that 
     receives amounts pursuant to subsection (f), shall submit a 
     report to the Director, not later than 12 months after such 
     amounts are first received, which shall include such 
     information as the Director considers appropriate to describe 
     the activities conducted using such amounts and the effect of 
     such activities on the retention or acquisition of flood 
     insurance coverage.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for grants under this section $50,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015.''.

     SEC. 19. NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FLOOD INSURANCE AND ESCROW 
                   IN RESPA GOOD FAITH ESTIMATE.

       Subsection (c) of section 5 of the Real Estate Settlement 
     Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2604(c)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Each such 
     good faith estimate shall include the following conspicuous 
     statements and information: (1) that flood insurance coverage 
     for residential real estate is generally available under the 
     national flood insurance program whether or not the real 
     estate is located in an area having special flood hazards and 
     that, to obtain such coverage, a home owner or purchaser 
     should contact the national flood insurance program; (2) a 
     telephone number and a location on the Internet by which a 
     home owner or purchaser can contact the national flood 
     insurance program; and (3) that the escrowing of flood 
     insurance payments is required for many loans under section 
     102(d) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, and may 
     be a convenient and available option with respect to other 
     loans.''.

     SEC. 20. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL FEMA STAFF.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Director of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency may employ such 
     additional staff as may be necessary to carry out all of the 
     responsibilities of the Director pursuant to this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act. There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to Director such sums as may be necessary for 
     costs of employing such additional staff.

     SEC. 21. PLAN TO VERIFY MAINTENANCE OF FLOOD INSURANCE ON 
                   MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA PROPERTIES RECEIVING 
                   EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS.

       The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the 
     Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall 
     jointly develop and implement a plan to verify that persons 
     receiving funds under the Homeowner Grant Assistance Program 
     of the State of Mississippi or the Road Home Program of the 
     State of Louisiana from amounts allocated to the State of 
     Mississippi or the State of Louisiana, respectively, from the 
     Community development fund under the Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of 
     Mexico and Pandemic Influenza, 2006 (Public Law 109-148) are 
     maintaining flood insurance on the property for which such 
     persons receive such funds as required by each such Program.

     SEC. 22. FLOOD INSURANCE ADVOCATE.

       Chapter II of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is 
     amended by inserting after section 1330 (42 U.S.C. 4041) the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 1330A. OFFICE OF THE FLOOD INSURANCE ADVOCATE.

       ``(a) Establishment of Position.--
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be in the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency an Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate 
     which shall be headed by the National Flood Insurance 
     Advocate. The National Flood Insurance Advocate shall report 
     directly to the Director and shall, to the extent amounts are 
     provided pursuant to subsection (f), be compensated at the 
     same rate as the highest rate of basic pay established for 
     the Senior Executive Service under section 5382 of title 5, 
     United States Code, or, if the Director so determines, at a 
     rate fixed under section 9503 of such title.
       ``(2) Appointment.--The National Flood Insurance Advocate 
     shall be appointed by the Director, and without regard to the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, relating to 
     appointments in the competitive service or the Senior 
     Executive Service.
       ``(3) Qualifications.--An individual appointed under 
     paragraph (2) shall have a background in customer service as 
     well as insurance.
       ``(4) Staff.--To the extent amounts are provided pursuant 
     to subsection (f), the National Flood Insurance Advocate may 
     employ such personnel as may be necessary to carry out the 
     duties of the Office.
       ``(b) Functions of Office.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be the function of the Office 
     of the Flood Insurance Advocate to--
       ``(A) assist insureds under the national flood insurance 
     program in resolving problems with the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency relating to such program;
       ``(B) identify areas in which such insureds have problems 
     in dealings with the Agency relating to such program;
       ``(C) identify potential legislative, administrative, or 
     regulatory changes which may be appropriate to mitigate such 
     problems; and
       ``(D) assist communities and homeowners with interpreting, 
     implementing, and appealing floodplain maps and floodplain 
     map determinations.
       ``(2) Annual reports.--
       ``(A) Activities.--Not later than December 31 of each 
     calendar year, the National Flood Insurance Advocate shall 
     report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate on the activities of the Office 
     of the Flood Insurance Advocate during the fiscal year ending 
     during such calendar year. Any such report shall contain full 
     and substantive analysis, in addition to statistical 
     information, and shall--
       ``(i) identify the initiatives the Office of the Flood 
     Insurance Advocate has taken on improving services for 
     insureds under the national flood insurance program and 
     responsiveness of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     with respect to such program;
       ``(ii) identify areas of the law or regulations relating to 
     the national flood insurance program that impose significant 
     compliance burdens on such insureds or the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency, including specific recommendations for 
     remedying these problems; and
       ``(iii) include such other information as the National 
     Flood Insurance Advocate may deem advisable.
       ``(B) Direct submission of report.--Each report required 
     under this paragraph shall be provided directly to the 
     committees identified in subparagraph (A) without any prior 
     review or comment from the Director, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, or any other officer or employee of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Department of 
     Homeland Security, or the Office of Management and Budget.
       ``(c) Funding.--Pursuant to section 1310(a)(4), the 
     Director may use amounts from the National Flood Insurance 
     Fund to fund the activities of the Office of the Flood 
     Advocate in each of fiscal years 2011 through 2016, except 
     that the amount so used in each such fiscal year may not 
     exceed $5,000,000 and shall remain available until expended. 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, amounts 
     made available pursuant to this subsection shall not be 
     subject to offsetting collections through premium rates for 
     flood insurance coverage under this title.''.

     SEC. 23. ELIGIBILITY OF PROPERTY DEMOLITION AND REBUILDING 
                   UNDER FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 1366(e)(5)(B) of the National Flood Insurance Act 
     of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c(e)(5)(B)) is amended by striking 
     ``or floodproofing'' and inserting ``floodproofing, or 
     demolition and rebuilding''.

     SEC. 24. STUDY REGARDING MANDATORY PURCHASE REQUIREMENT FOR 
                   NON-FEDERALLY RELATED LOANS.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a 
     study to assess the impact, effectiveness, and feasibility 
     of, and basis under the Constitution of the United States 
     for, amending the provisions of the Flood Disaster Protection 
     Act of 1973 regarding the properties that are subject to the 
     mandatory flood insurance coverage purchase requirements 
     under such Act to extend such requirements to any property 
     that is located in any area having special flood hazards and 
     which secures the repayment of a loan that is not described 
     in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 102(b) of such Act, 
     and shall determine how best to administer and enforce such a 
     requirement, taking into consideration other insurance 
     purchase requirements under Federal and State law.
       (b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a report 
     to the Congress regarding the results and conclusions of the 
     study under subsection (a) not later than the expiration of 
     the 6-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 25. STUDY OF METHODS TO INCREASE FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 
                   PARTICIPATION BY LOW-INCOME FAMILIES.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study to identify and analyze 
     potential methods, practices, and incentives that would 
     increase the extent to which low-income families (as such 
     term is defined in section 3(b) of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b))) that own residential 
     properties located within areas having special flood hazards 
     purchase flood insurance coverage for such properties under 
     the national flood insurance program. In conducting the 
     study, the Comptroller General shall analyze the 
     effectiveness and costs of the various methods, practices, 
     and incentives identified, including their effects on the 
     national flood insurance program.
       (b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit to the 
     Congress a report setting forth the conclusions of the study 
     under this section not later than 12 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

[[Page H5641]]

     SEC. 26. REPORT ON INCLUSION OF BUILDING CODES IN FLOODPLAIN 
                   MANAGEMENT CRITERIA.

       Not later than the expiration of the 6-month period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     shall conduct a study and submit a report to the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate regarding the impact, effectiveness, and feasibility 
     of amending section 1361 of the National Flood Insurance Act 
     of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4102) to include widely used and 
     nationally recognized building codes as part of the 
     floodplain management criteria developed under such section, 
     and shall determine--
       (1) the regulatory, financial, and economic impacts of such 
     a building code requirement on homeowners, States and local 
     communities, local land use policies, and the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency;
       (2) the resources required of State and local communities 
     to administer and enforce such a building code requirement;
       (3) the effectiveness of such a building code requirement 
     in reducing flood-related damage to buildings and contents;
       (4) the impact of such a building code requirement on the 
     actuarial soundness of the National Flood Insurance Program;
       (5) the effectiveness of nationally recognized codes in 
     allowing innovative materials and systems for flood-resistant 
     construction; and
       (6) the feasibility and effectiveness of providing an 
     incentive in lower premium rates for flood insurance coverage 
     under such Act for structures meeting whichever of such 
     widely used and nationally recognized building code or any 
     applicable local building code provides greater protection 
     from flood damage.

     SEC. 27. STUDY ON REPAYING FLOOD INSURANCE DEBT.

       Not later than the expiration of the 6-month period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     shall submit a report to the Congress setting forth a plan 
     for repaying within 10 years all amounts, including any 
     amounts previously borrowed but not yet repaid, owed pursuant 
     to clause (2) of subsection (a) of section 1309 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)(2)).

     SEC. 28. STUDY REGARDING IMPACT OF RATE INCREASES ON PRE-FIRM 
                   PROPERTIES.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study to assess the impacts of 
     implementing provisions regarding pre-FIRM properties (as 
     such term is defined in section 578(b) of the National Flood 
     Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4014)), including the 
     impact on the program participation rate among owners, 
     renters, and tenants of non-primary residences or commercial 
     nonresidential properties. In conducting the study, the 
     Comptroller General shall analyze the cost effectiveness and 
     effect on local government tax base of various options, 
     including an option of implementing such provisions on the 
     severe repetitive loss properties only.
       (b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a report 
     to Congress regarding the results and conclusions of the 
     study under subsection (a) not later than the expiration of 
     the 9-month period beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 29. STUDY OF EFFECTS OF ACT.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency shall conduct a study to identify and 
     assess the impacts, including short-term and long-term 
     impacts, of this Act and the amendments made by this Act on 
     the financial soundness of the national flood insurance 
     program.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit a 
     report to the Congress setting forth the results and 
     conclusions of study under subsection (a), which shall 
     include specific recommendations for actions to mitigate 
     against any negative financial impacts resulting from this 
     Act and the amendments made by this Act that could increase 
     the debt of the national flood insurance program.

     SEC. 30. RULEMAKING.

       (a) Interim Final Rule.--The Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall issue an interim final rule 
     as a temporary regulation implementing this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act as soon as practicable after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, without regard to the 
     provisions of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code. All 
     regulations prescribed under the authority of this subsection 
     that are not earlier superseded by final regulations shall 
     expire not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Initiation of Rulemaking.--The Administrator of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency may initiate a rulemaking 
     to implement this Act and the amendments made by this Act as 
     soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act. The final rule issued pursuant to such rulemaking may 
     supersede the interim final rule promulgated under subsection 
     (a).

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order except 
those printed in House Report 111-537. Each amendment may be offered 
only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered 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 shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Waters

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 111-537.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that was 
made in order under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 9, strike lines 1 through 3 and insert the following:

     SEC. 5. PHASE-IN OF ACTUARIAL RATES FOR CERTAIN PRE-FIRM 
                   PROPERTIES, SEVERE REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES, 
                   AND PROPERTIES SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED OR 
                   SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED.

       Page 9, lines 7 and 8, strike ``paragraph (5)'' and insert 
     ``paragraph (7)''.
       Page 9, lines 21 and 22, strike ``used as principal 
     residences''.
       Page 10, lines 5 and 6, strike ``date of enactment'' and 
     insert ``effective date of this paragraph, pursuant to 
     section 5(c)(1)''.
       Page 10, line 7, strike the quotation marks and the last 
     period.
       Page 10, after line 7, insert the following:
       ``(5) Severe repetitive loss properties.--Any severe 
     repetitive loss property, as such term is defined in section 
     1361A(b), that is so designated as such as a result of losses 
     occurring on or after the date of the enactment of the Flood 
     Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010.
       ``(6) Properties substantially damaged or substantially 
     improved.--Any property that, on or after the date of the 
     enactment of the Flood Insurance Reform and Priorities Act of 
     2010, has experienced or sustained--
       ``(A) substantial damage exceeding 50 percent of the fair 
     market value of such property; or
       ``(B) substantial improvement exceeding 30 percent of the 
     fair market value of such property.''.
       Page 10, line 20, strike ``paragraph (5)'' and insert 
     ``paragraph (7)''.
       Page 11, line 7, strike ``or (4)'' and insert ``(4), (5), 
     or (6)''.
       Page 12, line 21, strike ``and (4)'' and insert ``(4), (5), 
     and (6)''.
       Page 13, line 6, strike ``subsection'' and insert 
     ``subsections''.
       Page 13, line 13, strike ``September 30, 2008'' and insert 
     ``September 30, 2007''.
       Page 14, line 22, strike the quotation marks and the last 
     period.
       Page 14, after line 22, insert the following:
       ``(j) Availability of Preferred Risk Rating Method 
     Premiums.--The preferred risk rate method premium shall be 
     available for flood insurance coverage for properties located 
     in areas referred to in subsection (i)(1) and during the time 
     period referred to in subsection (i)(1).''.
       Page 15, line 13, before ``Section'' insert ``(a) In 
     General.--''.
       Page 17, after line 3, insert the following:
       (b) Regulation or Notice.--The Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall issue an interim final rule 
     or notice to implement this section and the amendments made 
     by this section as soon as practicable after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       Strike line 20 on page 18 and all that follows through page 
     19, line 2, and insert the following:
       (b) Regulations.--The Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall promulgate regulations to 
     implement this section and the amendments made by this 
     section as soon as practicable, but not more than 18 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 5 may 
     not be construed to annul, alter, affect, authorize any 
     waiver of, or establish any exception to, the requirement 
     under the preceding sentence.
       Page 21, after line 21, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 11. PROHIBITION OF EXTENSION OF SUBSIDIZED RATES TO 
                   LAPSED POLICIES.

       Section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4015), as amended by the preceding provisions of 
     this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(i) Prohibition of Extension of Subsidized Rates to 
     Lapsed Policies.--The Director shall not provide flood 
     insurance coverage under this title to any prospective 
     insured at a rate less than the applicable estimated risk 
     premium rates for the area (or subdivision thereof) for any 
     policy under the flood insurance program that has lapsed in 
     coverage, as a result of the deliberate choice of the holder 
     of such policy.''.
       Page 22, line 25, strike the semicolon and insert a period.
       Page 22, after line 25, insert the following new sections:

     SEC. 13. COMMUNITY OUTREACH PLAN FOR UPDATING FLOODPLAIN 
                   AREAS AND FLOOD-RISK ZONES.

       The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency shall, not later than the expiration of the 60-day 
     period beginning upon the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     submit to the Congress a community outreach plan for the 
     updating of floodplain areas and flood-risk zones under 
     section 1360(f) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4101(f)).

     SEC. 14. NOTIFICATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOOD ELEVATIONS.

       Section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4101) is amended

[[Page H5642]]

     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Notification to Members of Congress of Map 
     Modernization.--Upon any revision or update of any floodplain 
     area or flood-risk zone pursuant to subsection (f), any 
     decision pursuant to subsection (f)(1) that such revision or 
     update is necessary, any issuance of preliminary maps for 
     such revision or updating, or any other significant action 
     relating to any such revision or update, the Director shall 
     notify the Senators for each State affected, and each Member 
     of the House of Representatives for each congressional 
     district affected, by such revision or update in writing of 
     the action taken.''.
       Page 27, line 8, strike ``LOW-INCOME POLICYHOLDERS'' and 
     insert ``RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES''.
       Page 27, line 13, strike ``Low-income Policyholders'' and 
     insert ``Residential Properties''.
       Page 27, strike line 16 and all that follows through ``is 
     employed'' in line 22.
       Page 27, line 23, strike ``monthly''.
       Page 27, after line 23, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 19. TERMINATION OF FORCE-PLACED INSURANCE.

       Section 102(e) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 
     (42 U.S.C. 4012a(e)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (5) and 6), respectively; and
       (2) by adding inserting after paragraph (2) the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(3) Termination of force-placed insurance.--Within 15 
     days of receipt by the lender or servicer of a confirmation 
     of a borrower's existing flood insurance coverage, the lender 
     or servicer shall--
       ``(A) terminate the force-placed insurance; and
       ``(B) refund to the borrower all force-placed insurance 
     premiums paid by the borrower during any period during which 
     the borrower's flood insurance coverage and the force-placed 
     flood insurance coverage were each in effect, and any related 
     fees charged to the borrower with respect to the force-placed 
     insurance during such period.
       ``(4) Sufficiency of demonstration.--A lender or servicer 
     for a loan shall accept any reasonable form of written 
     confirmation from a borrower of existing flood insurance 
     coverage, which shall include the existing flood insurance 
     policy number along with the identity of, and contact 
     information for, the insurance company or agent.''.
       Page 30, after line 20, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 21. GRANTS FOR DIRECT FUNDING OF MITIGATION ACTIVITIES 
                   FOR INDIVIDUAL REPETITIVE CLAIMS PROPERTIES.

       (a) Direct Grants to Owners.--Section 1323 of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4030) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``DIRECT'' before 
     ``GRANTS''; and
       (2) in the matter in subsection (a) that precedes paragraph 
     (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``, to owners of such properties,'' before 
     ``for mitigation actions''; and
       (B) by striking ``1'' and inserting ``two''.
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Paragraph (9) of section 
     1310(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 4017(a)) is amended by inserting ``which shall remain 
     available until expended,'' after ``any fiscal year,''.
       Page 31, line 4, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(i)''.
       Page 33, line 14, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(i)''.
       Page 34, line 19, strike ``and''.
       Page 34, line 22, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 34, after line 22 insert the following:
       ``(F) the number of flood-related major disaster or 
     emergency declarations made by the President with respect to 
     the relevant area under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) 
     during the preceding five years.
       Page 34, line 25, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(i)''.
       Page 35, after line 4, insert the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Coordination With Other Agencies.--A local 
     governmental agency that receives a grant under this section, 
     and an entity that receives amounts pursuant to subsection 
     (f), may coordinate or contract with other agencies and 
     entities having particular capacities, specialties, or 
     experience with respect to certain populations or 
     constituencies, including elderly or disabled families or 
     persons, to carry out activities described in subsection (b) 
     with respect to such populations or constituencies.''.
       Page 35, line 5, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(h)''.
       Page 35, line 14, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(i)''.
       Page 35, after line 16, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 24. TREATMENT OF SWIMMING POOL ENCLOSURES OUTSIDE OF 
                   HURRICANE SEASON.

       Chapter I of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), as amended by the preceding provisions 
     of this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 1327. TREATMENT OF SWIMMING POOL ENCLOSURES OUTSIDE OF 
                   HURRICANE SEASON.

       ``In the case of any property that is otherwise in 
     compliance with the coverage and building requirements of the 
     national flood insurance program, the presence of an enclosed 
     swimming pool located at ground level or in the space below 
     the lowest floor of a building after November 30 and before 
     June 1 of any year shall have no effect on the terms of 
     coverage or the ability to receive coverage for such building 
     under the national flood insurance program established 
     pursuant to this title, if the pool is enclosed with non-
     supporting breakaway walls.''.
       Page 36, line 17, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.
       Page 36, line 17, before the period insert ``, and the 
     national flood insurance program''.
       Page 39, line 6, strike ``and''.
       Page 39, line 10, strike the period and insert a semicolon.
       Page 39, after line 10 insert the following:
       ``(E) facilitate the sharing of the best-practices of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency amongst all offices of 
     the Agency with respect to the creation and updating of 
     floodplain maps;
       ``(F) not less than one year after receipt of a request 
     from a community, perform an economic impact analysis for 
     such community on the economic impact of floodplain maps and 
     floodplain map determinations on small businesses, lending, 
     real estate development, and other economic indicators within 
     such community;
       ``(G) establish a national arbitration panel regarding 
     flood map modernization, with panel members consisting of 
     experts in flood insurance, flood map determination, real 
     estate development, structural engineering, and other such 
     experts, including a representative from the Federal 
     Emergency Management Administration, to allow individuals or 
     communities impacted by a flood map revision to challenge 
     such a revision; such panel may, under such terms and 
     conditions it may establish, temporarily suspend 
     implementation of a floodplain map pending such panel's 
     review of evidence submitted by such individuals or 
     communities as part of such challenge;
       ``(H) establish a process under which scientific and 
     engineering data, including maps and an explanation of how 
     the Director makes a determination regarding a map revision, 
     will be made publicly available to any interested individuals 
     to be impacted by a flood map revision; and
       ``(I) establish a process under which each community to be 
     impacted by a flood map revision will be provided an open 
     community forum to consult with and ask questions of 
     representatives of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Administration.
       Page 41, after line 8, insert the following new sections:

     SEC. 29. TREATMENT OF PREVIOUSLY MAPPED AREAS.

       Section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4101) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(k) Treatment of Previously Mapped Areas.--If the 
     Director issues a letter of map revision for an area or a 
     portion of an area to correct an error in a recently issued 
     flood insurance rate map and such letter results in the 
     designation of such area as not having special flood hazards, 
     the Director shall reexamine the designation of any areas 
     bordering or abutting the area that was the subject of such 
     letter if such areas are located within a special flood 
     hazard area. The Director shall inform the community and 
     residents within such area of the results of such examination 
     no later than one year after the date of the initial letter 
     of map revision.

     ``SEC. 30. REMAPPING OF AREAS WITH IMPROVED LEVEES.

       ``Section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4101) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       `` `(a) Remapping of Areas With Improved Levees.--If at any 
     time any community, any State, the Army Corps of Engineers, 
     or any other entity improves any levee system that protects 
     any area that is located in an area having special flood 
     hazards and the Director determines that such improvement 
     mitigates flood risk in a manner that eliminates the risk of 
     flooding in the area, the Director shall--
       `` `(1) revise and update the floodplain areas and flood 
     risk zones, and the flood insurance maps reflecting such 
     areas and zones, for the areas protected by such levee system 
     so that any requirement under the Flood Disaster Protection 
     Act of 1973 for mandatory purchase of flood insurance does 
     not apply to such area; and
       `` `(2) make the updated maps and any information regarding 
     such updating available to the affected communities.'.''.
       Page 41, line 12, strike ``Section'' and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Flood Mitigation Assistance Program.--Section
       Page 41, line 15, before the quotation marks insert ``of 
     properties to at least base flood elevation or greater, if 
     required by any local ordinance''.
       Page 41, after line 15, insert the following:
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     section 1366 of the Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     4104c), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment 
     of this Act, authorized the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency to consider property demolition 
     and rebuilding as eligible activities under the Flood 
     Mitigation Assistance Program. The purpose of the amendment 
     made by subsection (a) is to clarify that such authority 
     exists.
       Page 42, line 15, before the period insert ``AND FAMILIES 
     IN RURAL COMMUNITIES AND ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS''.

[[Page H5643]]

       Page 42, line 21, after ``(42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)))'' insert 
     ``, families residing in rural communities, and families who 
     reside on Indian reservations,''.
       Page 44, line 14, strike ``and''.
       Page 44, line 20, strike the period and insert a semicolon.
       Page 44, after line 20, insert the following new 
     paragraphs:
       (7) the impact of such a building code requirement on rural 
     communities with different building code challenges than more 
     urban environments; and
       (8) the impact of such a building code requirement on 
     Indian reservations.
       Page 45, after line 5, insert the following new sections:

     SEC. 36. STUDY REGARDING CERTAIN HARBOR AREAS.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency shall carry out a study to identify the 
     impacts of the National Flood Insurance Program on harbor 
     areas that are working waterfronts, which shall--
       (1) identify the models and assumptions used under such 
     program with respect to wave action in working waterfronts 
     and harbors;
       (2) determine whether these are the same models and 
     assumptions used for open or unprotected coast lines;
       (3) identify the assumptions used under such program in 
     modeling V-zones;
       (4) identify the underlying basis for projected impact of 
     waves on working waterfronts,
       (5) identify the frequency with which individual working 
     waterfronts receive revised flood-risk based on the data they 
     provide;
       (6) determine the feasibility of basing flood maps for such 
     working waterfronts on actual historical flood and damage 
     data;
       (7) identify the standards for construction and design of 
     working waterfront infrastructure that would be needed to 
     safely develop commercial buildings in the V-zone;
       (8) determine the economic impacts of the National Flood 
     Insurance Program on working waterfronts and working 
     waterfront dependant businesses;
       (9) identify any new or alternative models that may be used 
     to more accurately reflect the risk of flooding in working 
     waterfronts and harbor environments;
       (10) review the current coastal flood insurance study 
     guidelines and recommended methodologies;
       (11) determine whether methodologies other than those 
     referred to in paragraph (10) should be applied with respect 
     to complicated harbors and open shorelines;
       (12) review where 2-D ST Wave methodology should be applied 
     and where other methodologies should be applied;
       (13) review available data on wave attenuation through 
     pilings and piers and determine whether a physical model for 
     the attenuation of waves in that environment can be 
     undertaken to derive such data; and
       (14) include any other information the Administrator 
     considers relevant to evaluating the flood risk and insurance 
     challenges facing working waterfronts.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the 
     Congress a report setting forth the results and conclusions 
     of the study, including--
       (1) a description of all of the matters identified and 
     determined pursuant to subsection (a); and
       (2) an analysis of the feasibility of developing a 
     sheltered harbor flood zone for purposes of the National 
     Flood Insurance Program that specifically recognizes the 
     unique challenges faced by working waterfronts and built-up 
     harbors.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``working 
     waterfront'' means real property (including support 
     structures over water and other facilities) that provides 
     access to coastal waters to persons engaged in commercial 
     fishing, recreational fishing business, boatbuilding, 
     aquaculture, or other water-dependent coastal-related 
     business and is used for, or that supports, commercial 
     fishing, recreational fishing, boatbuilding, aquaculture, or 
     other water-dependent coastal-related business.

     SEC. 37. STUDY REGARDING HAZARD MODELING.

       The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency shall conduct a study to identify and assess the 
     impacts, including short-term and long-term impacts, of 
     significant flooding events and subsequent revisions of 
     hazard modeling and mapping since January 1, 2000, on the 
     financial soundness of the national flood insurance program. 
     The Administrator may enter into an agreement with Water 
     Resources Research Institutes to conduct the study under this 
     section. The Administrator shall provide for a final report 
     regarding the study to be submitted to the Congress not later 
     than the expiration of the 16-month period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act. The report may include 
     recommendations of the Administrator with respect to revising 
     hazard modeling and mapping.
       Strike line 16 on page 46 and all that follows through page 
     47, line 7, and insert the following:

     SEC. 40. INTERIM FINAL RULEMAKING.

       The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency shall issue an interim final rule to implement the 
     amendments made by this Act as soon as practicable, but not 
     more than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act. The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency shall issue a final rule within one year after the 
     effective date of the interim final rule. In the event that 
     the deadlines in this section are not met, the Administrator 
     shall report to the Congress monthly on the status of the 
     rulemakings and the reasons for the failure to comply with 
     the statutory deadlines.
       Page 19, after line 8, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 10. DISCOUNTED FLOOD INSURANCE RATES FOR PROPERTIES 
                   PROTECTED BY A FLOOD-PROTECTION SYSTEM FROM 
                   LESS THAN A 100-YEAR FREQUENCY FLOOD.

       Section 1307 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4014) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(g) Except as provided in subsection (f) and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, flood insurance 
     coverage shall be made available for a property that the 
     Director determines is protected by a flood-protection system 
     that does not provide protection against a 100-year frequency 
     flood at premium rates that reflect a discount for the actual 
     protection against flood risk afforded by such flood-
     protection system.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment I have submitted to the 
committee would make further improvements on the bill. The amendment 
would contribute to the stability of the flood insurance program by 
prospectively phasing in actuarial rates for severe repetitive loss 
properties and properties sustaining substantial damage.
  The financial solvency of the program would also be protected by a 
provision that would make sure that homeowners receiving preferred 
rates who deliberately drop out of the program are charged actuarial 
rates if they rejoin the program.
  The amendment also strengthens protections for homeowners by allowing 
all homeowners to pay flood insurance premiums in installments, 
providing grants to homeowners experiencing repeated flooding with 
funds to mitigate their flood risk, requiring FEMA to take a second 
look at areas that may be incorrectly mapped, and requiring FEMA to 
study the impacts of the flood insurance program on working 
waterfronts.
  I am pleased that this amendment also incorporates amendments offered 
by many Members, including Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Clyburn, Ms. Herseth 
Sandlin, Mr. Hare, Ms. Markey, Mrs. McCarthy, Mr. Melancon, and Mr. 
Pascrell. I thank these Members and others who have made suggestions to 
me for their constructive additions to this amendment.
  This amendment makes significant improvements to the underlying 
legislation, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, 
although I'm not opposed.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West Virginia is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1210

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the chairwoman's 
manager's amendment does make good improvements to the underlying bill 
by phasing out taxpayer subsidies for severe repetitive losses.
  As we know, and as I said in my opening statement, the NFIP is facing 
serious financial challenges and the program cannot afford to go on its 
current path. So in this respect, I think that Chairwoman Waters' 
manager's amendment is a positive step in the right direction. In 
addition, the manager's amendment includes additional reforms that 
seeks to reduce the subsidies over time that continue to burden this 
program.
  The measure includes several provisions to address local community 
concerns that we have all heard in our districts resulting from new 
flood risk maps and the ongoing flood control projects, resulting in 
delays of purchase requirements and higher rates in certain cases.
  I would like to point out why I believe that phasing out the 
subsidies for severe repetitive loss properties is important. If you 
look at the accounting

[[Page H5644]]

for these losses over the last several years, the repetitive loss 
properties only account for 1 percent of the total policies in the 
program nationwide, yet the repetitive loss properties account for 
almost 30 percent of the claims paid annually.
  Well, I think there is a sense of fairness about this, and most of us 
recognize that this is unfair. The subsidies for folks who continue to 
live in repetitive loss property areas continue to run up the losses in 
this very important flood insurance program. The high incidence of 
claims on repetitive loss properties has cost the National Flood 
Insurance Program more than $2.7 billion since 1978.
  So with the reforms that the chairwoman has made in the manager's 
amendment, I support the manager's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. I think everything has been said that needs to be said.
  I simply again want to thank all of the Members that have been 
involved. I am very pleased that we finally are responding to the 
concerns of all of our constituents, particularly about new mapping. 
There are a lot of concerns about that. But the way that we delay 
implementation will give our constituents an opportunity to prepare the 
installment plans, the way we deal with the actuarial rates. I think 
this is some of the best work that could have been done to honor the 
concerns of our constituents.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Putnam

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 111-537.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 35, strike line 5 and insert the following:
       ``(g) Reporting.--
       ``(1) Local governments.--Each local government agency 
     that''.
       Page 35, after line 13, insert the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Director.--The Director shall submit an annual 
     report, not later than December 31 of each year, to the 
     Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate on the effectiveness of grants 
     awarded under this section to local government agencies, the 
     activities conducted using such grant amounts, and the effect 
     of such activities on the retention or acquisition of flood 
     insurance coverage.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Putnam) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chair, I rise to outline a minor issue but an 
important issue.
  Hurricane season began June 1, and in Florida, the seventh-largest 
State in terms of flood insurance claims and the third-highest in terms 
of foreclosure rates, we cannot afford any more uncertainty in our 
housing market.
  When legislation recently failed to move on two separate occasions 
that would have provided for a temporary extension of flood insurance, 
I heard from my constituents that were beyond the point of frustration 
that they could not close on a home or renew an expiring policy, and 
they had every right to be frustrated.
  Florida and Texas combined represent half of the properties covered 
by the National Flood Insurance Program, and a lapse in NFIP 
reauthorization prohibits the issuance of new flood insurance policies 
and renewal of expired ones. Our communities are located along the gulf 
coast. If a home is damaged by a storm or surge waters contaminated by 
the oil spill, only flood insurance would cover the cost of those 
repairs. For a program that has continually been placed on the GAO's 
high-risk list of government programs since 2006, this is unacceptable. 
It is time for Congress to reform and provide for a long-term extension 
of this important program.
  Floods are the number one most common natural disaster in the United 
States, and since 2008 the National Flood Insurance Program has been 
temporarily extended six times. Whether you are a homeowner, business 
owner, or renter, the NFIP provides an opportunity to guard against the 
loss of property. We should encourage individuals and families to 
protect their property before the next storm hits, not just those 
communities located in high-risk flood zones.
  Given the challenges facing the NFIP, the financial and management 
challenges, this amendment provides a step in the right direction in 
working towards the necessary reforms to assist in the long-term 
viability of the program.
  Not expanding the scope of perils that the program currently covers, 
as well as eliminating subsidized rates over time for vacation homes 
and charging premiums that more accurately cover the risk associated 
with the property, are some of the reforms that will strengthen the 
NFIP. While the NFIP still has a long way to go to reach self-
sufficiency, I applaud the bill's sponsors for taking the necessary 
steps and encourage the Senate to act on the long-term extension as 
well.
  This amendment would require FEMA to submit to Congress though a 
report on the effectiveness of a portion of the bill that relates to 
new grants created and awarded to local government agencies for 
outreach to owners and renters. The report would include the activities 
conducted with those grants and an assessment of the results, the 
assessment of the effect that those activities have on the retention or 
purchase of additional flood insurance.
  I caution against whether this is the most fiscally responsible 
approach to spend tax dollars and ensure that property owners and 
renters understand the apparent flood risks that exist, even though 
they are not subject to the mandatory purchase requirement.
  The underlying legislation appropriates $250 million for new outreach 
grants over a 5-year period. At a time of record deficits and spending, 
and frustration over a lack of transparency and accountability in our 
Nation's government, it is imperative that this new spending be fully 
accounted for.
  Clearly, there is a need to control FEMA's communication with 
property owners and communities concerning flood risk maps and threats 
of flooding, but this is a large sum of new money to appropriate to an 
agency that is currently $18.75 billion in debt to Treasury and 
consistently on the high-risk list. That is why it is essential to 
guarantee that the management and utilization of grant funding is 
completed in an effective and transparent way. I further encourage FEMA 
to go above and beyond and provide this information in an easily 
accessible form on their Web site so the taxpayers are aware of how 
their money is being spent.
  We must ensure that these grants are used to increase participation 
in the program and educate owners and renters on flood preparedness and 
mitigation efforts which lower risk. This annual report will be an 
important first step in doing so.
  I want to thank the sponsor of the legislation for her work on this 
issue for two consecutive Congresses and urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, 
although I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Cuellar). Without objection, the gentlewoman 
from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Florida for offering this amendment.
  The underlying bill authorizes grants to local communities to reach 
out to homeowners and communities about the flood insurance program and 
flood risk. As we know, the process by which homeowners receive 
notification of new flood maps is severely lacking.
  Too often, homeowners learn that they are in a floodplain when they 
receive a letter from their mortgage company informing them that they 
have 45 days to buy flood insurance or it will be purchased on their 
behalf. Local communities are supposed to inform residents about new 
maps. However, communities often receive little notification from FEMA 
themselves. Also, some communities simply lack the resources to do the 
type of notification that is necessary to ensure that homeowners are 
aware of changes to the flood maps.

[[Page H5645]]

  By providing a grant program to assist communities, the underlying 
bill would address this problem. The gentleman's amendment would 
require the director of the flood insurance program to submit annual 
reports to the Congress on the effectiveness of these grants. I think 
that is important. And I think that Congress should know how these 
grants are working and how these funds are being spent.
  So I support the gentleman's amendment, and I would urge an ``aye'' 
vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. I appreciate the gentlewoman's kind comments.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1220


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Driehaus

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 111-537.
  Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 46, after line 15, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 30. REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS INCURRED BY HOMEOWNERS 
                   OBTAINING LETTERS OF MAP AMENDMENT.

       If the owner of any property located in an area described 
     in section 102(i)(1) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 
     1973 (as added by the preceding provisions of this Act) 
     obtains a letter of map amendment during the 5-year period 
     for such area referred to in such section, the Administrator 
     of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall reimburse 
     such owner, or such entity or jurisdiction acting on such 
     owner's behalf, for any costs incurred in obtaining such 
     letter.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Ms. 
Waters, for her tremendous work on this legislation. Also, the 
cosponsors of this amendment, Mr. Welch and Mr. Hinchey. This amendment 
is pretty straightforward. It would authorize the administrator of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency to reimburse property owners or 
entity or jurisdiction acting on their behalf for any expenses that 
they incurred in order to file for a letter of map amendment if they 
are ultimately successful in petitioning the exclusion of their 
property from a flood zone between fiscal year 2007 to the present, and 
in the future.
  The problem is this, Mr. Chairman. We have thousands of property 
owners who are challenging these maps as FEMA has currently drawn them. 
They find out about them after the maps have been drawn, after the maps 
are official. They then want to challenge that designation. They hire 
the surveyors. They hire the engineers. They go ahead and incur that 
cost. And in many cases, when we find out that in fact the property 
owner was correct and they should not have been included in the 
designation to begin with, they're excluded. Yet they have incurred the 
cost. This amendment simply says that if that's the case and we find 
that the property owner is correct or if we find that the municipality 
or jurisdiction is correct in challenging the map, that they will be 
reimbursed by FEMA. CBO has scored this and said it would be negligible 
in terms of cost, yet it would relieve thousands of homeowners from the 
burden that they currently see in terms of incurring these costs.
  Just a little background. Under current law, FEMA is authorized to 
reimburse property owners, lessees, and communities for engineering and 
surveying expenses that they incur for petitioning the inclusion of the 
property in a flood zone prior to the enactment of a new flood map. But 
this doesn't serve the folks that we're talking about. I've got a 
community in Harrison, Ohio, where over 370 households have been 
included in the flood map. Now, they didn't start the process of 
challenging the map until after the map was already official. So 
they're well beyond the time period that FEMA currently allows for that 
amendment to take place. This would address what is currently wrong in 
that situation--and that is, it would allow the homeowners to be 
reimbursed for their expenses.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand. And I've had 
constituents myself who have been remapped and fallen into the flood 
plain and questionable areas a lot, to their frustration. And I 
understand the gentleman from Ohio's intent on his amendment. But I 
think it sort of opens the door a little too broadly and a little too 
widely. While the amendment that he is proposing helps property owners 
who seek to recoup their expenses of appealing the flood map, it 
provides for full reimbursement for any costs. There's no specification 
to what reasonable costs could be--but any cost. And I think this is 
too broad.
  I would prefer to see the amendment go back to the drawing board, 
reshape it, so that we can address the needs and the cost issues to our 
constituents but also make sure that we don't leave it so the door is 
so wide open that it would encourage in some possibilities maybe re-
looking at it, overly expensive investigations into the flood mapping, 
without any kind of reasonable assurances that the costs that are 
incurred in challenging the maps would fall within a reasonable amount.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concerns of my colleague 
from West Virginia. I take those very seriously. Although, FEMA does 
have rulemaking authority that allows them to address the concerns that 
were raised. This is really an issue of fairness--an issue of fairness 
for property owners. You've got the Federal Government coming onto your 
property, telling you that you have to purchase flood insurance because 
you're now designated within the map. When you find FEMA to be wrong, 
that payment shouldn't be incurred by you, the property owner, but it 
should be reimbursed by FEMA. It's just that simple. This is a taking. 
And the Federal Government shouldn't be in the business of taking 
property, which is what they're doing in this case, in the form of the 
expenses that are incurred by the homeowners. This has impacted 
thousands of Americans. And it's wrong that the Federal Government is 
making them pay the price to challenge the Federal Government.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010 and the 
manager's amendment. I want to thank Representative Waters for bringing 
forward this essential legislation, which will extend the national 
flood insurance program and make essential reforms to ensure that the 
program works efficiently and effectively. I also thank Representative 
Waters and the committee for including in the manager's amendment 
several provisions which I sought to help to assist property owners 
with new costs they face due to the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency's flood map modernization program and improve congressional 
oversight.
  FEMA is currently working to update, revise, and digitize the flood 
maps for more than 20,000 communities all across the country. While 
nobody doubts that we need to have accurate flood maps, some home and 
business owners in my district and also throughout the country are now 
finding out that their property is located in a flood zone--even though 
they may have never experienced a flood. As a result of FEMA's 
remapping process, many of these home and business owners are now 
required to purchase insurance.
  To help those who suddenly face this new and unexpected cost, the 
underlying legislation and the manager's

[[Page H5646]]

amendment do several important things. First, property owners will have 
the option to delay the requirement to purchase flood insurance for 5 
years. Second, home and business owners will then have the option to 
purchase the insurance at a reduced cost for another 5 years. Third, 
congressional oversight of the flood mapping process will be greatly 
improved by requiring FEMA to notify Members of Congress regarding key 
map modernization developments within their districts.
  At a time when small businesses and homeowners throughout New York 
and everyplace else across the country are still feeling the pinch in a 
recovering economy, this bill will help ensure that this remapping 
process doesn't provide an additional burden. Again, I thank 
Representative Waters for her strong leadership on this issue and I 
commend the committee for their understanding of the need for these 
reforms.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 111-537.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 35, line 16, strike the quotation marks and the last 
     period.
       Page 35, after line 16, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i) Prohibition on Earmarks.--No amounts made available 
     for grants under this section may be used for a Congressional 
     earmark as defined in clause 9(e) of Rule XXI of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment and 
should be noncontroversial. H.R. 5114 establishes a new grant program 
that would provide grants to local government agencies responsible for 
flood plain management in communities that participate in the national 
flood insurance program. Funds from this grant program would be used 
for outreach to inform both renters and owners of the national flood 
insurance program. This amendment would specifically prohibit any 
earmarking of the funds made available under this new grant program.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure it's the taxpayers'--or, I don't think it 
is the taxpayers' responsibility to inform renters and owners of these 
flood plain requirements. Having said that, if we are going to provide 
funds here and say that it's a competitive grant program, then we 
shouldn't go in and earmark it later. Those funds ought to be available 
to those who compete for them, not directed by Members of Congress to 
favored constituents or groups.

                              {time}  1230

  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, 
although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, quite simply, I support the gentleman's 
amendment. While I believe that the bill is clear that the grants 
provided under the bill would be competitive and, therefore, not 
subject to earmarking, I can understand the gentleman's need for 
wanting to clarify that these funds cannot be used for earmarks. 
Therefore, I support the amendment, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady for accepting the amendment.
  Some have asked, Why do this if there's no intention to earmark the 
program? Why do we need this language? Unfortunately, in the past, with 
programs that have been adopted like this, competitive grant programs, 
we have said and promised in Congress that we won't earmark those 
funds, and we've come and earmarked them. A good example is FEMA's Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Grant Program that was put in place. It was not to 
be earmarked. It was a grant program like this one. Yet in 2007, nearly 
half of the funds for the program were earmarked. I just want to make 
sure that they aren't in this program as well.
  So I thank the gentlelady for accepting the amendment. I urge its 
adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Taylor

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 111-537.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 35, after line 16, insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO WINDSTORM AND FLOOD.

       Section 1345 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4081) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsections:
       ``(d) Requirements for Write-Your-Own Insurers Relating to 
     Windstorm and Flood.--
       ``(1) Written agreement.--The Director may not utilize the 
     facilities or services of any insurance company or other 
     insurer or entity to offer flood insurance coverage under 
     this title unless such company, insurer, or entity enters 
     into a written agreement with the Director that provides as 
     follows:
       ``(A) Prohibition on exclusion of wind damage coverage.--
     The agreement shall prohibit the company, insurer, or entity 
     from including, in any policy provided by the company or 
     insurer for homeowners' insurance coverage or coverage for 
     damage from windstorms, any provision that excludes coverage 
     for wind or other damage solely because flooding also 
     contributed to damage to the insured property.
       ``(B) Fiduciary responsibility.--The agreement shall 
     provide that the company, insurer, or entity--
       ``(i) has a fiduciary duty with respect to the Federal 
     taxpayers;
       ``(ii) in selling and servicing policies for flood 
     insurance coverage under this title and adjusting claims 
     under such coverage, will act in the best interests the 
     national flood insurance program rather than in the interests 
     of the company, insurer, or entity; and
       ``(iii) will provide written guidance to each insurance 
     agent and claims adjuster for the company, insurer, or entity 
     that sets forth the terms of the agreement pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph.
       ``(2) Requirements for adjustment of claims.--The Director 
     shall, in utilizing the facilities of any insurance company 
     or other insurer or entity pursuant to this section to offer 
     flood insurance coverage under this title, the Director shall 
     provide as follows:
       ``(A) Approval of adjustment procedures.--No such insurance 
     company, other insurer, or entity may offer flood insurance 
     coverage under this title unless the Director has approved, 
     as meeting standards as the Director shall establish, the 
     procedures, protocols, guidelines, standards, or instructions 
     used by the company, insurer, or entity in adjusting claims 
     for identifying, apportioning, quantifying, and 
     differentiating damage caused by flooding and damage caused 
     by wind.
       ``(B) Treatment of wind and flood claims from same event.--
     The Director shall require any insurance company or other 
     insurer or entity that, pursuant to this section, provides 
     flood insurance coverage under this title for a property and 
     that also provides insurance coverage for the same property 
     for losses resulting from wind, when claims are made both for 
     damage resulting from flood and for damage resulting from 
     wind involved in a single event, to comply with the following 
     requirements:
       ``(i) Contemporaneous adjustment.--The claims for damage to 
     the property under the coverage under this title for losses 
     from flood and under the coverage for losses from wind shall 
     be adjusted contemporaneously.
       ``(ii) Inclusions in flood claim file.--The insurance 
     company, other insurer, or entity shall obtain and include in 
     the file maintained with respect to any claim under the flood 
     insurance coverage under this title, and make available to 
     the Director upon request, the following information relating 
     to the wind claim:

       ``(I) The amount paid on the claim and the date of such 
     payment..
       ``(II) An explanation of rationale used by the company, 
     insurer, or entity in determining which damage resulted from 
     flood and which damage resulted from wind.

[[Page H5647]]

       ``(III) Copies of any photographs, witness statements, and 
     other evidence related to the wind or flood claim.

       ``(iii) Review.--The Director shall review the information 
     obtained pursuant to clause (ii) to ensure that--

       ``(I) claims are paid under coverage under this title only 
     for losses resulting from flood; and
       ``(II) in the adjusting the claims, the insurance company 
     or other insurer or entity complied with procedures, 
     protocols, guidelines, standards, or instructions for 
     identifying, apportioning, quantifying, and differentiating 
     damage caused by flooding and damage caused by wind that have 
     been approved by the Director as meeting the standards 
     established by the Director pursuant to subparagraph (A).

       ``(iv) Payment under flood coverage when cause of loss 
     cannot be determined.--If the insurance company or other 
     insurer or entity determines that the loss claimed was caused 
     by flooding or wind, but that the evidence is insufficient to 
     differentiate the losses caused by flooding from those caused 
     by wind, the company, insurer, or entity shall pay the claim 
     under the flood insurance coverage for the property as if the 
     entire loss were caused by flooding, and shall submit all 
     information regarding the claim to the Director.
       ``(v) FEMA determination and recovery.--In the case of any 
     claim paid pursuant to clause (iv), the Director shall review 
     the information related to the claim and determine, in 
     accordance with procedures for making such a determination 
     regarding such claims as the Director shall establish, the 
     losses caused by wind. The Director shall seek to recover any 
     portion of the losses that the Director determines were 
     caused by wind from the insurance company or other insurer or 
     entity that, pursuant to clause (iv), paid such losses as 
     flood losses''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to clarify a provision in 
the existing law. The existing provision was used to deprive thousands 
of homeowners of the wind coverage they should have had in the wake of 
Hurricane Katrina. It, unfortunately, had the additional effect of 
sticking the taxpayer, through the National Flood Insurance Program, 
with billions of dollars that they should not have paid.
  Under the national Write Your Own program, we hired the private 
sector to write the policy. No problem there. We pay them a commission 
of 29 percent to write that policy. It saves us the cost of having 
additional government employees. The problem comes in in that we also 
let the private insurance company adjust the claim.
  So think of it. You are a 29-year-old father of two. You are counting 
on your Christmas bonus. You work for State Farm, Nationwide or 
Allstate. A hurricane comes through and your house is gone. Now, you 
can look at it and say, you know, I see trees falling down. That is an 
indication of wind. I see tin up in trees. That means the wind blew it 
up there. But that means that my company is going to have to pay 
something. Or I could say the flood did it all, which means the 
taxpayers have to pay it all.
  You see, under the law, they are called upon to do a fair adjustment 
of the claim. But buried in a typical wind insurance policy, in the 
case of a State Farm policy in Mississippi, on page 10 of a 24-page 
document, there is one paragraph that said, If any two things happen 
concurrently, then State Farm wasn't going to pay at all. This question 
was actually raised before the Mississippi State Supreme Court. And the 
attorney for Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Mr. Landau, was asked 
a question by the chief justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court, 
Justice Pierce, ``I'm giving you--the example is 95 percent of the home 
is destroyed, the flood comes in and gets the other 5 percent, and you 
know that. Does your interpretation of the word 'sequence' mean you pay 
zero?'' The attorney for Nationwide Insurance, Mr. Landau, answered, 
``Yes, Your Honor.''
  See, that goes beyond just hurting individuals on their payment. 
Number one, a typical insurance policy says that if your home is 
destroyed, the insurance company will pay to put you up until it's 
repaired, but if they deny your claim in full, then they pay nothing. 
So in the case of Hurricane Katrina, our Nation went out and bought 
140,000 trailers at $15,000 per trailer, then paid a friend of the Bush 
administration another $16,000 per trailer to deliver those trailers 
just 60 miles, hook them up to a water line and a sewer line. So 
$31,000 per trailer times 44,000 trailers, and that was just in 
Mississippi. That's $1.3 billion that the taxpayers paid that the 
insurance companies, in almost every instance, should have paid. On top 
of that, there were the homeowners grants; on top of that, there were 
SBA loans, for a total of $34 billion.
  I understand the gentlewoman's concern that this program lost $18 
billion. The taxpayers lost $34 billion because the insurance companies 
didn't pay. This amendment would prohibit the language that was buried 
in that State Farm insurance policy. This amendment would prohibit that 
language that was buried in that Nationwide policy. It would go back 
to, if these people want to do business with the Nation under the 
national Write Your Own program, then they are going to stick to their 
obligation of doing a fair adjustment of the claim.
  If the house is 50 percent destroyed by water, flood insurance pays 
50 percent. If it's 50 percent by wind, then the wind insurance company 
has to pay 50 percent. But whatever the ratio is, a fair adjustment of 
the claim, as it should have been, is already spelled out in the 
contract with the Nation. But the contract between the insurance 
companies and the individuals had this language buried in there that is 
completely contrary to what they told our Nation. And, quite honestly, 
I would like to see which shill for the insurance companies wants to 
defend what they have done to individuals in the gulf coast and what 
they have done to the taxpayers as a whole.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of this gentleman's 
amendment.
  In April, my subcommittee held a hearing on flood and wind insurance 
legislative proposals. And at that hearing, the gentleman from 
Mississippi testified about the way the insurance industry abused the 
flood insurance program following Hurricane Katrina by claiming that if 
so much as a drop of water touched a home, that all the resulting 
damage was the result of flood and not wind, even if there was damage 
to the contrary. Insurers were able to maintain their bottom line at 
the expense of the financial solvency of the National Flood Insurance 
Program.
  Nobody has worked harder on these issues than he has. He deserves 
support for this amendment, and we will continue to support his 
instructions about what we should be doing in the future.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I rise to claim 
the time in opposition to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to begin by saying to my friend from 
Mississippi, we have kind of had an ongoing discussion on this. I think 
he knows this is not a personal issue for me, but it is a very personal 
one for him, and I certainly understand that. I can't really even 
imagine being in your shoes, quite frankly, and a lot of your fellow 
Mississippians in what has happened.
  But I am going to oppose this amendment, really, by seeking to 
address the water and wind issue, which is something I think we do need 
to address. I have several issues that I would like to bring forward.
  First of all, I have concern that this could interfere with the State 
regulation of insurance. As we all know, insurance is regulated through 
the States. It could dictate some of the processes that I think would 
undermine the State regulation of insurance.
  It's interesting that the gentleman brought up State Farm because--
and I'm sure he's aware that State Farm has just recently announced 
that they are going to be withdrawing from the WYO program, which is 
the Write Your Own insurance program, for several reasons, I believe. 
I'm not certain what they all are. But this means that 800,000 
customers nationwide who bought their flood insurance coverage through 
State Farm will now need to be picked up by other Write Your Own 
insurance companies.

                              {time}  1240

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

[[Page H5648]]

this could expose insurers to new lawsuits and force them to place the 
interests of the Federal program over the interests of their own policy 
holders.
  I think there could be a better way to address this issue and the 
objectives of this amendment by working with FEMA officials and State 
insurance regulators to devise a formula with ratios that would 
apportion losses fairly to address the situation in the future. Some 
States and companies are already using this approach to help clarify 
potential wind-versus-water issues.
  So, with that, I would like to thank the gentleman for his passion 
and his ``stick-to-it-iveness'' to try to solve a very deep problem, 
particularly in his region of the country. But with the way this 
amendment is written and printed, I would have to be in opposition to 
it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Michigan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 111-537.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk made in order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. __. STUDY ON PRIVATE INSURANCE MARKET, COMMUNITY 
                   PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE 
                   PROGRAM, AND THE REGIONALIZATION OF THE 
                   NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study 
     on--
       (1) ways that the private insurance market can contribute 
     to insuring against flood damage;
       (2) the impact on the National Flood Insurance Program if 
     communities decide not to participate in the Program; and
       (3) the feasibility of regionalizing the National Flood 
     Insurance Program and ensuring that there is no cross-
     subsidization between regions under such Program.
       (b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to Congress a report containing the results of the study 
     conducted under subsection (a).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, my amendment calls for a GAO 
study to study the ways that the private insurance market can 
contribute to insuring against flood damage; to further study the 
impact on the National Flood Insurance Program if communities decide 
actually not to participate in this program; and to study the 
feasibility of recognizing the National Flood Insurance Program and 
ensuring that there's no cross-subsidization between the regions.
  The United States, Mr. Chairman, is actually the only industrialized 
nation that uses our form of government to administer flood insurance. 
In every other industrialized nation this is done by a private 
insurance company. Even in Canada or the U.K., they use the private 
industry to do so. And I believe that the role of the U.S. Government 
in terms of flood insurance certainly is the creation and maintenance 
of accurate flood maps, and to have those that live in flood-prone 
areas, though, pay their own freight by purchasing private flood 
insurance.
  Since Congress established the NFIP, we have engaged in subsidizing 
our fellow Americans who do live in flood-prone areas, essentially 
creating a moral hazard. And as a result, more than half of the U.S. 
population now lives in coastal watershed counties or flood plain 
areas.
  My constituents in Michigan, that's the reason I offered this 
amendment, Mr. Chairman, are paying very, very high flood insurance 
premiums; and yet we rarely receive claims. I mentioned this during 
general debate, but I'll mention it again: since 1978, Michigan 
residents have actually received about $44 million in claims from the 
flood insurance program. However, this year alone our premiums in the 
State are going to be almost $20 million, which means that in 2 years 
of premiums we have covered all of our losses since 1978, in other 
words, paid over $200 million in premiums, yet we've sent more than 
$150 million to other States since '78. And I would guess that all of 
the Great Lakes States, all of the States that are in the Great Lakes 
basin would have similar experiences.
  So my constituents and the residents of my State, I think, are 
unfairly carrying a very high burden, given their relatively low risk. 
I think it's a very vivid demonstration when you see that the average 
premium for flood insurance in Michigan is $764 and yet in Louisiana 
it's $647.
  I think, Mr. Chairman, again, we need to have a national catastrophic 
fund. We are very sensitive and very sympathetic to folks that live in 
States that flood, that are flood-prone, that have hurricanes, et 
cetera. But I don't think it is fair for property owners in areas that 
don't have this high risk to keep paying so much money for other areas. 
I think we should try to share the burden among the entire States.
  I would also ask that the GAO would look at regionalization of the 
National Flood Insurance Program as a means to correct this balance. 
Currently, FEMA has 10 separate regions, and I believe that if you did 
this amongst those regions, perhaps that would be a good way to 
reorganize the flood insurance program. And so each region would then, 
ideally, have actuarially sound premiums that are reflective of the 
risk of that region. And I think, under that plan, States like Michigan 
again would not be forced to subsidize other parts of the Nation that 
have substantially higher risk than we do.
  And in lieu of that, the last part of the study for the GAO would 
look at the impacts of communities to actually opt out of this program.
  Mr. Chairman, several years ago I actually wrote a letter to our 
Governor asking her to consider having Michigan, our entire State, opt 
out of this program because we are so unfairly disadvantaged. And 
although that has not happened yet, I'm going to continue to press that 
because I do think if we self-insured and got out of this program, it 
would be much, much, much better for the State of Michigan to do so.
  So, again, my amendment asks the GAO to look at I think several 
commonsense ways to fix a very severely flawed program. And I would ask 
that my colleagues consider my amendment and support its adoption as 
well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, 
although I'm not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentlewoman's amendment. I 
understand that the gentlewoman has some concerns with the flood 
insurance program. I understand that she does believe that homeowners 
in her district are subsidizing the cost of flood insurance for 
homeowners along the coast.
  While I disagree with her premise, I see no harm in having the GAO 
perform the study described in her amendment to look into the role of 
the private insurance market in providing flood insurance, the impact 
on the program if communities drop out, and the feasibility of 
regionalizing the program.
  However, I would like to note that flood insurance is just that, 
insurance. It insures against an event that may or may not happen in 
the future. We have taken several steps in this bill to address the 
``sticker shock'' that homeowners are encountering as a result of the 
mandatory purchase requirement resulting from the new maps.
  However, if the maps are accurate, and if there is a flood risk, 
public policy should dictate that homeowners have coverage for that 
risk because if they don't, the Federal Government will have to pick up 
the tab.
  Therefore, I disagree with the problem the gentlewoman has with the 
program. But I see no harm in her amendment, and so I would support 
that amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I would certainly just say that I am very 
appreciative of the gentlewoman's acceptance of my amendment. I do 
think it will help the Nation lead us forward

[[Page H5649]]

on a path to fairness and equity in this issue of flood insurance.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1250


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Boswell

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 111-537.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 14, line 11, insert ``appropriate evacuation routes 
     under the evacuation plan referred to in subparagraph (A),'' 
     after ``risks,''.
       Page 32, line 15, strike ``properties; and'' and insert 
     ``properties;''.
       Page 32, line 17, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 32, after line 17 insert the following:
       ``(6) notify such owners of where to obtain information 
     regarding how to obtain such coverage, including a telephone 
     number, mailing address, and Internet site of the Director 
     where such information is available.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the chairman of the 
committee and my good friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) and Ranking Member Bachus for their leadership on this issue, as 
well as Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member Capito.
  Unfortunately, the Iowans I represent know all too well how flooding 
can ravage a farm, a neighborhood, a city. Much of the State is still 
recovering from the devastating floods of 2008, as high rivers and 
creeks are threatening their homes and businesses yet again. 
Neighborhoods are sandbagging, and some residents have left their 
homes. For Iowa, flooding is a real and a tangible threat.
  Just last weekend, as I arrived back in my district, in my capital 
city, I met the mayor, I met the city manager, I met the public works 
director, and we went to the levees, and we really, really were worried 
whether we were going to make it through the night. So we understand it 
very well.
  The bill before us is a good bill. I intend to support it. However, I 
rise today to offer a straightforward amendment that will strengthen 
this legislation for Iowans and the residents of other States that are 
often affected by flooding. I certainly understand, after being there 
and seeing the aftermath, the threat and the concerns that Congressman 
Taylor and his constituents had when they faced Katrina. Where to go, 
how to get there.
  Under section 6 of this bill, State and local governments must 
provide flood risk and crisis information to residents in order to be 
eligible for a 5-year delay in the effective date of the mandatory 
purchase requirement of new flood hazard areas. This amendment would 
require that these entities also provide appropriate evacuation routes. 
Floodwaters rise quickly, and when people are forced to evacuate, we 
must make sure that residents have the information they need to do so 
in a way that is safe.
  Additionally, my amendment would help residents and property owners 
to obtain flood insurance by including information about flood coverage 
in the outreach activities listed under section 1326. This amendment is 
about providing our constituents with the best possible information to 
keep their families and their property safe.
  I ask my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, 
although I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West 
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I would just like to speak very briefly in support of 
the gentleman's amendment. We have all had in our States issues with 
knowing the correct way to leave and evacuate certain areas. I sort of 
was hoping that this area of information was already covered. So I want 
to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward, and I would 
ask that we support the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOSWELL. I thank the gentlelady for her support, and the 
chairwoman. I thank you very much, and I encourage passage.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hill

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 111-537.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 39, line 6, strike ``and''.
       Page 39, line 10, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 39, after line 10, insert the following:
       ``(E) identify ways to assist communities in efforts to 
     fund the accreditation of flood protection systems.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Hill) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, Indiana has been hit with a number of severe 
storms over the last few years. Residents in my district of southern 
Indiana have been hit especially hard, and many of our local 
communities continue to be devastated by flooding.
  While natural disasters cannot be avoided, the government's efforts 
in responding, preparing, and dealing with these situations can 
certainly improve. The amendment I offer here today would call for a 
very small change, but one that I believe will help provide lasting 
benefits for American cities and towns in the overall flood insurance 
program.
  The underlying bill establishes an Office of Flood Insurance Advocate 
within FEMA. This office is tasked with helping people in the program 
resolve problems with FEMA flood insurance and identifying potential 
changes to help fix these problems. My amendment would add another 
function to this office, and call on it to identify ways to assist 
communities in their efforts to fund the accreditation of flood 
protection systems.
  I have heard from several of my local communities that are having 
problems obtaining funding to meet requirements to get their flood 
protection systems accredited. If a levee shows adequate protection, 
then FEMA will place it in a moderate risk zone, and property owners 
are not required to carry flood insurance, referred to as an accredited 
levee. Decertified, or uncertified levees, however, will not be 
accredited. Therefore, the areas behind these levees will be placed in 
high-risk areas, and flood insurance will be required for property 
owners.
  While FEMA does not design, construct, fund, or approve levee systems 
or floodwall systems, in 2007 FEMA issued new guidelines that 
communities must meet. Unfortunately, private companies charge upwards 
of $500,000 to certify levees for communities, and the Corps of 
Engineers will only perform them for those who obtain a Federal match. 
This clearly leaves out many smaller communities who are in the most 
cash-strapped areas. If these communities do not meet FEMA guidelines 
and due dates, then they will be deemed a high-risk area, and this will 
dramatically increase the cost of their flood insurance.
  My amendment would ensure this office looks into this issue and helps 
find ways to assist communities in their efforts to comply with these 
new guidelines. I have two cities, Tell City and Cannelton, that face 
the possibility of being placed in a high-risk flood zone because they 
are having trouble obtaining certifications. If we help these 
communities complete their certifications, then we are helping them 
provide the checks and inspections that are needed to ensure our levees 
are safe. And if we have safer levees and flood protections in place, 
then not only will more Americans be protected from devastating natural 
disasters, but

[[Page H5650]]

this will prevent the flood insurance program and the Federal 
Government from taking on the high cost that would result if the levee 
or flood protection measure failed to do the job.
  While I support updating this important program, I believe any new 
office should be focused on finding ways to reduce the cost burden for 
communities that are struggling during this difficult economy. My 
amendment would ensure that this new office focuses on communities who 
bear both the burden of natural disasters and the costs in preventing 
them.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this commonsense amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, 
although I am not necessarily opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West 
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to address the gentleman's amendment really 
in the broader context of the Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate. 
This is creating it within this bill, and I think in my opening 
statements I addressed this issue. It's creating a new office. And at a 
time when we have rising debts and deficits, we are creating another 
bureaucracy, another obligation on the Federal taxpayer where I think 
that we could work within existing regulatory and administrative 
offices to try to accomplish the same thing.
  We had a discussion yesterday in the Rules Committee where the 
chairwoman of our subcommittee talked about the need for advocacy. And 
I don't oppose the need for helping people wind through the intricacies 
of FEMA, trying to make appeals, trying to find out when and how 
they're going to be paid or what their alternate living arrangements 
might be and all the things that an advocate can do in terms of winding 
through a large bureaucracy like FEMA. But FEMA has assured us that 
they have already a functioning appeals process, and on top of an 
Inspector General and continual GAO oversight of the NFIP program.
  So I think that the advocacy office itself is representing some 
duplicative and unnecessary bureaucracy and spending. So while I don't 
oppose the gentleman's amendment, if the advocacy office goes through, 
it's not really the substance of your amendment, it's really more the 
basis of the flood advocate itself, Office of the Flood Advocate 
itself.
  I yield back balance of my time.
  Mr. HILL. I would like to thank the gentlelady and the chairwoman for 
the opportunity to offer this amendment. It's not a big change, but 
it's a change I think will help local communities in my district.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Loebsack

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 111-537.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 41, after line 8, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 23. APPEALS.

       (a) Television and Radio Announcement.--Section 1363 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after 
     ``determinations'' by inserting the following: ``by notifying 
     a local television and radio station,''; and
       (2) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by inserting 
     before the period at the end the following: ``and shall 
     notify a local television and radio station at least once 
     during the same 10-day period''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to any flood elevation determination 
     for any area in a community that has not, as of the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, been issued a Letter of Final 
     Determination for such determination under the flood 
     insurance map modernization process.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank Congresswoman Waters for bringing this bill to the 
floor today. It will help address concerns all of us have likely heard 
from our constituents about the flood insurance program and flood map 
modernization efforts. In Iowa, flood insurance is an issue we are all 
too familiar with.

                              {time}  1300

  Two years ago this issue was brought to our attention with terrible 
effects. Iowa was devastated by the floods of 2008, which left 85 of 
our 99 counties Presidentially declared disaster areas and caused 
billions of dollars in damage.
  The National Flood Insurance Program was and remains an important 
program and has helped many homeowners recovering from the floods. 
Unfortunately, due to a lack of notification during the process of 
updating the flood insurance rate maps to digital maps, many homeowners 
continue to be surprised when they find out that their homes may be 
newly placed in a special flood hazard area and they will be required 
to purchase flood insurance. Many homeowners don't even know that new 
proposed flood elevations have been made and a flood rate map update 
is, in fact, taking place.
  My amendment is simple. It will help to ensure communities and 
homeowners that might be affected by new maps are made aware of the 
process taking place from the beginning. Currently, FEMA is only 
required to publish notice of new flood elevations in a local 
newspaper. For one community in my district, this translated to roughly 
a 2-inch by 2-inch paragraph in the legal notice section of the 
newspaper.
  My amendment will require FEMA to notify not only the local paper, 
but also a local television and radio station of the proposed flood 
elevations. It will also require FEMA to notify a local television 
station and radio station in communities that are still in the middle 
of the flood map modernization process so they are fully informed of 
the process taking place.
  This amendment will ensure the homeowners have the information they 
need to make informed decisions and to participate in the process while 
also ensuring media outlets for disseminating information, important 
information, so the public is made aware as well. The more homeowners 
that are aware of new flood elevations, I think, the more participation 
there is in the process.
  It would also serve the purpose of making more people aware of the 
National Flood Insurance Program itself and in general, hopefully 
increasing voluntary participation rates as well.
  I think we can agree that simply notifying a local television and 
radio station in addition to the local newspaper is a commonsense 
change and will help get the word out about flood map changes.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment on behalf of 
homeowners in all of our districts.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Mc Mahon

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 111-537.
  Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 32, line 15, strike ``and''.
       Page 32, line 17, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 32, after line 17, insert the following:
       ``(6) educate local real estate agents in communities 
     participating in the national flood insurance program 
     regarding the program and the availablility of coverage under 
     the program for owners and renters of properties in such 
     communities, and establish coordination and liasons with such 
     real estate agents to facilitate purchase of coverage under 
     this Act and increase awareness of flood risk reduction.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. McMahon) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

[[Page H5651]]

  Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank Chairman Frank and 
Chairwoman Waters and the ranking member as well for their work to 
reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program for 5 years.
  The Flood Insurance Program is a good example of government providing 
a basic need for millions of Americans--insurance against catastrophic 
flooding at a reasonable price. The program is only as strong as the 
reserve fund created by selling insurance to people in certified flood 
risk areas and pooling those premiums to cover any losses. That is why 
this bill includes money to educate local authorities about flood 
insurance.
  Many people don't know that an area requires flood insurance or that 
the NFIP program exists until it is very late in the process. Others 
hear the words ``flood insurance'' and think it is costly or will 
affect the value of their home. Sometimes people can't close on a House 
or refinance without having insurance in place. And sometimes people 
who have been living in a neighborhood all their life only find out 
that NFIP is needed when they try to move or sell their house.
  The uncertainty of the program is something I have heard quite often 
from my constituents. Representing parts of the city of New York in 
Staten Island and Brooklyn, an urban area, people are quite often 
shocked to hear that they live in a floodplain, and quite often they 
find out too late, and that's why this program is so important.
  My amendment will allow NFIP, in their education and partnership 
efforts, to also include local real estate agents in their outreach on 
the NFIP program and its costs and benefits. No one knows 
neighborhoods, markets, price points, and options better than a local 
Realtor.
  This amendment works within the bill's existing outreach program and 
does not increase the cost of the program in any way.
  NFIP should work with the Realtors to increase their knowledge of the 
NFIP program, educate them when areas are added to the floodplain area, 
and keep local agents up to date on the program itself.
  The real estate market and the job of a Realtor are very dynamic. 
Things change all the time, and NFIP should communicate directly to 
them on how they can help their clients take advantage of this program. 
And this dovetails very nicely into the way FEMA already does 
communicate with Realtors on other issues.
  And finally, in closing, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to 
support this long-term extension. The fact that the program expired in 
September of 2008 and this Congress continues to do short-term 
extensions isn't helpful to a fragile real estate market or to the 
long-term viability of this program. For the millions of current and 
future American homeowners who take advantage of NFIP, we need to 
extend this program for 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
although I'm not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West 
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to thank the gentleman for his amendment.
  I raise questions about this amendment for the same reason that I 
raised questions about the previous amendment, and that is, you know, 
we are at a point here in our economy in this time where we have high 
unemployment. We have our deficit that has just passed over the 
trillion dollar mark for the second year in a row. We have increasingly 
excruciating debt that we're going to be passing on to our children and 
grandchildren, and yet we're still going to be creating a grant program 
in this bill that's going to cost the taxpayers $250 million--
significant dollars at a time when people are losing their jobs or 
cutting back or making decisions in their own lives about the ways to 
afford the things that they not just want but they absolutely must have 
and need. And while, you know, further education and outreach is always 
a good thing, I think now would be a good time for us to make a 
statement in this bill by saying, not now, not this time, not this $250 
million.
  I have a question, too, in terms of the gentleman's amendment, not 
being a real estate agent myself. I'm not sure that in the real estate 
agent--in the training to become a real estate agent and the things--I 
know you have to be licensed and you have to take continuing ed and you 
have to keep up on all different kinds of financing and property 
evaluations and all the things. It's kind of a surprise to me that real 
estate agents don't already know the extent or how to deal with the 
Flood Insurance Program, particularly if there are regions of the 
country that are prone to this type of damage and these type of floods. 
But I don't know if the gentleman has an answer for that.
  Are you aware of whether real estate agents now, across the country, 
are exposed to this kind of information? I mean, why wouldn't they 
already have this?
  I yield to the gentleman if you have an answer to the question. I 
don't know the answer to that.
  Mr. McMAHON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  And while real estate agents do go through rigorous training, as the 
gentlelady knows, the boundaries and lines of floodplains change 
through time as topographical maps are changed, as physical conditions 
change in certain areas. Certainly along the coast or in the harbor 
where my district exists, water levels change, as well, and 
requirements change. So it's the changing nature of the program that we 
seek to have that information provided as requirements change, as 
mapping lines change and the like.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you for that clarification.
  Reclaiming my time, I would just additionally say that I would think, 
through the continuing education of the real estate schools and the 
licensing boards throughout the different States who have these issues, 
that this would already be something that's covered.
  Again, I will go back to my original premise, $250 million in 5 years 
at a time of record debt and deficit and high unemployment, to me, is 
an improper expenditure at this time.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I thank the gentlelady from West Virginia for her questions and 
comments and would certainly add that the costs of this program and 
certainly the Federal deficit and debt itself are of deep concern to me 
and the people who sent me here a little over 18 months ago to 
represent them.
  My amendment raises no costs whatsoever. It simply says there's an 
option that if the NFIP program does share information with local 
community leaders and local entities that they include the local real 
estate community as well so that they can better provide that 
information to the people they represent, and I think it's a way to 
certainly instill confidence in the real estate markets that do exist 
in floodplain areas. So I think it's a good, commonsense solution and 
proposal and doesn't cost the taxpayer any money.
  I certainly would comment that I share, as I said, the gentlelady's 
concern about the growing debts and deficits and am certainly glad that 
her side of the aisle has now joined in this fight with our side of the 
aisle, for certainly when they were in the majority in the House and 
had the presidency, there didn't seem to be such a great concern, but 
certainly we are glad that it is a concern they share with our side of 
the aisle at this time, and hopefully we can join together in a 
bipartisan fashion, something that hasn't been done before, to deal 
with this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York.
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Murphy of New York

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in House Report 111-537.
  Mr. MURPHY of New York. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H5652]]


       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 31. ETHICS COMPLIANCE.

       All funds authorized under this Act or any amendment made 
     by this Act shall be expended in a manner that is consistent 
     with the manual on Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees 
     of the Executive Branch.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. MURPHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, as a small businessman, I'm 
deeply concerned with our Nation's fiscal mismanagement. In fact, we've 
now learned that in fiscal year 2009, Federal agencies were estimated 
to have made nearly $98 billion in improper payments. You don't have to 
be a Democrat or a Republican to know that this is just unacceptable. 
It's just common sense.
  My simple amendment to this bill reiterates that all the funds 
authorized in this act must be spent in compliance with the manual on 
Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the executive branch.
  As Members of Congress, it's our duty to allocate taxpayer dollars in 
a measured and responsible way, and we all know that Congress must do 
more to rein in wasteful spending. However, it is also our 
responsibility to make sure that the money we allocate is spent 
appropriately by the Federal agencies.
  Sadly, we're far too accustomed to reports of Federal dollars being 
used inappropriately. Just recently, the Department of Homeland 
Security's Office of Inspector General issued a report noting that 
$247,000 in improper expenses were charged to FEMA credit cards.
  These examples highlight the need for Congress to be vigilant in its 
oversight of Federal agencies and to hold the agencies accountable and 
to create a system in which waste, fraud and abuse are eliminated. 
Yesterday, the House took an important step toward this goal when it 
passed legislation to identify, reduce, and eliminate improper 
payments, as well as recover lost funds that Federal agencies have 
spent improperly.
  In that same spirit, my amendment today is intended to reaffirm our 
commitment to ensuring that Federal employees, in this case FEMA 
employees, spend Federal moneys properly and on their intended purpose, 
with only the best interests of the taxpayer.
  I urge my fellow Members to support this amendment as well as the 
underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MURPHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 111-537 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Murphy of New York.
  The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. The 
remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 423, 
noes 3, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 444]

                               AYES--423

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Djou
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)

[[Page H5653]]


     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--3

     Berry
     Paul
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Blunt
     Bright
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Kagen
     Kirk
     Moran (VA)
     Olson
     Schrader
     Wamp

                              {time}  1344

  Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois, BUCHANAN, and GINGREY of Georgia changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Murphy of New York

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Murphy) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 421, 
noes 0, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 445]

                               AYES--421

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Djou
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bachus
     Bright
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Kagen
     Kirk
     Moran (VA)
     Olson
     Rush
     Schrader
     Serrano
     Tsongas
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Wittman


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1353

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 445, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chair, on July 15, 2010, I missed rollcall vote No. 
445. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I missed rollcall vote No. 445 to require all 
funds authorized under H.R. 5114 to be expended in a manner consistent 
with the manual on Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the 
Executive Branch.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' I have consistently 
voted to hold Members of Congress and their staffs, Federal employees, 
and other representatives of government to the highest ethical 
standards.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Serrano) having assumed the chair, Mr. Cuellar, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5114) to 
extend the authorization for the national flood insurance program, to 
identify priorities essential to reform and ongoing stable functioning 
of the program, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House 
Resolution 1517, reported the bill back to the House with an amendment 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. HENSARLING. I am, in its current form.

[[Page H5654]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hensarling moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 5114, to 
     the Committee on Financial Services with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Strike section 18 (relating to flood insurance outreach).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit today is a simple 
one. It says today, right here, right now, this body will decline to 
create yet another new government spending program, this one, a quarter 
of a billion dollar new FEMA outreach program on top of the FEMA 
outreach program that is already in place.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people know already that the National Flood 
Insurance Program is in trouble, just like almost every other federally 
administered insurance program.
  Social Security has a long-term deficit of $15.1 trillion. The 
Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation has a debt of $22 
billion. The Federal Crop Insurance Program, Medicaid, and the list 
goes on and on.
  The National Flood Insurance Program owes the taxpayer, owes the 
Treasury already $19 billion. Why are we going to add to this burden 
today, Mr. Speaker?
  And, in addition, as I said earlier, this is duplicative of an 
already existing program. I'm not here to say, Mr. Speaker, that 
outreach is a bad idea. But I am curious what is wrong with the 
Cooperating Technical Partners Program of FEMA.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. Speaker, even if this wasn't duplicative of an already existing 
system, even if we truly needed it, the question is, can we afford it? 
Is it really worth borrowing 43 cents on the dollar, mainly from the 
Chinese, and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren? At 
this time, Mr. Speaker, at a time when our Nation is facing a debt 
crisis, the motion to recommit says no, it doesn't meet that test.
  I mean, Mr. Speaker, we know already that the deficit has increased 
almost tenfold in just 2 years. I mean we are looking at the largest 
deficits in American history. Our Nation is literally drowning in debt.
  Don't take my word for it. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor, as a number 
of our Members do, to serve on the President's Fiscal Responsibility 
Commission. It's led by Democrat Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff 
to President Clinton, who just this week said before the National 
Governors Association, ``The debt is like a cancer. It is truly going 
to destroy the country from within.'' That is the Democratic head of 
the President's Fiscal Responsibility Commission. He recognizes the 
problem that we are facing today.
  Renowned economist Robert Samuelson has said that our spending could 
``trigger an economic and political death spiral.'' Former Comptroller 
David Walker has said we are facing, quote, ``a fiscal cancer.''
  Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a crisis in our Nation's history that 
we could see coming from miles away it's this one. Why do we want to 
make it worse? Right here, right now we can take one tiny step towards 
ensuring we don't put more debt on our children and our grandchildren 
for a program that is already in the red almost $19 billion.
  I would say that there is very little that I agree with the 
distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee on. But I 
noticed that last night on NPR he was quoted as saying, ``We have to 
reduce the deficit. I believe that we are reaching a point where the 
deficit could be unsustainable. We have to make this point: We're going 
to have to reduce government spending fairly significantly.'' And I 
agree with Chairman Frank on that point. And I would hope that this 
would be the moment where we could take that one step.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate it, and I hope he would then 
join me in something really significant like getting our troops out of 
Iraq for a year and a half and save about a thousand times as much as 
this motion to recommit.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Reclaiming my time, with the chairman being in the 
majority, I am sure if he wants to do that, he has the opportunity to 
do that. If the Democratic majority wants to raise taxes on those who 
have less than a quarter-billion dollars in income, that is their 
opportunity to do that. If they want to quit funding our troops in 
harm's way, they have the opportunity to do that.
  What we are saying is there is an opportunity right here, right now 
not to create yet another duplicative program and add to the debt 
burden. Now, I am sure we might hear that somehow this is going to 
create more jobs, but I ask where are the jobs? Where has the spending 
led to?
  I encourage all to support the motion to recommit.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, we patiently waited over here to 
hear what this motion to recommit was going to be all about. We thought 
about all of the Members who have been calling us, writing us, working 
with us from both sides of the aisle to please help them address the 
concerns of their constituents about flood insurance. We have worked 
very hard with Members from both sides of the aisle to include their 
concerns in this bill.
  You saw Members come to the floor with those amendments. You saw in 
the manager's amendment that we had worked with so many Members not 
only to include their concerns, but to answer questions and prepare 
them for going back to their communities explaining how this whole 
thing works.
  Many of those questions that have been raised by our constituents 
have been raised over a long period of time. Our offices are bombarded 
with questions about the mapping. How does it work? How are they going 
to get timely notification? What are the premiums all about? These 
questions go on and on and on, to the point where our offices are 
oftentimes overwhelmed, not able to give sufficient information, or to 
assist those communities where they have banded together, despite the 
fact oftentimes they have few resources to deal with these issues.
  And now, in this comprehensive authorization that we are doing we 
address those constituents' concerns with this outreach. I am very 
surprised that the Members on the opposite side of the aisle would try 
and deny to their constituents the basic kind of information and 
services that we should all be responsible for. We should be able to 
say to our constituents not only do you have a right to this 
information, but we are going to give you some help. You don't have to 
try and band together with resources that you don't have to find out 
how it all works to oppose FEMA, to find out from your mortgage 
servicers why you didn't get a timely notice, to find out from your 
city, who was notified perhaps by FEMA, why they didn't notify the 
community.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, these are simply outreach activities that 
must be dealt with. These are outreach activities that our constituents 
deserve. To oppose assisting our constituents when they may be forced 
into new mapping that's going to cost them money that they had not 
anticipated, on and on and on, is just unbelievable.
  So I would simply say it speaks for itself. Assistance to our 
constituents asking those basic questions. I would ask for a ``no'' 
vote on this motion to recommit. It works against the best interests of 
all of our constituents. They deserve better than this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum

[[Page H5655]]

time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 229, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 446]

                               AYES--191

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--229

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Heinrich
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bright
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Kagen
     Kirk
     Olson
     Pomeroy
     Schrader
     Wamp

                              {time}  1426

  Messrs. McDERMOTT and RUSH changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to 
participate in a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives 
today.
  The vote was on the Motion to Recommit on the Flood Insurance Reform 
Priorities Act of 2010. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' 
on that question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 329, 
noes 90, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 447]

                               AYES--329

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Djou
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)

[[Page H5656]]


     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--90

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Broun (GA)
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Cole
     Culberson
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Flake
     Fleming
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Graves (GA)
     Griffith
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Westmoreland

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bright
     Cardoza
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Kagen
     Kirk
     Olson
     Reyes
     Rush
     Schrader
     Wamp

                              {time}  1435

  Mr. INGLIS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 447, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________