Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen's amendment, while well intentioned, would prevent the National Flood Insurance Program from moving toward a more actuarially sound basis for calculating premiums in as quick a manner as possible. The underlying bill provides that FEMA, at the discretion of the administrator, can increase the chargeable premiums for flood policyholders by up to 20 percent once every 12 months until the premium being paid properly reflects the risk associated with the property. The amendment is intended to save policyholders from the ``sticker shock'' premium increases potentially pose, but the underlying bill addresses this concern by allowing for a gradual phase-in of the actuarial rates instead of an abrupt adjustment. One of the core goals of this bill is to move the NFIP towards a more actuarially sound, properly functioning program, and any amendment to slow down that effort must be opposed. The amendment would strike part of section 5 that would increase annual limits on premium rates. It increases from 10 to 20 percent. The sponsors of the amendment have stated that their objective is to prevent a 100 percent increase in possible premium hikes, but what it's doing is really going to delay our being able to have a more actuarially sound basis for calculating the premiums in as quick a manner as possible. Section 5 really addresses this concern by phasing in all of the non pre-FIRM properties to full actuarial rates over time to eliminate the subsidy and to allow the premiums paid for policies to reflect the risk covered by those policies. So I would oppose this amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Under H.R. 1309, FEMA is required to update its flood maps according to the Technical Mapping Advisory Council's recommendations within 6 months or report to Congress why it has rejected them. As part of the new standard for the flood insurance rate maps, FEMA must include in any rate map areas of residual risk, including areas behind levees, dams and other manmade structures. I'm afraid that the Cardoza amendment would fail to provide homeowners with a real assessment of their risks, thereby impairing their ability to prepare for such natural disasters. And to address concerns about the mapping process, H.R. 1309 reinstates the Technical Mapping Advisory Council to bring in the expertise and perspectives of other stakeholders in FEMA's process for setting new mapping standards. The amendment I think would weaken these new mapping standards that are designed to give homeowners and the NFIP an accurate portrait of flood risk, and I would oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment, which would direct the GAO to conduct a study on all- peril insurance policies for residential properties, to me really expands beyond the scope of this bill. Fundamental reform of the National Flood Insurance Program should be the priority of this Congress, including the removal of subsidies over time to improve the long-term solvency of the program. In contrast, the Scott amendment would dramatically increase the scope at a time when government insurance programs, such as the NFIP, are essentially insolvent and remain grossly underfunded. If the gentleman would like to have an all-peril study, he has the option to write a letter to the GAO and request such a study, and that will be done, but to tie it into the flood insurance makes it seem like we're going to expand the flood insurance when we're really trying to decrease the expansion and really to bring in the private sector to do this. I really think that this is way beyond what we should be doing. His amendment would pave the way to expand the Federal Government's role in the private insurance market by creating a massive new program to offer government-provided coverage backed by taxpayer dollars against property losses. If the gentleman is really interested in the drywall particularly, this is something that he can ask for a study on that, and it really should not be within the scope of this bill. I would urge opposition to this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I know we have had quite a bit of discussion about this already, but maybe we will bring this to a close with this amendment, for a while anyway. Let me just say that the underlying bill really doesn't ask for additional borrowing authority. In fact, the reforms in the underlying bill will accelerate the ability of NFIP to pay down its debt. This bill is a revenue raiser and will bring in $4.2 billion to the program. We have addressed the fact that there have been some problems with NFIP. I think there was some mismanagement, and there was a need for reform. That is why we have spent so much time on this bill to talk to all of the different groups, to talk to all of the Members who have had concerns. I have got here a list. According to a broad coalition of industry experts and trade associations who all support this, more than 5.6 million policyholders depend on the NFIP as their only source of protection against economic devastation from a flood. In fact, I could read all of those who asked for a ``no'' vote on this amendment. We have the American Insurance Association, American Land Title Association, Building Owners and Management Association, CCIM Institute, Chamber SWLA, Council of Insurer Agents and Brokers, The Financial Services Roundtable, Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, Institute of Real Estate Management, International Council of Shopping Centers, Manufactured Housing Institute, Mortgage Bankers Association, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, National Association of REALTORS, National Ready Mix Concrete Association, Society of Industrial and Office Realtors, Property and Casualty Insurance Association of America, The Risk and Insurance Management Society, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. You know, if 5.6 million property owners can't rely on this, what is going to happen? What is going to happen is we wouldn't have flood insurance. And on May 13, the Financial Services Committee favorably reported the Flood Insurance Reform Act by a unanimous vote of 54-0. Anybody who doesn't think that is something on how much time we put into this and how much people care about it, 54-0 in this Congress, I don't think that has happened for a bill that is this important for a long, long time. It really reflects the hard work and the bipartisan support of the Financial Services Committee. Again, it has a series of reforms that are going to make this a much better program. It improves the financial stability of the NFIP. It reduces the burden on taxpayers. It restores integrity to the FEMA mapping system and explores ways to increase private market participation. It helps to bring certainty to the housing market. I would oppose this amendment strongly. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chair, I submit the following letter in support of funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science in H.R. 2354, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2012. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, May 13, 2011. Hon. Rodney Frelinghuysen, Chairman, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, House Appropriations Committee, Washington,

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2354. I commend the work of my colleagues, Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky of Energy and Water Development appropriations, for their efforts to balance important energy and infrastructure funding in nuclear energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, and in particular the Office of Science. Strong funding at DOE is critical for the development of future reactor technologies and licensing for new nuclear and small modular nuclear power. Similarly, healthy funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is vital to our waterway commerce, protection from invasive species and water quality in the Midwest. Finally, by maintaining our investment in the Office of Science, Congress will preserve our capacity to innovate, enhance our competitive edge in the global economy, and create good American jobs well into the future. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the Office of Science.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011. I would like to thank Mr. Sessions for introducing and managing this rule. I would also like to thank Rules Committee Chairman Dreier and the leadership for scheduling floor time. On May 13, the Financial Services Committee favorably reported, as has been said, the Flood Insurance Reform Act by a unanimous vote of 54-0. This bill is important and reflects the hard work and bipartisan support of the Financial Services Committee. It would reauthorize for 5 years the National Flood Insurance Program, the NFIP, and enact a series of reforms designed to improve NFIP's financial stability, reduce the burden on taxpayers, and explore ways to increase private market participation. To improve NFIP's financial stability, the bill phases in actuarially sound rates for policyholders. In doing so, it will help to shore up NFIP and allow it to pay down its $17.75 billion debt to the taxpayer. It also increases the minimum deductibles for properties while at the same time giving homeowners more flexibility on how they can pay for their flood insurance. According to the CBO, the combined effect of these and other changes would be to bring in an additional $4.2 billion of net income to the NFIP over the next 10 years. Perhaps most importantly, H.R. 1309 eliminates a barrier to the development of a private flood insurance market and puts us on a path toward a long-term plan for flood insurance that eliminates taxpayer risk. First, it requires lenders to accept non-NFIP-backed flood insurance coverage provided by a private entity if that coverage meets all the same requirements as NFIP-backed flood insurance. Second, FEMA is required to solicit bids from the private sector and report to Congress on the cost to the private sector, not to the taxpayer, of bearing the risk of flood insurance. Finally, the bill addresses many of the concerns that Members have raised with us about new maps, especially as they relate to dam and levee decertifications. This bill allows newly mapped communities facing higher rates to annually, and for up to 3 years, request that FEMA suspend the requirement to purchase flood insurance while they work to construct or fix their flood protection systems. With the NFIP's authorization set to expire on September 30, it is critical that the House act to pass this bill as soon as possible. Doing so will give the House and Senate time to begin a dialogue and to shape a commonsense reform measure. In short, we fully intend to avoid a recurrence of what happened in the last Congress, which was when the program lapsed, causing turmoil in a recovering housing market, and was simply extended without reforms. Congress cannot continue to kick the can down the road. With that, again, I thank Mr. Sessions and the members of the Rules Committee. I would also like to thank all of the Members from both sides of the aisle who helped to craft this bill. I thank my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee for their work on this bill, especially Ms. Waters, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Dold, and Mr. Stivers, who are original cosponsors of this bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to support the rule for H.R. 1309.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life of an American soldier from Homer Glen, Illinois, who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of his country. Private First Class Michael C. Olivieri was a dedicated soldier serving his first tour of duty in Baghdad where he was helping to train and support the Iraqi police. On June 6, his base came under attack, resulting in the death of five soldiers, including Michael. Last week would have marked Michael's first wedding anniversary, which he had hoped to celebrate during a scheduled visit home. During that same visit, he was to attend his sister's wedding. Mr. Speaker, Michael was a caring husband, a loving son and grandson, a beloved sibling, and a dear friend to countless members of the Homer Glen community. A 2002 graduate of Lockport Township High School, Michael attended Southern Illinois University and went on to enlist in the U.S. Army, where his talents and leadership were on full display. Often playing the guitar for his buddies in the field, Michael was well known for lifting the spirits of his fellow soldiers, and he will be missed dearly by those who knew and loved him. Today I would like to offer my heartfelt condolences to his wife, Sharon; his parents, Michael and Jody; his sisters, Abby and Ashley, his brother, Joe; and his grandparents, Joseph and Adelaide Olivieri and Dorothy Riegel. Private Michael C. Olivieri was a great man, a distinguished soldier, and a true American hero.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentlelady for having this tonight. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of the Republican women who are here and especially the freshmen because they have brought so much enthusiasm, so much talent, so much intelligence to this body, and it really has been such a help to us. When I was elected to Congress, I was the only Republican woman to be there. It was kind of lonesome, so I thought, well, at least I can be the president, the vice president, the treasurer, the secretary of the freshmen Republican women that year, but there was nobody else to be there with me, so I had to do it all alone. I've been here a long time. This is my 13th year. To see what has happened and the enthusiasm and what is going on and the changes that are happening is incredible. I came from a family where my father was the first to go to college. His parents had emigrated from Finland even though they were Swedish. He went to college, but he always said to my three siblings and me, You can do anything you want to do if you get a good education; but he made one mistake, maybe, because he said he would pay for it. So my older sister went to medical school; I went to law school; my brother went to law school; my sister got her master's in Latin and Greek, but she doesn't use that too much anymore. So that was true, because I never, never expected that I would be in Congress. I never expected that I would be a lawyer. In fact, I went to a wonderful school--Stanford for undergraduate--and then applied to law school. For my first year, I went to the University of California; and the first thing that greeted me was a professor who said, You're taking the place of someone who belongs here, which was a man. That really has changed my life, because I excelled in everything I did. I transferred law schools, by the way, and went back to Illinois. My first job out of law school was clerking for a judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The reason I got it was that a young man from a different school where the judge had always hired-- the judge didn't particularly like him, so he called over to Northwestern, and they sent me over there, and that's how I got that job. I continued in the legal profession, but I found that I got involved in a lot of volunteer work along the way, too--being chairman of boards and whatever and then running for and being elected to the State assembly. The reason I wanted to go into the State assembly and into Congress was from what I learned from volunteer work--and from having four children, first of all, and then from being president of the high school school board--because I wanted my children to have the best education; and the way to do that is to get involved and to participate as with all of the others, like being chairman of the Visiting Nurses Association of Chicago, and I got into Medicare and Medicaid. So all of these things led me to want to go into Congress. I was asked to do those things. Then finally, when a seat opened up in Congress, I said, I'm going for this. I was elected, and I've been here and on three committees that are really important still--with the Financial Services, the Education and Labor, and the Science Committees. Let me just talk a little bit about trade because, as has been said by so many Members much more eloquently than I, government does not create jobs; it's the private sector; but government needs to act to reduce and get rid of the barriers that we have put on so many of the businesses so that we can have economic growth so that we can have those jobs. One way is to look at the trade issue. We cannot have protectionist trade policies. Free trade agreements are one of the many ways to improve all American standards of living and to get our economy back on track. The administration has three trade agreements that are on the shelf, already negotiated and all ready for approval--Colombia, Panama and South Korea. These trade agreements alone have the potential to create 250,000 jobs for Americans in America. What has been so concerning is that the President has not acted, and a failure to act means that we will continue to lose sales and jobs to other countries which do not face the trade barriers that our goods and services are facing. On many products, tariffs would come down immediately upon the enactment of these agreements, giving a boost to exports and jobs. Let me just tell you about one company that has trade with Colombia. It's a big company with big, big machinery; and every time they send one of those pieces of machinery into Colombia, it's a $200,000 tariff, which shouldn't be there, while we have open doors and while we have trade that can come here. We have wasted so much time. We have wasted at least 2\1/2\ years for not doing this. I think, with these trade agreements, such an increase would provide a tremendous boost to the national economy, especially to my home State of Illinois, where we rank No. 5 in the exporting States for manufacturing and agriculture products. So I would encourage the administration to immediately send up those trade agreements. Doing so would immediately put people back to work and provide a much needed boost to our economy. I thank all the women who are here today, and I thank you for doing this and for giving us the opportunity.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a local hero from my home district. At just 7 years old, Abby Beranek of Lemont, Illinois, demonstrated quick thinking and courage when a fire broke out in her home, utilizing the fire safety skills she learned as a Girl Scout to keep her family safe. When she realized her home was on fire, first-grader Abby Beranek remained calm and immediately put in action the lessons she learned when her troop visited the Lemont fire station. Because of Abby's courage and quick thinking, she was able to help her mom and keep her 18-month-old brothers and 3-month-old sister safe. I also want to commend the Lemont Fire Protection District, especially Jeff Hawthorne and Chief Carl Churulo, for offering lifesaving educational safety courses for our children. Their hard work and willingness to reach out to the community has clearly made a difference and saved lives. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing a local hero, Abby Beranek of Lemont, Illinois, who has made her community and her family very proud.