Shelley Capito

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. I thank the chairman for that. I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mrs. CAPITO. I yield to the gentleman.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Tracy Patton and congratulate her as a state winner of the Library of Congress 2010 Letters About Literature competition. Letters About Literature is a program developed by the Library of Congress in partnership with Target Stores and state Centers for the Book. It aims to promote reading and writing to young people in fourth through twelfth grades across the nation. Students are encouraged to read a book, then write a letter to the author, dead or alive, conveying their appreciation for the book and its impact on their lives. More than 70,000 students from across the nation that entered the contest, a 25% increase from last year's competition. The Letters About Literature competition divided students into three divisions by age, and the top letter from each age level were chosen from the states. Level three included all high school students, in ninth through twelfth grades. Tracy was chosen as the Level 3 state winner for 2010 by West Virginia's panel of judges, comprised of authors, editors, publishers, librarians, and teachers. She addressed her letter to renowned playwright and poet William Shakespeare, about his tragedy Romeo and Juliet. Tracy is from Charleston, West Virginia and attends Capital High School. Tracy's teacher, Rosalie Blaul, submitted this winning letter. It is an honor to pay tribute to Tracy Patton, a student that has committed herself to scholarship in reading and writing. Bright young minds such as hers are truly the future of the Mountain State, and I wish her congratulations.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, just briefly, I would like to join with the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Frank, in full support of this bill. I would also like to thank the Appropriations Committee for letting us bump up two bills so we could get ahead a little bit on our evening. I would like to reiterate just very quickly that this FHA program is a critical source of financing for affordable rental housing, and I am in full agreement that we should pass this bill, as it will help to mitigate any disruptions in the housing market. I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Molly Lovern and congratulate her as a state winner of the Library of Congress 2010 Letters About Literature competition. Letters About Literature is a program developed by the Library of Congress in partnership with Target Stores and state Centers for the Book. It aims to promote reading and writing to young people in fourth through twelfth grades across the nation. Students are encouraged to read a book, then write a letter to the author, dead or alive, conveying their appreciation for the book and its impact on their lives. More than 70,000 students from across the nation that entered the contest, a 25% increase from last year's competition. The Letters About Literature competition divided students into three divisions by age, and the top letter from each age level were chosen from the states. Level two included all students in seventh and eighth grades. Molly was chosen as the Level 2 winner for 2010 by West Virginia's panel of judges, comprised of authors, editors, publishers, librarians, and teachers. She addressed her letter to Jean-Dominique Bouby, about his book, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Molly is from Fairmont, West Virginia and attends Bluefield Middle School. Molly's teacher, Mrs. Putorek, submitted the winning letter. It is an honor to pay tribute to Molly Lovern, a student that has committed herself to scholarship in reading and writing. Bright young minds such as hers are truly the future of the Mountain State, and I wish her congratulations.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Cara Laswell and congratulate her as a state winner of the Library of Congress 2010 Letters About Literature competition. Letters About Literature is a program developed by the Library of Congress in partnership with Target Stores and state Centers for the Book. It aims to promote reading and writing to young people in fourth through twelfth grades across the nation. Students are encouraged to read a book, and then write a letter conveying their appreciation for the book and its impact on their lives to the author, living or dead. Of the 70,000 students from across the nation that entered the contest, a 25% increase from last year's competition. Cara was chosen as the 2010 state winner by West Virginia's panel of judges, comprised of authors, editors, publishers, librarians, and teachers. The contest divided students into three divisions by age, and the top letter from each age level were chosen from the states. The youngest division included students from fourth through sixth grades. Cara Laswell from Fairmont wrote the winning Level 1 letter from West Virginia. Her letter was addressed to Jerry Spinelli about his book Stargirl. Cara attends Fairmont Catholic Elementary School, and her letter was submitted by her teacher Cynthia Garcia. It is an honor to pay tribute to Cara Laswell, a young student that has committed herself to scholarship in reading and writing. Bright young minds such as hers are truly the future of the Mountain State, and I wish her congratulations.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I know we're going to have a big debate on flood insurance and wind insurance and I'm going to be participating in that, but I wanted to talk about, obviously, the YouCut program. There is nothing that is upsetting to more people across the State of West Virginia that I see every day than the overspending, the debt and deficit that is just overwhelming them and this country. But the YouCut program, since its inception, 1.3 million Americans have weighed in on where they think we can cut government spending. Folks from all across America are tightening their budgets. This summer, they're deciding? Can we go on vacation. Can we go for 2 days. Can we go for a week. Can we fly. Can we drive. Should we go out to dinner? Should we stay in? All these are economic questions that we ask in our families every single day, and those are the kinds of questions that we should be asking here in Washington. Where can we tighten our belts and save our money so that our next generations and the generations beyond us are going to have the kind of America that we have and our parents enabled us to have? People are rightly disgusted by the gross abuse, I think, of taxpayer money on pet projects and overbloated Federal programs, but I think we're listening. Republicans are listening and we're taking action. House Republicans have already offered $120 billion in spending cuts, but the Democrats insist on continuing down this dangerous path of overspending. Now, some of the cuts we've offered haven't really been what would be considered, around Washington, huge amounts, maybe just hundreds of millions or billions, but come on. This is real money. This is taxpayers dollars, and so if you have to start on a smaller amount and grow it larger, we all know it eventually will make a dent. So this week I'm casting my vote in support of my colleague's proposal to quit subsidizing first class subsidies to Amtrak. Only 16 percent of the passengers opt for first class, yet we are subsidizing the first class seats in Amtrak to the point of $1.3 billion of subsidy that goes to those who choose to purchase first class seats with Amtrak. Amtrak's a great thing, comes in my district, goes right through the center of the State on out to the West. But people who have first class and want to buy first class seats should be able to pay for it. It should be priced accordingly. So I think this is a good way to save, over 10 years, $1.2 billion of taxpayers' money. Let's give the American people what they're wanting, that is, fiscal restraint and responsibility. That's what American families across this country are exercising across their kitchen table. That's what we should be doing here across the budget table in the United States Congress.

Mrs. CAPITO

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.

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

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

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

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 an $18 billion debt to the Treasury now and the persistence of subsidized premium rates for properties in high-risk areas, the NFIP continues to be underfunded and Federal taxpayers remain at risk. Unfortunately, recent temporary lapses of the NFIP created uncertainty in the housing market and resulted in negative consequences for home buyers trying to purchase flood insurance protection in high- risk areas where it is required. While many property owners depend on flood insurance for some measure of financial security, and many more should consider purchasing it to protect themselves from potential losses, fundamental reforms are needed to make the flood insurance program more self-sufficient, reduce the potential for losses, and minimize the financial risk to taxpayers. In the long run, it is my hope, along with most of my Republican colleagues, that all flood insurance premium rate subsidies should be eliminated and underwriting risks should be transferred to the private insurance market to the maximum extent possible. In this respect, the provisions of H.R. 5114 that phase out and eventually eliminate certain premium rate subsidies represent very positive steps. The bill includes constructive measures to eliminate subsidized rates over time for nonresidential properties and nonprimary residences, including second homes and vacation homes. H.R. 5114 also raises the cap on rate increases from 10 to 20 percent, which will allow the NFIP to charge premiums more appropriate to the risk within a shorter period of time. These useful reforms are overshadowed, unfortunately, by provisions authorizing almost $500 million in new Federal spending for new mitigation and outreach grant programs and to establish an Office of Flood Insurance Advocate within FEMA, which administers the Flood Insurance Program. While there is a definite need to improve FEMA's communication with communities and to increase advocacy about the impact of the new flood risk maps, Republicans believe that this effort should be undertaken using the existing NFIP funds, rather than new Federal spending in this time of historic deficits. I know some of my Republican colleagues offered amendments to do just this, to address these concerns. And I wish that they had been made in order today, as their inclusion would have enhanced our debate. The NFIP was originally intended to reduce the need for emergency disaster assistance from Federal taxpayers to local communities, and the program has a long ways to go to reach the point of being self- funded and self-sustaining. Furthermore, I believe that Congress has an obligation to U.S. taxpayers to challenge the premise that most flooding hazards will never be insurable by the private insurance market. I remain committed to enacting comprehensive reforms that not only modernize the National Flood Insurance Program so that homeowners will continue to have access to flood insurance, but at the same time protect the American taxpayer. I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Mrs. CAPITO. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPITO. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 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.

Mrs. CAPITO. 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.

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

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