Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in the hopes that this rule will be a model that my colleagues will follow. It actually puts in order just about every amendment that ought to be put in order, and I hope that is a precedent. The bill also represents, I think, the legislative process at its best. We began this a couple of years ago. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is still a Member, and the former Member from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) formed a very effective bipartisan coalition to take the floodplain program and to preserve its essence to provide assistance to Americans who could not get it from the private market without this government program. Let me stress that this is a case where we are putting forward a Federal government program to meet a problem that will not be met by the private market. And for my friends who subscribe to the maxim of the former majority leader from Texas (Mr. Armey) that markets are smart and government is dumb, I guess he would think what we are doing today is dumb, but he is probably the only one in the country who does. Because we are now dealing with a market failure in the economic sense by having a government program, but it should be a sensible government program. It was not as sensible as it should be. We began a process when the gentleman from Oregon and the gentleman from Nebraska came to us, and this was a collaborative effort between myself as the ranking member and the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). We found one of those cases where you could improve a program from both the environmental and fiscal standpoints, and we have legislation today that takes an important program that meets a very pressing social need, the ability of people who live in flood plain areas to continue to live and to get insurance at a reasonable cost, and we make it better environmentally, less likely that there will be building in environmentally unwise areas and in unwise circumstances, and we make it less of a fiscal problem with the Federal Government. Now, clearly, people recognize the problem. In the case of Katrina, we spent a great deal of money and got too little in return. There were some problems there from the standpoint of levee construction and a number of other things. We can't, in a bill like this, obviously, prevent disasters. What we can do is increase our ability to work with them. So I am very proud of this bill. There is one amendment in particular, and a number of the amendments will get bipartisan support. Our colleague from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who lived through some of the worst of this personally, has a very important amendment. I strongly advocate for it. I wish he had gotten more than 10 minutes to discuss it. So I am going to talk a little bit about it now. We will talk some more about it in the general debate. It deals with the problem that homeowners face when they are told that they will not get any compensation for damage if it was caused by water, when they are told that it was caused by water, when they have very good reason to think it was caused by wind. There is this split. Wind damage is covered by private homeowner policies, water damage by flood damage, by the flood insurance program. There is very good reason to believe that people have not been treated fairly in this situation. The gentleman from Mississippi, who has been one of the most tireless and energetic defenders of the rights of citizens in this program, has an amendment that would bring to bear the administrative resources to look into this issue. We cannot regulate State insurance, but we can, at the intersection of the Federal fund insurance program, the State insurance, bring to bear our investigative and other resources. The gentleman from Mississippi's amendment is an essential piece of trying to treat people fairly in the past but, even more, preventing abuses in the future. So I strongly urge people to vote for it. In general, we have a good bill. There are amendments from both parties that will improve it. There are some amendments that I will oppose on the whole. It is a legislative effort that will make an important program environmentally better and fiscally better and meet, as I said, a defect the private market on its own cannot meet.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. We sometimes get into confusing phrases here. We are talking about pre-FIRM. I know a lot of us are worrying about that stage in life when you are post-FIRM. But here we are talking about an important issue. I am torn on this. I have been ambivalent. I opposed this amendment in committee. I thought some more about it. Both my friends, both the gentleman from Oregon and the gentleman from New Jersey, make some good points, and I would say this: I expect this amendment will probably get adopted. But I hope we can do this. In general, I think it is a reasonable thing to do, but there are low-income buyers, owners, who, through no fault of their own, they weren't warned, find themselves in this position, and there is the danger that the one small asset they have can get devalued. Our colleague from Texas, Mr. Green, had an amendment that tried to provide some relief on premiums for people in the very low end. I would hope if this amendment were adopted, I would address this to the chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana and others, we might then as a committee take up the question of whether some relief might be appropriate for people who are at the lowest end of the spectrum, people who do own a home, but that is about all they have. I think this is a case where the general principle is a good one, but a negative impact may be excessive on some people at the lower end. So that would be my hope, we would then, because this is an ongoing process, be able to look at that.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I fully agree with the statement of the chairman, and I am very proud to say that this is part of an ongoing, bipartisan effort that this committee has undertaken. A few years ago, we found a flood insurance program which was both important but flawed in a number of ways, and we began, at the urging of our former colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, and our continuing colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), to make improvements. We have not been able to get everything we wanted, but we have improved it. This bill takes substantial steps forward, and I think it is important for Members to know this is a bill which makes improvements at the same time from both the environmental and the fiscal standpoints. We make it a better program, we make it a more responsible program fiscally, and we make it a more responsible program environmentally. There will be various amendments, many of which I think are very important, including, and I want to particularly call attention to the amendment offered by our colleague from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who as much as anybody in this House encountered personally the problems of the flood insurance program, and he has a very important amendment that would go to the aid of individuals who have not been fairly treated, and I strongly will be supporting that amendment. We won't have a lot of time to debate it, and I wanted to say that now. I also want to make one general point that should not go unnoticed. We are dealing here with a public program. This is a case of the Federal Government stepping in to meet a very important social need that cannot be met by the private market. The private market is a wonderful thing and does great things, and in the area of insurance we rely heavily in this country on the private market. But there are examples of market failure, not in a pejorative sense, but in a more technical sense. Flood insurance is one of them. If it were not for the role of the Federal Government here, there would be many, many Americans in great distress and unable to get the kind of insurance that they need. So for those who believe that the public sector is always the problem, that the private sector is not only a valuable part of our life but provides all good, and that you always ought to be denigrating the public sector, they probably don't want to vote for this bill. Because this is a bill which significantly improves a public sector response to a problem which, left without this, the private sector couldn't handle. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to one of our colleagues who has been dealing very directly with the negative consequences of the hurricanes and the damage that has been done, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 6 minutes to one of the Members who has really taken the lead in improving this program, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who is the ranking member of the subcommittee and who has been compiling a very productive record in the work of that subcommittee.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just want to be clear that I support this amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield further, I would just say that anytime the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from California support an amendment, I will be there.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), another representative who has great concerns, because of the area that she represents, with the fair worth of the program. But, before we do, I would note that this bill is being supported by the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste and Taxpayers for Common Sense. As I said, this is an unusual case, I think, where both environmental groups and groups primarily concerned with reducing government spending have come together in support of a piece of legislation. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to one of the Members who has really been in the forefront of trying to improve our national response to this crisis because of his own firsthand experience and the leadership he has had to show in the region that he represents and trying to deal with the otherwise inadequate Federal Government response to Katrina. I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in the absence of any opposition, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for the other 5 minutes.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I concur fully with the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Me, too.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentlewoman will yield, we also accept the amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would ask, would a page bring me the Constitution while we are talking?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we are further along than we were, but the phrase ``consensus,'' consensus is nice, but nothing in the House rules or the Constitution or the writings of John Jay say that it is a prerequisite for moving legislation. I would hope that the gentleman would say on an issue that we all agree is important, a bill will come to the floor, the majority will decide, but I do not think those of us not on the committee ought to only get an opportunity to legislate on this if there is a consensus. Now, if you are telling us do not do it as an amendment to the appropriations bill, Mr. Chairman, because the bill is going to come forward, we need to know that a bill is going to come forward, consensus or not, and then the House can decide what it wants to do.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court has made it very clear it will not referee fundamental constitutional debates over power between the executive and legislative branches. Only if you got a case would this get to the Court, and they will dodge and duck and never allow there to be a case. This is the only constitutional way to confront it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. In my remaining minute, I understand, I will say that my good friend from Pennsylvania I think is probably not distressed that we are talking about something that is not the heart of the bill. But the fact is, I will close by this, we are talking about it here because this is the only enforceable way to put restraints on the President. And I will tell you why I think it is important. Chaplain Yee at Guantanamo, Burton Mayfield in Oregon, Wen Ho Lee under the Clinton administration, there are, sadly, cases of entirely innocent individuals who were prosecuted and gone after. I don't think the President is ill intended here. And I think the law enforcement people are the good guys; I just don't think they are the perfect guys. So I want to give them power, but I want to subject that to some check beforehand and some process afterwards. And that is what we are saying here. We are fully in favor of empowering law enforcement, but we do not want them to be exclusive in the exercise of that power. And asking that they go before a judge to justify it when they are going to be wiretapping an American seems to us to be reasonable and to do no harm to America. And to repeat my answer to the gentleman from California: the opponents of this amendment are the proponents of the view that the President's power should be entirely unchecked, and that is dangerous.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.