Timothy Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the 100th anniversary of an important community service organization in Champaign, Illinois. The Champaign County Farm Bureau was founded in 1913 and has grown into a vital element of all Champaign County farmers. For the past 100 years, the Champaign County Farm Bureau, like farm bureaus everywhere, has brought together farmers across the county to discuss ways to band together to keep agriculture profitable. Not only are they teaching the importance of agriculture to the county but also the nation. I applaud the willingness of the Champaign County Farm Bureau for stepping forward and showing how modern agriculture is feeding the world today. The Champaign County Farm Bureau provides critical information to its truly visionary farmers in the county and in the halls of government here in Washington and in our great State of Illinois. But their efforts don't stop there; they understand the importance of talking and discussing with consumers where their food comes from. They impress upon those they meet that United States' farmers produce the safest, most reliable, and most affordable food supply in the world! I believe that the mission statement of the Champaign County Farm Bureau says it all: They will strive to assist families in agriculture by recognizing and responding to issues of concern while strengthening partnerships and improving farm family life for this and future generations. I want to congratulate President Watson, Manager Uken and all the members of the Champaign County Farm Bureau, past and present, on celebrating their 100th anniversary. I want to join with the other Members of this House in wishing them continued success for another 100 years and beyond.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to President Obama's administrative rule requiring religious institutions that provide health insurance policies to supply coverage for medicines and procedures that violate the tenets of their faith. Freedom of religion is one of the foundations of our country. Famously, in the early days of the Republic, the Vatican requested permission of the Continental Congress to appoint a bishop. The Congress wisely declined the appointment, recognizing that there was no appropriate role for government in the regulation of church activities. Now, over 200 years later, the Obama administration wants to roll back the clock and make decisions for religious institutions that should properly be left to those institutions. People freely associate themselves with churches and their affiliated organizations, such as hospitals and schools. In doing so, they accept that they will abide by the rules of those organizations. The Obama administration has uniformly usurped the autonomy of each institution to set those rules upon themselves. This is a dangerous precedent. It is not difficult to see further encroachments by the ``all powerful'' federal government upon the rights and privileges of church communities. Will the Department of Education begin setting curriculum standards for private religious schools? Will the Department of Labor set standards of employment for Catholic health facilities? Will the Department of Health and Human Services begin requiring end of life counseling that violates the teachings of certain religions? During the healthcare debate of 2010 and after, assurances were given to Members of Congress and to leaders of religious organizations that nothing in the bill would or could be used to violate the right of conscience of any faithful American. I voted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, in part, because I feared exactly this; it is being used as a lever to force values upon the American people that are contrary to their own beliefs. Let us hope this and future Congresses will work to repeal President Obama's takeover of healthcare and, by extension, the conscience of individual. Further, let us implement true healthcare reform that improves our system, lower costs, and protects the rights of Americans to have healthcare coverage that conforms to their values.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Leanna Cossman of Urbana, Illinois. In Febuary she will be making her sixth trip to assist people in Haiti, which has recently been devastated by natural disasters and disease. Mrs. Cossman's first journey to Haiti occurred shortly after the terrible earthquake in 2010. She returned to the country for a second time not long after to continue providing care for the hundreds of thousands still struggling. When Cholera began to spread among the refugees, Mrs. Cossman made another trip to help the sick and dying. She made two more trips in 2011, assisting relief workers with the nursing skills that she has practiced as a certified nurse for schools in Urbana. I would be remiss if I did not thank Jewish Healthcare International for sponsoring Mrs. Cossman's upcoming trip, as well as many others. Their organization and the people who volunteer for them have made an incredible impact in the lives of thousands of people. Mrs. Cossman's selflessness and dedication to providing help and care for others serves as an incredible example for people across our great nation, and I am truly honored to serve as a representative for such a caring individual. I want to personally thank Mrs. Cossman and her family, and let them know that her story is an inspiration not only to myself, but to all the members of Congress.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the life of Mr. Hiram Paley, former Mayor of Urbana, IL, and Associate Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois in Mathematics. Mr. Paley passed away on Monday, January 9, at the age of 78 at the Carle Foundation hospital in Urbana, IL, after his long fight with cancer. Hiram Paley was an excellent representation of what living the American dream is all about. He was born the son of Russian immigrants and rose above humble beginnings to obtain his doctorate in mathematics with a specialization in algebra. Mr. Paley became a professor at the University of Illinois in 1959 where he would meet his wife of over 50 years, Jean Paley. Together they had three children. He soon became active in the local community, eventually rising to the Office of Mayor for the town of Urbana, IL. He served a single term as Mayor. Afterward, he remained active in community events throughout the rest of his life. He remained always perceptive to the concerns of everyday citizens with whom he interacted. It is paramount to emphasize that although Hiram Paley was not of the same political affiliation as I, he was always civil and respectful toward individuals who did not share similar political philosophies. This is an underlying theme that we as leaders should glean most from this man's life. This ideal ought to be at the forefront of our debates today. Civility and discourse in politics may seem like a large river, seemingly impossible to cross, but in actuality, our political reality today is but a modest stream that is only in need of leadership to step across and achieve consensus. And that model is what government is truly about. Thank you, Mr. Paley, for your excellent example and extraordinary life, as well as your service to our Nation; you shall be missed tremendously.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sarah Bradbury, Brittney Evans, and Megan Schuler for their accomplishments in the Mattoon High School band. They have been selected to the All- State Concert Band and the All-State Orchestra. Bradbury, on French horn, will play with the All-State Concert Band while Evans, oboe, and Schuler, trombone, will play with the All-State orchestra. The three will represent the Mattoon High School Pride of the Green Wave Band Program at the Illinois Music Educators Association All-State Conference in Peoria. Rehearsals and performances will take place from Wednesday to Saturday. This is the highest honor for a junior or senior musician to accomplish; each participant went through a tough audition back in October. ``Of the tens of thousands of musicians throughout the state, 300 winds and percussionists are selected from nine districts to participate in the two All-State Concert Bands and Orchestras.'' The Mattoon High School Pride of the Green Wave band is directed by Todd Black and James Stanford. I would like to further congratulate these directors on a job well done; everyone's family, community, and school are extremely proud of the accomplishments of Sarah, Brittney, and Megan.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of a quick conclusion and passage of a multi-year Federal Aviation Administration Authorization. On Friday afternoon, I was pleased to see that a compromise was reached regarding language on union elections under the National Mediation Board. It was almost a year ago on February 11, 2011 that the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act was introduced. During this time, Congress passed five extensions contributing to the now 23 short-term extensions that the FAA has operated under for several years. Twenty-three times the FAA and thousands of employees who rely on the FAA have faced potential shutdowns and uncertainty due to Congressional inaction, with one two-week shutdown resulting in millions of dollars in lost federal revenue. The impact of these extensions is not limited to instability for Americans in the aviation industry and a loss of federal revenue. The lack of a multi-year authorization has stalled the implementation of the NextGen aviation system. When fully implemented, NextGen will allow for a more dynamic aviation system by allowing for quicker and more fuel efficient routes for aircraft and a more flexible aviation system. Each delay places our domestic aviation industry at risk of falling behind their international competitors. The passage of a multi- year FAA authorization bill ensures that NextGen will move forward and allow the United States to remain ahead of the world in implementing this system. I am confident that the FAA extension we passed earlier this week is the last extension needed to complete this process. When the remaining issues are resolved, we will be able to provide the aviation industry stability and show to the American people that Congress can work together and accomplish something.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I had a previously scheduled meeting with constituents in Champaign County Illinois and was unable to attend votes this evening. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' and ``yea'' on H.R. 1141, the Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act and H.R. 3117, the Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2011.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 98 disapproving of President Obama's request to increase the statutory debt limit of the United States. Though, I voted against the original bill authorizing this request, the Budget Control Act, I stand firmly in opposition to any increase in the debt limit and have been opposed in increases since 2005. Madam Speaker, reckless spending is crushing our economy. It must stop and we cannot continue to give a blank check with no strings attached to the powers that be. These powers, Republican and Democrat alike, have spent this country in to a fiscal catastrophe. I look forward to working with my colleagues to eliminate duplicative programs, wasteful spending, and reforming the way Congress does business. For example, I have recently introduced the Citizen Legislator Act and the Biennial Budgeting Act. These bills are starting the dialogue to create the fundamental changes so desperately needed in Washington as demanded by our constituents. Congress must be honest with itself and honest with the American people when discussing the defining issue of our time.-

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievement of a talented individual from Bloomington, IL. Alex Van Hoof recently placed 2nd in the class 1A Illinois cross country state meet. She finished the 3 mile course in an astounding 17 minutes and 18 seconds. This time also breaks her old record, which was the school record, by 9 seconds. I would also like to congratulate her coach Tom Engelhorn for his hard work with his team and with Alex. This young lady has represented herself, her school and her community in an exemplary fashion and I want to join with all the members of this House in wishing her continued success in her athletic and academic endeavors.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 2011 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Women's Volleyball Team. This talented group of young women truly represents the epitome of athleticism, dedication, and perseverance as the team placed 2nd in the country in the Division I NCAA Tournament. This marked the first time in history that this Illini organization has made it to the finals of this competition. I would like to also congratulate Kevin Hambly, the head coach, as well as his fellow coaches and staff members who helped guide the 2011 Women's Volleyball Team to accomplish greatness. Mr. Hambly was recently named the National Coach of the Year by Volleyball Magazine. In addition, this publication named Michelle Bartsch as a first-team All-American and Colleen Ward as a second-team All-American. I would also like to note that 11 of the young women on the 2011 Women's Volleyball Team placed among the top 60 in each of their recruiting classes. It is undeniable that the women on this team all serve as role models for community that I represent, and it is honors such as these that make me incredibly proud to call the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign my alma mater.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong objection to the animosity and gridlock that's been the overarching theme of this first session of the 112th Congress. I make dozens of calls and similar personal contacts directly with my constituents every day, probably more than any other Member of Congress. These people live in the real world beyond the beltway environment in which too many public officials live and work, sheltered from reality, by communication primarily with each other in a self- created climate that bears little similarity to the rest of America. In my years in public office, I have never heard the level of anger I hear today. Our approval ratings are in the tank, and they should be. We are gripped in gridlock because people on both sides of the aisle in both Chambers and in the White House are more concerned with politics than progress. As our economy continues to stagger, our attention should be focused on putting people to work and providing a stability in public policy. We can only do that through cooperation, compromise, and civility. My message to leadership and membership, including myself, in both Chambers is this: We have to do the business the people expect us to do, efficiently and in an adult-like manner. Anything less is both irresponsible and unacceptable. We can and we should do vastly better than what we are.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 13, 2011, I was unable to attend the first vote of a Point of Order for Unfunded Mandate on H.R. 3630 raised by Representative Moore. The Chair then called a Question of Consideration to Rule for H.R. 3630. As you know, the House was not scheduled to be in Session this week and Monday evening I held a listening event with concerned citizens in the town of Savoy. I could not, in good conscience, cancel on a group that had been on my schedule for several months. On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, I was traveling from my district to Washington, DC, when this unanticipated Point of Order was raised. Had I been present, my votes would have been as follows: for Question of Consideration of the Resolution, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 12, 2011, I was unable to attend votes due to a previously scheduled appointment. Monday evening I held a listening event with concerned citizens in the town of Savoy. I could not, in good conscience, cancel on a group that had been on my schedule for several months. Had I been present, my votes would have been as follows: For H.R. 3320 and H.R. 2158, I would have voted ``yea,'' Master Sergeant Daniel L. Fedder honorably served the United States and I am proud he can be remembered through the naming of this post office. Wayne Grisham was a steadfast public servant who shares my passion for civility in politics. For Approval of the Journal, I would have voted ``yea.'' Democrat Motion to Adjourn, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our guest chaplain, Pastor Marty Springer, who has served as both an example of his faith and civic duty. Pastor Springer was raised in southern California, the youngest son of Marshall and Doris Springer. After graduating from high school, he worked in a bank while attending junior college and joined the United States Air Force in December of 1982. During his time serving on active duty, he was selected for the honor of serving in the Office of Presidential Protocol at Andrews Air Force Base during the Presidency of President Ronald Reagan. He entered the Air Force Reserve in 1986 and also took a civil service position at Scott Air Force Base where he was the director of personnel for an Air Force telecommunications agency responsible for all aspects of manpower, personnel, and training. During Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield, Pastor Springer was recalled to serve in active duty and received the Air Force Achievement Medal for his service. After 15 years of service to his Nation, Pastor Springer was called to serve God and entered Concordia Seminary in St. Louis in 1977. After graduating, Pastor Springer was ordained as a pastor of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod in 2000. He received his first call to Saint John Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Chester, Illinois. His service to his church and his community, including his work as chairman of the Chester Veterans Memorial Committee, earned him the honor of Outstanding Citizen of Chester in 2001. Today, Pastor Springer serves as senior pastor of Trinity Lutheran Ministries of Edwardsville, Illinois, where he oversees a church, Christian day school, and a day school center. He has completed three mission trips to Kazakhstan, Haiti, and Honduras and is working to complete his clinical pastoral education at Alexian Brothers Medical System in St. Louis. Pastor Springer has been a model of service for his community, his church, and his Nation; and it's truly my honor, Pastor, to join my colleagues in welcoming you as our guest chaplain. It's a privilege to represent you, and it's a privilege that you're here today.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the underlying bill and the rule. This is a critical issue with respect to Americans' basic rights. Courts have held over almost a century and a half that the right to bear arms is simply more than the Second and the 14th Amendment. It decided in the case of Beard v. U.S. in 1895 that citizens were entitled to repel force by force, and entitled to stand their ground and meet any attack made on them by a deadly weapon. They then ruled 3 years ago in the D.C. v. Heller case, where they essentially declared self-defense as an inherent right central to the Second Amendment. And then in the case emanating in my State of Illinois, in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, further elaborated and extended that constitutional protection. So the underlying bill and American citizens' right and the ability to carry firearms from State to State and to have that essential right built in, I think, is critical. I rise in reluctant support, however, of the rule and the bill only from this standpoint, and that's the reason, in part, for my time here today, which I thank the gentleman for and I thank the Members of this Chamber for. Illinois is unique in that we have no carry-conceal weapon law. We have no ability on the part of Illinois citizens to defend themselves. We have no right or ability on the part of Illinois citizens to exercise their Second and 14th Amendment rights. This bill, as it now reads, would extend the right only to other States--and I'm supportive of that because I think it's critical that we extend that right--but I am committed, as well as a number of my Illinois colleagues, and I think Second Amendment and fundamental rights Congressmen throughout the United States, to restore that right and to bring that right to Illinois citizens. Time after time after time, as I visit the coffee houses, as I meet with individuals throughout the district, as I meet with people throughout the State, we are essentially denied in Illinois the rights and privileges of every other citizen of every other State in the Union except Illinois. That's a glaring deficiency, it's an omission, and I believe, frankly, that it strikes at the core of our constitutional guarantees. I am going to continue to fight, not only on this bill, but on standalone legislation down the line and through the process to bring to Illinois the same rights, keep and bear arms, Second and 14th Amendment rights, that other citizens have throughout the country. It's extraordinarily important. It reaches at the essence of our Constitution, the essence of our guarantees as participants in a republic of civil liberties, and I believe that it is critical that we continue the fight now together with my colleagues, Congressman Hultgren and others from Illinois who have joined me in this process.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. I appreciate the time. I support the bill. I support the rule. But I also support--and I want to conclude by saying this--Illinois citizens' right to keep and bear arms that are being flagrantly denied by our Illinois legislature.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 674 is an extremely crucial piece of legislation that will permanently repeal the 3 percent withholding requirement on all government contracts. Once before, the tax's implementation date had been extended. H.R. 674 will remove any uncertainty from contractors that this tax would eventually be placed upon them. During these difficult economic times, this extra tax would limit access to capital, increase operating expenses, and take money out of local economies fortunate enough to have contracts to build infrastructure. That means, not only would businesses be burdened, but whole communities as well, because these local contractors would not be able to hire more local workers. As a result, infrastructure projects would slow, further burdening businesses, communities, and citizens that rely on infrastructure for transportation to work, running water for their families, and interstates to move goods and services. To further exemplify my support for H.R. 674, of which I am a cosponsor, prior to final passage, I will vote against the Motion to Recommit. This vote will drastically alter the bill and negate any positive affect this bill will have on the American economy.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday October 27, 2011 I inadvertently missed the vote on final passage of H.R. 674. I would have cast a ``yea'' vote.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Madam Chair, the amendment addressed issues of public health which are critical, but the amendment was too vague and likely redundant. Accordingly, and unusually, a ``present'' vote would be appropriate. At the time of the vote, I was dealing with two constituents, and their problems with Social Security and Post Office closure, and inadvertently missed the vote.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 794, had I been present, I would have voted ``present.'' Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 18, 2011, I was unable to attend votes due to conflicting appointments as a result of the change in the legislative calendar for this week. Monday evening I held a listening event with local farmers at the fairgrounds. Had there been advance notice of a schedule change, I would have moved my appointment with the farmers. However, I could not, in good conscience, cancel on a group that had been on my schedule for several months. Had I been present, my votes would have been as follows: For H.R. 33, I would have voted, ``yea''. I believe this suspension resolves financial uncertainty for churches, especially during this rough economic period. For Approval of the Journal, I would have voted, ``yea''.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on Monday July 11, 2011, due to inclement weather in Chicago, Illinois, I was unable to cast my votes for Roll Nos. 534, 535, 536, 537, and 538. I was originally booked on United flight 5347 from Springfield at 1:15 (CST), connecting to United flight 704 leaving O'Hare at 3:00 p.m. and arriving in DCA at 5:49 (EST). I was also backed up on American Airlines flight 3879 departing Chicago O'Hare at 3:00 p.m. However, I could not make either of these flights due to my original flight from Springfield being delayed until 7:00 p.m. Had I been present, my votes would have been as follows: For Roll No. 534, to increase funding for the Corps of Engineers construction by $133.8 million and Operations and Maintenance by $51 million and reduce funding for Nuclear Energy by $133.8 million and Fossil Energy Research and Development by $92.8 million, I would have voted ``nay.'' For Roll No. 535, which reduces the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife project by $1.75 million and increases Operations and Maintenance by $1 million for levee repair, I would have voted ``yea.'' In light of the recent problems with flooding along the Mississippi, this transfer appears to be prudent. For Roll No. 536, which transfer $6.3 million from supervision and general administrative expenses in the headquarters of the Corps of Engineers to Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance for dredging of waterways, I would have voted ``yea.'' As with Roll No. 535, recent flooding problems make this transfer prudent. For Roll No. 537, which transfers $4.9 million from Operation and Maintenance for global warming to the Spending Reduction Account, I would have voted ``yea.'' I have voted to cut spending in a host of programs including those with which I am sympathetic. For Roll No. 538, which transfers $3.25 billion from various research and development accounts and regional economic development commissions to the Spending Reduction Account, I would have voted ``yea.'' I have voted to cut spending in a host of programs including those with which I am sympathetic.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Sherman and would like to make a few points. First, I would like to point out that I fully understand and support the goal of encouraging private sector involvement in offering flood insurance and exploring ways to diminish unnecessary reliance on government programs. However, I am not convinced that this amendment gets us any closer to achieve this goal. In fact, this Amendment may actually put Congress in the position of picking winners and losers in the market place, interfering with private contracts, and creating millions of dollars in new federal spending. I would like to make the following points: Regardless of whether a flood insurance policy is provided through NFIP Direct or through a WYO insurer, the federal government is responsible for all losses covered under the policy. Regardless of whether a policy is issued by NFIP Direct of a WYO insurer, a private company will handle all aspects of policy issuance and claims administration and these services will be paid for through the federal government. FEMA has informed Congress that private contractors handling NFIP Direct policies can manage the recently transferred policies for $50 million less each year than WYO carriers. This is a savings of $250 million for the life of the bill. Redistribution of these policies destroys consumer choice and dictates to consumers the company and agent they are required to use for flood insurance while taking property from the agents who produce the business. This redistribution affects flood insurance policy holders and insurance agents in every Congressional District across the country. The only thing this amendment accomplishes is the forcible transfer of polices from one group to another, with absolutely no cost savings and no improvement in customer service. There are many questions to answer, and I believe the Committee took the right step in requesting a study before acting on the issue. Unfortunately, we seem to be acting today before we have these answers. I would like to submit the following statements: (1) A summary of the issue provided to the Senate Banking Committee in connection with their hearings on NFIP authorization; and (2) A letter from FEMA to House Financial Services and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Neugebauer answering questions about the redistribution amendment and highlighting the increased cost to taxpayers of this amendment. State Farm Insurance--June 30, 2011 State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm) Views on Efforts to Redistribute NFIP Direct Policies to Write Your Own Insurers State Farm supports reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and would like to take this opportunity to clear up any confusion surrounding State Farm's and its agents' participation in the NFIP and the operational differences between flood insurance policies distributed through the Write Your Own (WYO) program and NFIP Direct. I. The Proposed Redistribution of NFIP Policies Will Not Decrease the Federal Government's Risk Unfortunately, under the guise of NFIP ``reform,'' the attributes of the WYO and NFIP Direct distribution channels have been mischaracterized in order to pursue an ill-advised scheme to enlist the federal government's powers to take insurance business marketed, solicited, and sold by one group of private insurance agents and redistribute those policies to other agents and companies who had no role in generating these policies in the first instance. There are proprietary rights of insurance agents at stake in this matter. Characterized as NFIP ``depopulation,'' this scheme hijacks familiar terminology relating to programs used in several states that transfer insurance policies out of state-run insurance pools into the private sector. However, unlike ``depopulation'' at the state level, where the entire risk of a policy is shifted to the private insurer, the scheme as advocated for NFIP merely redistributes customers, policies, and revenues associated with administering those policies from private businesses connected with NFIP Direct to selected WYO insurers. No changes are made in the risk bearing of companies in the WYO distribution channel. The federal government retains 100% responsibility for paying all covered flood losses. Far from being an effort towards privatization reform, the true nature of WYO participation is captured best in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing of a firm that is the largest WYO insurer--Fidelity National Financial, Inc. As described in the firm's most recent Form 10-K for calendar year 2010: ``We earn fees under [the NFIP] program for settling flood claims and administering the program. We serve as administrator and processor in our flood insurance business, and bear none of the underwriting or claims risk. The U.S. federal government is guarantor of flood insurance coverage written under the NFIP and bears the underwriting risk. Revenues from our flood insurance business are impacted by the volume and magnitude of claims processed as well as the volume and rates for policies written. For example, when a large number of claims are processed as a result of a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, we experience an increase in the fees that we receive for settling the claims.'' The suggestion that this confiscatory redistribution scheme would shrink the public sector while growing the private sector is wrong. It also completely ignores the fact that, just like the WYO program, NFIP Direct fully utilizes the private sector in handling flood insurance policies. To be clear: (1) Regardless of whether a flood insurance policy is provided through NFIP Direct or through a WYO insurer, the policy provides federal insurance coverage and the federal government is responsible for all losses covered under the policy; (2) NFIP redistribution is a confiscatory scheme that does not diminish federal obligations on a flood insurance policy placed with a WYO insurer; (3) Whether a policy is issued by NFIP Direct or a WYO insurer, a private company will handle all aspects of policy issuance and claims administration and these services will be paid for through the federal government; (4) Since NFIP costs are funded entirely with federal monies and FEMA utilizes private parties for handling policies under both the WYO program and NFIP Direct, there are no demonstrated federal savings from redistributing federal flood insurance policies from NFIP Direct to WYO insurers; (5) Redistribution of NFIP Direct policies to WYO insurers does nothing to increase consumer participation rates which are critical to program solvency; redistribution actually creates disincentives for more than 17,000 agents to increase such participation rates; and (6) Redistribution destroys consumer choice and dictates to consumers the company and/or agent they are required to use for flood insurance while taking property from the agents who produced the business. Following is more detailed background information. II. Background on NFIP a. The WYO Program and State Farm's Participation The NFIP program has been in place since 1968. The NFIP's WYO program began in 1983 through statute and federal rule as a financial arrangement between participating property and casualty insurers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The WYO program permits participating property and casualty insurers to sell and service the NFIP's standard flood insurance policies in their own names. Although participating insurance companies receive an expense allowance for policies written and claims processed, the federal government retains full responsibility for underwriting losses and all premiums paid by purchasers of flood insurance go into the US. Treasury. Currently, about 88 insurance companies participate in the WYO arrangement with FEMA; this is a decrease from previous years. Insurers participate in the program through a WYO Arrangement. FEMA publishes the WYO Arrangement, which is a federal rule, in the Federal Register before the end of August every year. Each WYO insurer considers annually whether or not to sign the WYO arrangement. State Farm began its WYO participation in 1985. Following its entry in the program, each year State Farm carefully evaluated its continuing participation in the WYO Arrangement. In recent years, NFIP has presented a more challenging landscape of changing requirements and directives which requires the expenditure of resources with varying degrees of notice and clarity of instruction. In addition, the WYO program's continuing existence became more uncertain with each gap in authorizations and there were numerous occasions when the program was allowed to lapse. These situations complicated our ability to serve our customers' needs. Subsequently, State Farm made a very difficult business decision to no longer participate in the WYO Arrangement. b. Transition to NFIP Direct and Meeting Customer Needs: Based on existing regulations, State Farm's orderly transfer plan was structured in a way that permitted State Farm agents to continue servicing their customers' needs through NFIP Direct, regardless of whether State Farm itself participated as a WYO insurer. For example, under the Arrangement, a WYO company has the option to sell its book of business to another WYO insurer (subject to FEMA approval) or to transfer policies to the NFIP Direct program. State Farm exercised the option to transfer the policies to the NFIP Direct Program, which avoided the potential for substantial customer confusion and disrupting the relationship customers have with their State Farm agent. More specifically, in utilizing NFIP Direct, the State Farm agent remains the agent of record on transferred policies. This means that State Farm's decision to discontinue participation in the WYO Arrangement did nothing to undermine our exclusive independent contractor agents' ability to continue servicing the needs of their flood insurance customers who maintained or sought federal flood insurance protection in the future. From a consumer perspective, this seamless transition of the policies was effortless; renewal of flood insurance coverage did not require any additional steps by policyholders. The customer placed their coverage as they did previously-- through their State Farm agent, an individual who was a familiar face to the customer and had an existing understanding of the customer's property and needs. State Farm did not receive any compensation for its orderly transfer of policies to NFIP Direct. Of approximately 800,000 policies, State Farm has transferred to date over 550,000 policies. Each State Farm WYO policyholder has already received a notice regarding the transfer plan. Each policyholder has also received or will receive a second notice prior to the policy transfer. c. The Critical Role of State Farm Agents Perhaps more important to the functioning of NFIP, active agent participation in the marketing and selling flood insurance is a significant issue of concern to FEMA. It is widely recognized that one major shortcoming of the NFIP is that the purchase of flood insurance is often limited to only those who need coverage or are mandated to purchase coverage in connection with the purchase of a home. This limited demand impedes the ability of the NFIP to broaden its insurance base to satisfy a fundamental tenet of insurance underwriting--spreading the risk of loss among a larger and more diverse pool of policyholders who are unlikely to experience losses at the same time. Consequently, an agent workforce actively engaged in marketing and soliciting NFIP policies is a critical component of making the program more actuarially sound. Indeed, FEMA recognized that having State Farm agents actively market and sell NFIP Direct policies is a major benefit to the program. However, if the federal government were to redistribute policies brought into NFIP by an agent to another company or agent (which includes commissions), the incentive for agents to originate policies in NFIP Direct would be removed without any commensurate benefit, which would undermine the entire program. Equally pernicious, it would be tantamount to a government taking of business property from individual businessmen and businesswomen solely for the benefit of another private party. III. Proposed Redistribution Scheme Offers No Cost Advantage: Private Parties Handle the Servicing of all NFIP Policies Regardless of Who Distributes Them Contrary to the assertions made by supporters of NFIP ``depopulation,'' the confiscatory redistribution of NFIP Direct policies to WYO insurers will not create smaller government, increase the role of the private sector, or diminish the government's risk of loss on flood insurance policies. All NFIP policies have an agent of record that handles the sales and some aspects of servicing. These agents may or may not be associated with a WYO company, but they are paid a commission through NFIP, regardless of whether they are affiliated with a WYO company or not. A similar pattern is followed for claims handling where private sector parties service all NFIP claims regardless of how they are distributed. Claims handling for NFIP Direct policies is done by a private contractor, Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), through a competitively bid contract. Furthermore, as described in its own marketing materials, CSC provides identical services to several WYO carriers, including some of the largest. As a result, there is a strong probability that the so-called ``reforms'' achieved through confiscatory redistribution would do nothing more than transfer the handling of flood insurance policies from CSC under its NFIP Direct hat to CSC wearing its WYO hat. Significantly, the proponents of confiscatory redistribution have not produced any evidence suggesting that their servicing will save the NFIP money. Indeed, the only difference for policies so redistributed would be that insurance agents--primarily small businesspeople who sold the flood policy in the first instance, would see their book of business confiscated by the federal government and simply handed over to another company. This is not reform and is not about ``making the government smaller.'' IV. Proposed Redistribution Scheme Destroys Consumer Choice Another insidious result of NFIP confiscatory redistribution is the elimination of consumer choice and engaging the federal government to forcibly require consumers to accept companies and/or agents with whom they have no prior relationship, or, even worse, whom they have affirmatively rejected in the past. Far from creating a seamless transition for consumers, redistribution generates several problems. For example, if a consumer has chosen to work with an agent and has been with an agent for many years, should the federal government overrule the consumer's choice through redistribution? What if a policy has been redistributed to a company with whom the consumer does not want to do business? Does the consumer have any control? Does the federal government really want to be involved in this type of decision? V. Conclusion ``Depopulation'' of NFIP is a myth. Current efforts along these lines are nothing more than a scheme to use the federal government's authority to redistribute existing policies from one group of private insurance agents and give that business to other private entities. This confiscatory redistribution scheme makes no changes in the federal government's risk exposure under NFIP, fails to increase participation rates in purchasing flood insurance, provides no demonstrated savings to the federal government, and destroys consumer choice. Such measures should be opposed.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. I thank the distinguished sponsor and would preface my comments by saying I am strongly in support of Congresswoman Biggert's superb piece of legislation. However, I rise today in opposition to this amendment offered by Representative Sherman. I would like to point out first that I fully understand and support the goal of encouraging private sector involvement and exploring ways to diminish unnecessary reliance on government programs. However, I am not convinced, in fact I am unconvinced, this amendment gets us any closer to achieving that goal. In fact, this amendment may put Congress in the position of choosing winners and losers in the marketplace, interfering with private contracts, and creating millions of dollars in new Federal spending. I would like to make the following points: regardless of whether a flood insurance policy is provided through NFIP Direct or WIO, the Federal Government's responsible for all the losses incurred under the policy. FEMA has informed Congress that private contractors handling NFIP Direct policies can manage the recently transferred policies for $50 million less, which is a saving of $250 million over the life of the bill. I don't have to tell any individuals in today's world what that means. Redistribution of these policies destroys, in my judgment, consumer choice, dictates to consumers the company and agent they are required to use for flood insurance, while taking property from the agents who produce the business. This redistribution affects flood insurance policyholders and insurance agents in every district in the country. Really, the only thing this amendment does is the forcible transfer of policies from one group to the other with not only no cost savings, with significant costs to the Federal Government. A lot of questions to answer. I believe the committee and Representative Biggert took the right approach in requesting a study before acting on the issue. Unfortunately, today, we seem to be acting contrary-wise before we have these answers. With all due respect again to the sponsor of the amendment, and certainly in concert with the sponsor of the bill, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 533, the rule on H. Res. 340 appears to contain amendments which could be adverse to economic interests in the State of Illinois, subject to further study. The rule is traditionally a procedural, partisan matter. Accordingly, despite my presence on the floor in the center aisle, I chose to abstain. Had I voted, I would have voted, ``present.''