Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3121, Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007

Floor Speech

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3121, FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - September 27, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we come today on the floor in September, 9 months into the 110th Congress under Democrat control where they promised us the most open, honest and transparent Congress in U.S. history. And looking back at yesterday on their last rules decision, what have they wrought? Just the opposite.

I come to the floor today, as well, to oppose this rule and to oppose the closed-door proceedings and partisanship that the other side has exhibited yesterday with the way that they handled their rule. Their methodology is basically closing out the voices of almost half of Americans when they want to have their voice heard here in this Congress. I, too, came and submitted an amendment to the committee. Although the other side indicates that 13 amendments were approved, there were no single Republican-initiated amendments approved last night. That is because, as I said, half of America's voices were silenced.

Now, the amendment to the rule that I proposed is quite simple, to try to bring back fairness to this flood program, a flood program that most Americans would support in a bipartisan approach. Picture this, if you will, out on perhaps the California Coast you have a mansion, a PreFIRM home, a mansion owned by some megastar, a movie star millionaire in that home. He is paying one rate for insurance. Next door, literally across the street, is this little 1970s home, a little bungalow, owned by a poor widow. She now is paying higher rates for her insurance. She, in essence, is subsidizing that multimillionaire movie star on the other side in this lavish megamansion that he may own by this poor widow.

Can't we do something about that? Yes. I propose an amendment that would bring actuarial fairness to this system. And I should say this, too. This was discussed in committee. The chairman of the committee said that he would work with me. My staff did work with his staff. I did work with the chairman. And the chairman even agreed with our language. The chairman even agreed, and I believe testified before the Rules Committee, that what we were doing here was bringing fairness to the committee and the rules process last night.

So, at this time, in my closing comments, I would just ask if the gentlewoman would be willing to enter into a colloquy to explain why is it that she will not, and the Rules Committee would not, enter into a discussion on this bill in Rules, and why is it that they wish to exclude this rule, and why would the gentlewoman in the Rules Committee decide that we should not have fairness, and why should the poor widow be subsidizing the rich and the millionaires in this country?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman if she can explain why this amendment was excluded last night.
Ms. MATSUI. I would just like to comment that we had a discussion yesterday. I must say that the Rules Committee is different this year than it was last year. I was in the minority last year. We have vigorous discussions in our committee. We have made in order 13 amendments.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the fact that the Rules Committee is different this year from last year, and that is obviously apparent, because only Democrat amendments would come through, and last year both Democrat and Republican amendments would go through.

If the gentlewoman could explain on the merits? I would gladly yield to the gentlewoman if the gentlewoman could address the point as to why this particular amendment was not considered to be appropriate to be considered for this rule, and why it is that we should have the poor and the infirm and those people who have been living in their homes for decades have to subsidize the rich and the wealthy in this country.

I would yield to the gentlewoman, if she would explain why the inequity should continue.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we made amendments in order last night, and I stand by the Rules Committee product. It might be that later on down the road you may want to work with the Financial Services Committee; but at this point in time, we did make 13 amendments in order.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the fact that the Rules Committee under Democrat control has included 13 Democrat amendments to their Democrat-proposed legislation here today. And if that is the new openness and the change in the process that they are presenting to us, should we anticipate that there is no need for Republicans to present any amendments to the Rules Committee in the future because they will only consider Democrat amendments? That is a sorry state for us today.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I heard the gentleman say that he had spent time working with the chairman of the committee on this inequity to make sure that if you brought forward that amendment, that he would not oppose it.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. That is exactly the case. I presented this amendment in committee and presented it and discussed it in committee. At that time, we entered into a colloquy in committee and the chairman said that perhaps we could work through this because there were some other technical aspects that needed to be changed. I was more than willing to take the chairman at his word, and he lived up to his word to the extent that for the next several weeks and months following the committee hearing, we did have a back-and-forth between staff and also the chairman on the floor, literally himself, and he was supportive of the final product we had.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source