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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise again today in strong opposition to this unnecessarily restrictive rule that completely closes down the legislative process to every single Republican amendment that was offered in hopes of bettering this bill before the Rules Committee. This modified closed rule is being offered by the broken-promise Democrat majority, is wrong on both process and on policy.

Yesterday evening, in the Rules Committee, the place where democracy goes to die in the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) stated that he welcomed debating any substantive amendment so long as the committee did not make in order multiple amendments with similar goals. Despite the chairman's wishes to allow for a fair and open debate on substantive amendments to this bill, Rules Committee Democrats, once again, instead chose to further solidify our committee's growing reputation as ``the graveyard of good ideas'' in the House of Representatives by rejecting five times each time, along straight party lines, attempts to improve this rule by including substantive amendments offered by Republicans.

Chairman Frank also testified that no amendment had been offered to the legislation that reflected the administration's opposition to this legislation, an inaccurate statement that I would like to clear up. First, my good friend from Georgia, the gentleman, Dr. TOM PRICE, electronically submitted a timely amendment to this bill that dealt with the substantive concerns raised by the administration. Dr. Price was then turned away from the Rules Committee and denied the opportunity to even offer this amendment when the paper copies reached the Rules Committee door 5 minutes after the arbitrary deadline that was set by the Rules Committee staff.

Next, Mr. Speaker, when it became obvious that the Rules Committee was going to silence Dr. Price, my good friend and Texas colleague, Congressman JEB HENSARLING, modified one of his amendments to address the substantive concerns over the addition of wind coverage to the National Flood Insurance Program that he shared in common with Dr. Price and President Bush. Unfortunately, Mr. Hensarling, too, has been shut out by this rule.

Despite numerous campaign promises by the highest-ranking Democrats in the House to run the most transparent, open and honest House in history, this Democrat majority has once again provided the House with the rule where none of this would be available.

Out of 26 amendments offered to this legislation, not one of the seven Republican amendments offered is made in order under the rule. It can't be for lack of time. There is simply no good reason to rush reauthorization for this legislation which doesn't even expire until next year. And the Democrats certainly found time enough to provide 13 Democrat amendment sponsors enough time to come to the floor to try and change this legislation. It can't be because these Republican amendments are not substantive. The Hensarling and Price amendments would have addressed the most substantive and contentious part of this legislation: the inclusions of wind coverage into a flood insurance program. However, the Democrat majority, once again, decided that political expediency is more important than allowing the representatives of half of this country to be heard. I wish I could say that I was surprised by the Democrat leadership allowing politics to triumph over policy or fair procedure. Unfortunately, this is precisely what we have come to expect from the new broken-promise Democrat majority.

What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill's real-world impact is as bad or worse as the process that brings us here to the floor today. It would expand the flood program to include a new risk before the effects of this policy have even been studied. Both the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, and the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, have reported to us that the program is already not financially sound. That means that, as the program exists that the new Democrat majority wants to put in place, we already know that it is not financially sound. And the addition of this new and untested liability threats to derail much of the much-needed reforms of this program, while vastly increasing taxpayer exposure for losses from natural disasters unrelated to flooding.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. I oppose its exclusion of every single Republican amendment that was offered to improve it in the Rules Committee. I oppose the raw, political gain represented by the ill-conceived underlying legislation that puts our National Flood Insurance Program in jeopardy. Most of all, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the new earmark loophole, uncovered last night, that provides the broken-promise Democrat majority with yet another opportunity to waive their already loose earmark rules on every bill as they see fit.

While this new development made here to the strict letter of the smoke-and-mirrors earmark rule the Democrats rushed sloppily through the House at the beginning of the Congress, it certainly does not meet the spirit of that rule either. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule, particularly Chairman Frank, who argued so eloquently for the inclusion of substantive amendments so that the new rule can be passed that would finally keep the Democrat promise of openness and inclusion alive.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, once again, in line with what we have stated earlier, that the 13 Republican amendments, which were presented to the Rules Committee, of course, there were others that were rejected because they were 1 or 2 minutes late, need to be discussed. The Rules Committee voted on a party line not to let them be on the floor today. But our Members represent important not only States, but important districts and important ideas. Another one of the persons who was denied the opportunity to have his amendment to be made in order is here with us today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for that purpose.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, once again the Republican team that is on the floor today wishes to continue our voice of representation of millions of Americans for better ideas, to be included not only on this floor but in the Rules Committee for consideration and agreement to debate and vote on these good ideas.

We know that last night that there were 13 amendments that were made in order, all Democrat amendments, no Republican amendments. We know that several Republican amendments were rejected based upon being just minutes late, even though they had been electronically submitted.

So as a result of that, we are here on the floor today doing appropriately, properly, what we should be doing; we are talking about the good ideas that we have. You heard already a good idea from the gentleman from New Jersey. You heard already a good idea from the gentlewoman from Michigan.

At this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, part of what our last three colleagues who have been to the floor spoke about was that as members of the Committee on Financial Services they worked very diligently, not only in their States, not only within their delegation, not only within the committee, but also with the chairman on trying to make sure that these good ideas might be included.

Now, the Rules Committee, which I have only served on for 9 years, always finds itself in a difficult position. Always. That is part of the dilemma of being on the committee, in particular when a committee chairman and a member show up before the Rules Committee and they talk about working together, finding a bit of compromise, working together to get a bill and thoughts and ideas to where they are not only germane, but to where they better the bill. The Rules Committee just sits back and we say, boy, that is such a wonderful thing. We are so happy and so pleased, Republicans and Democrats.

Something has happened, something has happened since January that has poisoned that well. Not only time after time after time did we see yesterday when Republicans showed up and said to the committee, oh, I have worked very carefully with my Governor, or I have worked very carefully with people back home, I've worked with the administration, I have put in a lot of time, this is a thoughtful amendment, I've tried to gain the concurrence of working through the committee; and, oh, by the way, I have even worked with my committee chairman, which says something also about the committee chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who yesterday on his own standing said, by and large, look, I understand every issue that is related to this. I don't mind if any amendment, as long as they are not duplicative, and as long as they have substance, I think they ought to be made in order. Once again, one of those times when the members of the committee, Republicans and Democrats, say, boy, that is great. Thank you so much, Chairman Frank.

Something's happened, however, where people who were from the committee working with the committee chairman come and agree, and all of a sudden every single Republican amendment was rejected. It wasn't because they were duplicative; it wasn't because they didn't have substance. I don't know what it is.

We have tried this morning to have several people who have come to the floor to say I'd like to engage the new Democrat majority, Rules Committee members, to find out--what is it--Why was every single Republican amendment rejected while 13 Democrat amendments were made in order? What is it?

There's a change. I don't think it's open, I don't think it's transparent, and I question some other things behind the decisionmaking that is being made.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) also took time to not only have thoughtful amendments, he not only sits on the committee, but also came to the Rules Committee, is here today also, because he believes, we believe, as Republicans we may get shut out, as we were in the Rules Committee; but we are still going to come to the floor and stand for the things which we believe in that would better the bill.

I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question to give the Democrats yet another opportunity to live up to their broken promises and amend the rule to allow for consideration of H. Res. 479, a resolution that I like to call the ``earmark accountability rule.''

Mr. Speaker, this Congress continues to see nondisclosed earmarks appearing in all sorts of bills. These rule changes would simply allow the House to openly debate and be honest about the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills, not just appropriation bills. If we defeat the previous question, we can address that problem today and restore this Congress's nonexistent credibility when it comes to the enforcement of its own rules.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just before the vote on the previous question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source