Congress heads back to work this week with two bills emerging from the Rules Committee. H.R. 1722, the Teleworks Improvement Act of 2010, was introduced by Maryland's Democratic Representative John Sarbanes.
This bill expands the options for Federal workers to work from home. Currently, the Washington Post reports, only 10% of government employees use the option. Rather than shut down government when severe weather strikes, and that's not rare in D.C., offices can stay open remotely. According to Sarbanes, the Washington Post said, the government saved about $30 Million dollars a day last year when remote workers were able to do their jobs, despite D.C. being paralyzed by a February blizzard. Lynn Jenkins voted against the bill.
The Rules Committee is scheduled to take up H.R. 1722 at 5:00 p.m. today. When the bill emerges from the Rules Committee it takes its second journey to the floor of the House of Representatives. It failed to garner a 2/3 majority vote back on May 6th, although it clearly had a majority. The tally on roll call 251 was 268 yeas to 147 nays. The supermajority of 66% was required because H.R. 1722 advanced via Rule XV:
RULE XVBUSINESS IN ORDER ON SPECIAL DAYSSuspensions1. (a) A rule may not be suspended except by a vote of two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present. The Speaker may not entertain a motion that the House suspend the rules except on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays and during the last six days of a session of Congress.
When H.R. 1722 returns to the floor it will be under a Rule which will require only a simple majority. H.R. 1722 can and will save taxpayers far more than it will cost, it keeps the wheels moving when offices would otherwise have to close, and it will attract more workers to civil service. This bill makes sense.
H.R. 5114, is the Flood Insurance Priorities Act of 2010. This bill was introduced by California's Democratic Representative Maxine Waters. This bill amends the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 [NIFA] extending the National Flood Insurance Program and the Pilot Program for Mitigation of Severe Repetitive Loss Properties.
H.R. 5114 increases the maximum aggregate amount of insurance coverage for residential and nonresidential building. The bill amends the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (FDPA) to delay, for a five-year period, the effective date for the mandatory purchase of flood insurance for certain new flood hazard areas not previously designated as having special flood hazards (with "100-year floodplains").
NIFA is amended to set forth a five-year phase-in of flood insurance rates for newly mapped areas not previously designated as having special flood hazards.
Employing sound business like practices H.R. 5114 directs the FEMA Administrator to implement this Act in a manner that will not materially weaken the financial position of the national flood insurance program or increase the risk of financial liability to federal taxpayers.
It helps people get covered immediately by waiving the 30-day delay (waiting period) for the effective date of flood insurance contracts when the initial purchase of flood insurance coverage is connected with the purchase or other transfer of the property to be covered, regardless of whether a loan is involved in the purchase or transfer transaction. Limits such waiver, however, to instances when the initial purchase of coverage is made within 30 days after the purchase or other transfer of the property.
Revises the current waiver of the 30-day waiting period for the initial purchase of flood insurance coverage in connection with the making, increasing, extension, or renewal of a loan to limit it to instances when the purchase is made within 30 days after the loan transaction.
Not only the wealthy need apply, this is a plan available to the poor. It requires flood insurance regulations to permit certain low-income policyholders (families whose income level is at or below 200% of the poverty line) to pay insurance premiums in monthly installments.
The bill has teeth. FDPA is amended to subject lenders to civil monetary penalties for requiring, in connection with any loan, the purchase of flood insurance coverage under NIFA, or for purchasing such coverage, in an amount exceeding the minimum mandatory amount.
Increases from $350 to $2,000 the maximum civil monetary penalty per violation against a regulated lending institution or enterprise. Increases from $100,000 to $1 million the total amount of such penalties assessed against any single regulated lending institution or enterprise during any calendar year, unless the total of such penalties in any three (or more) of the immediately preceding five calendar years was $1 million (in which case there is no limit).
Yet it is fair because it prohibits imposition of any civil penalty on a regulated lending institution or enterprise that has made a good faith effort to comply with FDPA requirements or for any non-material violation of such requirements.
Finally, this legislation is forward looking. H.R. 5114 amends FDPA to subject lenders to civil monetary penalties for requiring, in connection with any loan, the purchase of flood insurance coverage under NIFA, or for purchasing such coverage, in an amount exceeding the minimum mandatory amount.
Increases from $350 to $2,000 the maximum civil monetary penalty per violation against a regulated lending institution or enterprise. Increases from $100,000 to $1 million the total amount of such penalties assessed against any single regulated lending institution or enterprise during any calendar year, unless the total of such penalties in any three (or more) of the immediately preceding five calendar years was $1 million (in which case there is no limit).
Prohibits imposition of any civil penalty on a regulated lending institution or enterprise that has made a good faith effort to comply with FDPA requirements or for any non-material violation of such requirements.
The Rules Committee meets tomorrow to consider H.R. 5114.
No comments:
Post a Comment