[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 146 (Wednesday, October 14, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10881-H10882]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      INTRODUCING THE REPETITIVE FLOOD LOSS REDUCTION ACT OF 1998

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) is recognized for 5 
minutes.


 Crumbling and Inadequate Infrastructure are the True Problems Facing 
        Public Education, not Federal Control or Overregulation

  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today on a bill I am 
introducing, but before I do, let me just say something. A lot of 
Members come to the floor and say things, and get a little carried 
away. I just have to make a couple of comments.
  For the last 40 years, while the Democrats may have controlled the 
House, the history I learned showed that the Republicans controlled the 
other body, off and on on a number of occasions, and there are two 
bodies in our system. That is how legislation is done.
  Second of all, let me say that at least in my State of Texas, and I 
cannot speak for the other States, I only represent part of Texas, I 
find that it is the State legislature that sets the regulations, along 
with the school boards.
  I was in a school in my district not long ago. The teachers I talked 
to did not say one thing about Federal regulations. What they talked 
about was the fact that they had an air conditioning system that was 35 
years old, and that the school was crumbling, that the foundation was 
cracked. If they had any gripes, it was not even with the State 
legislature, it was with the local school board. So every State is 
different and everybody's situation is different.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Repetitive 
Flood Loss Reduction Act of 1998, to reform the National Flood 
Insurance Program by improving pre-disaster mitigation and facilitating 
voluntary buyouts of repetitively flooded properties.
  I am hopeful that an effective pre-disaster mitigation and buy-out 
program will both reduce costs to taxpayers and better protect 
residents of flood-prone areas.
  I have drafted this legislation in consultation with the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency and the Harris County, Texas, Flood Control 
District, one of the Nation's most experienced and innovative flood 
control districts. However, I want to emphasize that I consider this 
legislation to be a starting point to begin the debate, and I look 
forward to input from my colleagues, my constituents, and other 
interested parties, so an improved version of this legislation can be 
introduced in the 106th Congress.
  Some ideas in this bill will be considered controversial and may need 
to be changed. By introducing this bill, I am not endorsing each 
provision, but rather, the idea that some action needs to be taken to 
reform the National Flood Insurance Program. In fact, it is my hope 
that the public will review the contents of the bill and make their 
specific support and objections known, so we can develop consensus 
legislation.
  The need for this legislation was underscored by a recent report by 
the National Wildlife Federation, that the National Flood Insurance 
Program has made flood insurance payments exceeding the values of the 
properties involved to thousands of repetitively flooded properties 
around the Nation.
  This report, entitled Higher Ground, found that from 1978 to 1995, 
5,629 repetitively flooded homes had received $416 million in payments, 
far in excess of their market value of $307 million.
  My State of Texas led the Nation in volume of such payments, with 
more than $144 million, or $44 million more than the market value, paid 
to 1,305 repetitively flooded homes. The Houston/Harris County area, 
which I represent, had 132 of the 200 properties that generated the 
largest flood insurance payments beyond their actual value.
  This included one property in South Houston that received a total of 
$929,680 in flood insurance payments from 17 flooding incidents, and 
another property near the San Jacinto river that received $806,591 for 
16 flooding incidents, about 7 times the actual value of the home.
  Other areas around the country have also had the same incidents 
occur. Altogether, according to the National Wildlife Federation 
report, although repetitive flood loss properties represent only 2 
percent of all properties insured by the National Flood Insurance 
Program, they claim 40 percent of all NFIP payments during the period 
studied.
  Since its creation in 1968, the NFIP has filled an essential need in 
offering low-cost flood insurance to homeowners who live inside 100-
year flood plains. The program has helped to limit the exposure of 
taxpayers to disaster costs associated with flooding. However, the 
recent report clearly points out the need to improve the NFIP to 
address the problem of repetitive loss property.
  Furthermore continued losses to the NFIP has increased the call by 
some of my colleagues to increase premiums and reduce the Federal 
subsidy for all Federal homeowners in the flood plain, not just those 
who suffer from repetitive flooding loss, in order to reduce Federal 
budget outlays.

  Without long-term comprehensive reform of the NFIP, I am concerned 
that in the future, Congress may follow through with proposals to 
double or triple flood insurance premiums for all flood-prone 
homeowners, as was proposed in 1995 and 1996. Many of us, myself 
included, fought vigorously to oppose these increases, but our victory 
will be short-lived if we do not make changes in the program.

[[Page H10882]]

  These repetitive loss properties represent an enormous cost for 
taxpayers. They are also a tremendous burden to residents whose lives 
are disrupted every time there is a flood. In many cases, these 
residents want to move but cannot afford to do so. By repeatedly 
compensating them for flood damage, current Federal law makes it easier 
for them to continue living where they are, rather than moving to 
higher ground.
  I ask my colleagues to look at the bill and please comment on it.

                          ____________________