[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 153 (Tuesday, October 28, 2003)]
[House]
[Page H9822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H9822]]
                  IN SUPPORT OF FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as we have watched the terrible news 
coming from Southern California, our hearts go out to the thousands of 
families that have been displaced. Lives have been disrupted, and in 
some cases people have died. It is much too early to make judgments 
about what we could do to reduce that suffering and loss. We do not 
fully know really what happened there yet and why.
  But it is important for us to reflect on other areas where we can act 
to help make our families safer. In our history the greatest loss from 
natural disaster has been from flooding, and here we can do something 
about it.
  Floods are our most destructive natural hazard. Since the 1990's, 
flood losses have doubled to over $6 billion a year, and hundreds of 
lives have been lost. This House, before we adjourn for the year, has 
the opportunity to reauthorize the Flood Insurance Program to help make 
a difference.
  This program was created in 1968 to help people who are in flood-
prone areas, authored by some people who knew about floods for example, 
the late Hale Boggs from Louisiana. Prior to that time, insurance 
companies generally did not offer insurance to people in these high-
risk areas because of the uncertainty that has been involved. Since we 
authorized the National Flood Insurance Program, it has, in fact, been 
quite successful. By the year 2000, there have been $10 billion paid 
out in claims to some almost 4\1/2\ million policy holders. Even more 
important, it has provided incentives to do something about the problem 
for people who are in harm's way. We have provided mapping, incentives, 
things that send the right signals to people to protect themselves in 
the first place.
  I have seen it make a difference in my hometown of Portland, Oregon. 
We were encouraged, because of the Flood Insurance Program, to do some 
flood proofing of the community from the beginning; and, in fact, we 
were able, in the year 2001, to be classified at a class 6. We had the 
seventh highest classification rating in the country. It resulted in a 
20 percent reduction in the flood insurance rate. But more important, 
it enabled our community to be more flood resistent, and we have 
survived of late some serious flooding, which in times past would have 
done much damage and perhaps loss of life, relatively unscathed.
  Now with the reauthorization of the Flood Insurance Program, we have 
an opportunity to help another class of people, those who are involved 
with repetitive flood loss in areas where year after year after year 
people are flooded out. Repetitive flood loss properties are less than 
1 percent of the cases nationally, but account for 25 percent of the 
losses each year. And this repetitive flood loss costs everybody 
because it increases the likelihood of natural disaster, more losses, 
and putting more people in harm's way while boosting the flood 
insurance rates for everybody else.
  Our bill that is coming forward would help everybody before rather 
than after the fact. It would, where cost-effective for the insurance 
program, provide funding to communities to make an offer of flood 
mitigation, to elevate the home, to flood-proof it. In cases where that 
is not feasible, to help people relocate, giving them money to move 
someplace else, at a very favorable match ratio, 75 percent of the 
money picked up by the Federal Government. In those States where there 
is even more flood loss, it would be an even more favorable ratio, 90 
percent Federal money.
  If people felt that they, for whatever reason, did not want to flood-
proof their property or they did not want to relocate, they are under 
no obligation to do so. They would simply pay the full cost of their 
Flood Insurance Program.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a simple, solid, common sense approach. It is a 
refinement in the Flood Insurance Program to help make it financially 
sound and eliminate up to $700 million of cost shift or shortfall. If 
we can avoid just one 10 percent rate increase, it would save the 
average policy holder, all 4\1/2\ million of them, $40 a year, every 
year, a total of $160 million a year in perpetuity. Most important, it 
would be a change for people's lives, helping them move out of harm's 
way so we do not have these tragic reports in the news.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the flood insurance reform 
as it comes forward this next month.

                          ____________________