[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 154 (Friday, November 18, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H10991-H10993]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FURTHER ENHANCED BORROWING AUTHORITY
ACT OF 2005
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
to consider a motion to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
4133) to temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the national flood
insurance program, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur therein,
and that the motion be debatable for not to exceed 20 minutes, equally
divided between myself and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank).
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:
Senate amendments:
On page 2, line 12, strike ``8,500,000,000'' and insert
``18,500,000,000''.
On page 2, after line 12, insert:
SEC. 3. EMERGENCY SPENDING.
The amendment made under section 2 is designated as
emergency spending, as provided under section 402 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (109th Congress).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each will control 10 minutes.
[[Page H10992]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley.)
{time} 1815
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4133, a bill that would
temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency National Flood Insurance Program.
This bill was introduced by our friend and colleague from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) in response to the terrible destruction
that has resulted from Hurricane Katrina. The original version of this
bill increased the borrowing authority of the National Flood Insurance
Program from $3.5 billion to $8.5 billion. However, the extra $5
billion would have only allowed FEMA to make claims and payments
through next week.
The Senate amended the bill to increase the borrowing authority to
$18.5 billion and designate the funds as emergency spending. That
amended version is now before us for consideration.
FEMA has run out of money to pay claims arising from Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita and has directed the insurance companies to stop
paying the estimated 225,000 Katrina and Rita policyholders who have
already filed a claim. These homeowners who have a contract with the
NFIP to cover flood events could initiate legal action against FEMA and
the U.S. Government if we do not act now.
I remain committed to seeing the National Flood Insurance Program
implement the reforms begun last year when we passed the Bunning-
Bereuter-Blumenauer Act, and I look forward to working during the
coming months to ensure greater accountability of the flood insurance
program.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, along with the chairman, I have a sense of deja vu. A
couple of years ago we agreed, the chairman and I and members of our
committee, to support the efforts of our former colleague from
Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, our current colleague from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer), to reform the flood insurance program. We made substantial
progress. We did not get everything we wanted; there was some
resistance.
Then came Katrina, and suddenly the point we were making about the
need both to compensate people but also to be environmentally and
fiscally responsible in what we promised became somewhat relevant. Our
committee had a good mark-up earlier this week and passed out a bill,
not a perfect bill from any one standpoint, but which would continue
the process of reforms along with the money. And then the Senate, as it
did last time, showed a certain reluctance to go along with the
reforms. They sent us a bill which is simply the additional money.
The additional money is needed and the additional money is to
compensate people who have already been flooded, so there is no
necessary connection between that and going forward. I, therefore, did
not object to the request, and I hope we will vote the money that has
been asked to compensate the people already hurt.
But it is also important that we reform the program. I appreciate the
commitment which the gentleman from Ohio has freely given the House,
that we are both going to work hard to try to bring the reform package
up early next year.
So we will acknowledge the importance of getting the money in the
hands of the people who need it, and I will be yielding to some of my
colleagues from the area; but we do want to note that we will go
forward with the money now, but we have not lost our interest in
further reforming the program; and we will be back on the floor I hope,
and I know the gentleman from Ohio will be working diligently on that
in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my good friend and ranking member,
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for his support on this.
This is critically important for the folks down in the gulf region that
they get compensated under their insurance program that they paid
premiums into FEMA for. This is an obligation by the Federal Government
to make sure that those people are paid. FEMA is out of money as I
speak. We need to get this done. I would ask the House's cooperation in
this effort.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to impose on
the House's time except we are killing time anyway while you try to
figure out what you are going to do with that foolish resolution of
yours.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Jefferson), who has been at the center of the effort to deal with this
tragedy. I will say as the ranking member on our side on the committee,
he has been constantly in touch with us and has advised us and
impressed us on the importance of action, and I am very grateful for
his willingness to work with us in the midst of all the stress that has
accrued to his district.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Oxley) for the work that he has done on the bill and for the entire
committee and all who have had a hand in it.
Like the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), I would liked to
have seen this bill involve the reforms we have talked about to make it
easier for people to make claims once they have them. We have had the
unprecedented flooding in our area, which is the reason why this bill
is needed. FEMA is out of money for the very clear reason that we have
had flooding that nobody could have possibly anticipated. We have
claims far beyond what anyone had imagined. There have been 220,000
homes, just homes in our area, that have been affected by flooding;
108,000 of these have been rental units, and the rest are single
residences. It is unheard of.
Sixty thousand of these will probably have to be gotten rid of
because they cannot be cleaned up and put back into commerce. We have
had the insurance companies take the position that every instance of
damage was caused by flooding as opposed to the wind-driven rain that
would cover them under their homeowners insurance, consequently
creating more pressure to pay on the flood insurance than ever before.
For these two reasons, I would urge that we adopt this provision
because it is much needed by the people back home both because we have
had an unprecedented level of loss in flooding and because insurance
companies have pushed all the emphasis down on the flood insurance
program and made it very difficult for people to recover otherwise.
I urge the House to adopt this because we need it so much in our
area.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for his leadership on issues regarding the
National Flood Insurance Program.
Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday of this week, the House passed by voice
vote H.R. 4133, the National Flood Insurance Program Further Enhanced
Borrowing Act of 2005. This important piece of legislation will empower
residents of the gulf coast by increasing the National Flood Insurance
Program's ability to borrow $5 billion in additional funds from the
United States Treasury to cover claims resulting from the recent
devastating hurricanes of Katrina and Rita.
Today, the Senate amended and passed H.R. 4133, raising the amount
the NFIP can borrow from the Treasury from $8.5 billion to $18.5
billion, an increase that will remain in place until our return after
the December recess.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a necessary stop-gap measure to
ensure the solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program. For this
hurricane season alone, FEMA estimates that more than 225,000 Katrina
and Rita claims will be filed with a total cost exceeding $22 billion.
This total for one hurricane season, Mr. Speaker, will surpass the
total amount paid by the National Flood Insurance Program since its
inception in 1965.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a section of Philadelphia, Bucks County,
Pennsylvania, that has sustained two floods
[[Page H10993]]
during the last year. In each of those occasions, FEMA and the National
Flood Insurance Program administrators have been there, paid the claims
that they are obligated to pay. The residents of the gulf coast area
and region deserve no less.
FEMA is quickly running out of money. The flood insurance program
must be able to handle the claims resulting from the catastrophic
losses. Historically, whenever the National Flood Insurance Program has
borrowed from the Treasury, it has been paid back in full. We need to
act to enable this stop-gap measure to cover claims from the gulf
coast. We should not think of this as a new obligation. Instead, it is
a necessary step to keep a legal promise that Congress has made to
homeowners and business owners when Congress passed the National Flood
Insurance Act.
We have a moral obligation to honor our commitments, Mr. Speaker, and
to provide the coverage we promised to provide, to help victims. They
need help to rebuild their homes and their lives. I ask my colleagues
for their support and seek adoption of the Senate language in this
bill.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise troubled, I must say, by this
legislation. I appreciate the chairman's commitment to reform and also
the ranking member. They have been steering, I think, a good course
with Financial Services, and I am encouraged by their words that we are
going to go ahead and attempt to continue the process of reforming the
flood insurance program.
But today in signing off on $22 billion that cannot be supported
simply by the premiums by the individuals that are covered right now, I
personally think is a tremendous lost opportunity.
We heard a lot of rhetoric the last couple of days. People come to
the floor talking about how to save taxpayer dollars, but we have not
undertaken to make reforms that would protect taxpayers in the first
place.
Our colleague from Mississippi has been focusing on the problem with
flood insurance not being available to a whole range of people. No
expectation they should have it. People behind levees are not required
to have flood insurance. We have not dealt with subsidized insurance
for areas that are vacation homes, second homes.
I am concerned that there is never really a good time to be able for
us to seize this opportunity. While I say I am heartened by what I have
heard from the ranking member and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley),
and certainly they steered a difficult course last time in being able
to make some of these incremental achievements, but if there was ever a
time that the attention of this Congress should be on the dangers of
the way that the program works now and the people that are in harm's
way, the opportunity to not just save money but save lives by these
reforms.
Nonetheless, I look forward to working with the ranking member and
the Chair, and I will do anything in my power, but I would hope the
House does not ever again allow something like this to come forward and
miss such an opportunity.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman
I agree with him this is a lost opportunity, but like the book ``I Lost
It At The Movies,'' we lost it at the Senate. So we are doing the best
we can.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Taylor), who has worked harder in the aftermath of this than I have
ever seen any Member work in trying to deal with the desperate
situation imposed on the people he represents.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, as I speak, one of the
greatest legal scams in American history is being perpetrated on the
people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, honest Americans who
purchased insurance policies to protect their families in time of a
hurricane. They paid their premiums for decades. They are being told
one by one ``we are not going to pay your claim.''
See, in a typical insurance policy known as a ``wind policy,'' you
would think it would protect you from the 140- to 160-knot breezes of
Hurricane Katrina; but somehow buried in that policy is small language
that says they are not going to pay for wind-driven water.
Now, for most of us, you would think of wind-driven water as maybe
the water driven under the stoop of your door in a rain storm, or if
you have an older house like I had, under the windows, maybe get some
curtains wet or the sheet rock under that window.
So if the wind blew a tree into your house, you could file a claim.
If the wind blew a car into your house, you could file a claim. But if
the wind generates a 30-foot wall of water, well, then the American
insurance industry en mass is telling those people in Mississippi,
Louisiana, Texas, and the Alabama gulf coast, You're out of luck. We
took your money. You're a chump.
Our Nation has a flood insurance policy separate from that where the
credibility of this Nation is at stake. I have already told you what I
have thought the private sector is doing to my people. But this is us.
We also collected people's money in good faith that when there was a
flood of their homes that would be paid. We had an unprecedented
natural disaster.
Now, two things can happen. We can go the way of the private sector
which is doing everything they can to scam my constituents, and please
use that word, or we can honor our claims. Because a person or a nation
is only as good as its word. Our Nation gave our word that we would pay
these claims if substantiated. Those claims have been substantiated.
Let us set a precedent that hopefully the insurance industry will
follow and pay our claims.
{time} 1830
I want to commend Chairman Oxley. I want to commend Ranking Member
Frank for bringing this to the floor in a timely manner. I very much
want to commend the other body for plussing this up so that we can
fulfill our obligation as a Nation for those people who had flood
insurance policies, that we will pay those claims in a timely manner.
At the same time I want to go on record as saying that I think there
ought to be a national registry of child molesters and, at the moment,
insurance industry executives because I think Americans ought to know
if they live near one.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, for my remaining 30 seconds,
I want to send a message to FEMA.
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) has called to our
attention a delay on the part of FEMA in telling people what elevations
are required for new construction or replacement construction in the
flooded areas. Until they have those elevations, they cannot proceed
with the construction, and the gentleman told me we have been told
there is a delay of perhaps up to 2 years. That is clearly
unacceptable. So had we been able to bring a substitute bill to the
floor, we were going to address that issue.
I hope FEMA will listen. I think I speak for both sides. I know the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) agreed with this when we raised it
in committee that FEMA will promptly do the elevations necessary so
that construction can proceed.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________