[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.

                          ____________________