[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 28, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1299]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. BRIAN HIGGINS

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 27, 2006

  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns about the 
Flood Insurance Reform Modernization Act that the House passed today.
  I support the goals of this legislation, which are to provide the 
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) with the resources it needs to 
pay its claims to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and to reform the 
NFIP to place it on sustainable long-term footing, but I believe that 
goal cannot be done at the expense of communities and homeowners who 
should not be in the flood maps. Several provisions of the bill will 
have such a negative impact on the Western New York communities that I 
represent, that I am unable to lend my support to the bill.
  I would have welcomed the opportunity to vote solely on the provision 
to increase the funding that the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
can borrow in order to ensure that Katrina victims receive the funds 
they are owed. Indeed, I have supported several efforts since Katrina 
to increase FEMA's borrowing authority for this purpose. I have also 
supported tremendous increases in community development funding for 
Katrina-impacted areas, and I fought hard against the Administration's 
ill-conceived proposal to deny workers in the reconstruction effort the 
benefit of federal wage protection law.
  Yet Mr. Chairman for all that was right in this bill, it fails to 
address some of the most pressing and problematic aspects of the NFIP, 
such as the extent to which some areas served by the program which 
seldom flood and seldom receive benefits must subsidize other areas 
which more frequently flood and more frequently receive benefits. 
Additionally, I am concerned that this does nothing to cushion the blow 
of mandatory flood insurance premiums to low income senior citizens or 
other, similarly situated persons. Additionally, when floods very often 
hit areas which had not been designated as having significant flood 
hazards, and while areas which have the 100-year flood designation have 
never been inundated, I have serious concerns about the accuracy of 
current flood mapping processes and procedures. While this bill would 
increase funding to increase the quantity of flood mapping, it would 
not sufficiently improve the science to increase the quality of flood 
mapping.
  Specific to the Buffalo-area communities in my district, I am 
strongly opposed to the provision directing the Comptroller General to 
study a mandatory purchase requirement for the natural 100-year 
floodplain. In the City of Buffalo, in the neighborhoods of South 
Buffalo and Kaisertown, an area has been designated as a 100-year 
floodplain by FEMA. This area is now protected by a number of man-made 
improvements designed expressly to protect against 100-year floods, so 
I am working toward the goal of having FEMA remove the 100-year 
floodplain designation from these areas, and with it, the concomitant 
burden of mandatory flood insurance premiums. In fact, in 1972 the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers said ``the area would be protected from a flood 
stage having a recurrence interval of 100 years,'' yet this bill would 
not only keep the area under 100-year designation, but would also allow 
the cost to no-risk homeowners to rise. For me to vote to advance 
legislation including the area in the 100-year floodplain designation 
would be inconsistent with my efforts to have the designation removed 
in light of the flood prevention work that has been done there.

  I am further concerned with provisions in this bill which would raise 
the maximum amount of coverage. This provision would cause insured 
homeowners in low-cost housing markets, such as Buffalo, to subsidize 
homeowners in high-cost housing markets. This provision is regressive 
and contrary to the interests of my constituency.
  Mr. Chairman I agree that the NFIP needs to be reformed so that those 
truly at risk bear the cost of flood insurance. However, by including 
communities that are at no or little risk of flooding, the bill has the 
unintended consequence of forcing struggling communities, like the one 
I represent, to subsidize the cost of flood insurance across the 
country. That is not a just outcome, and it is one I will continue to 
oppose until NFIP flood maps represent what really goes on in a 
community and until low risk communities are not forced to subsidize 
high risk communities.

                          ____________________