[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 116 (Wednesday, July 29, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H8973-H8975]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM EXTENSION ACT OF 2009

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill (H.R. 3139) to extend the authorization of the 
National Flood Insurance Program, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3139

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Flood Insurance 
     Program Extension Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Extension.--Section 1319 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking 
     ``September 30, 2008'' and inserting ``March 31, 2010''.
       (b) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     4016(a)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2008'' and 
     inserting ``March 31, 2010''.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF PILOT PROGRAM FOR MITIGATION OF SEVERE 
                   REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES.

       Section 1361A of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4102a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (k)(1), by striking ``2005, 2006, 2007, 
     2008, and 2009'' and inserting ``2009 and 2010''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (l).

     SEC. 4. CONSIDERATION OF RECONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF 
                   FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEMS IN DETERMINATION OF 
                   FLOOD INSURANCE RATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1307 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``construction of a 
     flood protection system'' and inserting ``construction, 
     reconstruction, or improvement of a flood protection system 
     (without respect to the level of Federal investment or 
     participation)''; and
       (B) in the second sentence--
       (i) by striking ``construction of a flood protection 
     system'' and inserting ``construction, reconstruction, or 
     improvement of a flood protection system''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``based on the present value of the 
     completed system'' after ``has been expended''; and
       (2) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in the first sentence in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``(without respect to the level of Federal 
     investment or participation)'' after ``no longer does'';
       (B) in the third sentence in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``, whether coastal or riverine,'' after 
     ``special flood hazard''; and
       (C) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a Federal agency in 
     consultation with the local project sponsor'' and inserting 
     ``the entity or entities that own, operate, maintain, or 
     repair such system''.
       (b) Regulations.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall promulgate regulations to 
     carry out the amendments made by subsection (a). Section 5 
     may not be construed to annul, alter, affect, authorize any 
     waiver of, or establish any exception to, the requirement 
     under the preceding sentence.

     SEC. 5. IMPLEMENTATION.

       The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency shall implement this Act and the amendments made by 
     this Act in a manner that will not materially weaken the 
     financial position of the National Flood Insurance Program or 
     increase

[[Page H8974]]

     the risk of financial liability to Federal taxpayers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  I want to acknowledge the great cooperation we have had on a 
bipartisan basis here, the gentlewoman from West Virginia and I. We 
have, as Members know, a Flood Insurance Program. It does some good, 
but it's become somewhat controversial. There are Members who would 
like to see its future extended, and I tend to agree with them. Some of 
our colleagues from the gulf coast on both sides have talked about 
extending it to, for instance, other disasters and wind. There are 
Members who believe that the way it works now, it causes undue hardship 
without providing any serious protection. There are many others who 
believe--and I think we could argue--that it's time to examine the 
whole program.
  This is an example, Mr. Speaker, where two groups that are sometimes 
in debate are on the same side; and that is, people concerned about 
excessive government expenditure and the environmental community. It's 
certainly our goal to try to discourage people from building where they 
shouldn't. On the other hand, we have people who years ago, in good 
faith built there; and they cannot be expropriated and shouldn't be. 
What we have decided on a bipartisan basis is that we have a program 
that expires in September. As Members know, the Committee on Financial 
Services, which has jurisdiction over this, has a fairly broad 
jurisdiction, including housing and, of course, the financial industry. 
We have been somewhat preoccupied with those other issues, mortgage 
foreclosures and financial regulation. We have not had the time to do 
the kind of thorough reexamination of flood insurance that it deserves. 
So what we have today as a result of an agreement is a 6-month 
extension of the program essentially as-is.
  There is one change, again in a bipartisan way. The gentlewomen from 
California (Ms. Matsui and Ms. Speier) and the gentlewoman from Kansas 
(Ms. Jenkins) came together to ask us for a provision that they 
believed important for their districts and many others that does no 
harm and can provide some protection for them. With that inclusion, we 
are extending it for 6 months. This will now go across the Rotunda to 
the United States Senate. We expect that they will be able to enact it, 
if not in the next couple of days, when we come back in September. What 
this then does is gives us a chance, when we come back in 2010, to deal 
with this in a comprehensive way and to do the kind of reexamination 
that is called for. So that's exactly where we are. I note that the 
gentlewoman from California has joined us, the author of one of the 
provisions. I will yield to her after the other side.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, for his bipartisan way of approaching 
this particular issue. He is correct when he says that we've gone back 
and forth on this over, I think, almost a decade on the way to reform 
this program. We certainly want to see that.
  Everyone here should be in agreement that the National Flood 
Insurance Program needs reform. The chairman spoke of that. But I think 
we can also agree it would be irresponsible and unfair to many 
communities and areas where flooding occurs to let the program expire 
at the end of September 2009 without attempting to fix it, which is why 
we need to pass another short-term extension today.
  The National Flood Insurance Program is currently carrying a debt in 
excess of more than $19 billion, primarily from property damage claims 
that were paid after the series of big storms that hit Florida in 2004 
and the gulf coast in 2005. According to the Government Accountability 
Office, the NFIP is underfunded by design because many property owners 
continue to receive subsidized premium rates under long-standing 
provisions in place since the flood insurance rate mapping system went 
into effect in 1974. We need to deal with these issues. It's going to 
take bipartisan leadership on both sides, and I think we have that 
commitment to get it done. Many of us believe it's time for Congress to 
work toward encouraging more private insurance and reinsurance capacity 
to help protect at-risk communities and high-risk regions against the 
potential damages of flooding as well as other natural disasters. We 
are committed to pressing forward with reforms as soon as possible and 
urge others to join us in making this a bipartisan effort as well as a 
higher priority in this Congress.
  In addition to supporting the need for a short-term flood insurance 
extension bill, I support a small but important technical change that 
would end the program's illogical and unwarranted discrimination 
against State and local funding of levee construction and improvement 
projects. I commend my friend, Congresswoman Matsui from Sacramento, 
for her leadership and her thoughtful and constructive proposal. I also 
would like to salute Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins of Kansas, an active 
member of our committee, for lending her support. As I previously 
stated, I know that we have a great need for reform in this program, 
and hopefully that will be our ultimate goal. But at the same time, I 
think it's wise for this Congress to extend this program for another 6 
months as we would do in this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
aforementioned gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), the author of 
the amendment.
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker I would like to thank Chairman Frank, Chairwoman Waters, 
as well as Ranking Members Bachus and Capito and all the staff for all 
the work they've done to get us here today. I would also like to thank 
FEMA for their technical guidance throughout the year. The amended bill 
before us today includes language from H.R. 1525 that I authored to 
provide technical changes to Federal flood zone designations. This 
legislation makes a number of modifications to the National Flood 
Insurance Act in order to give communities clarity to help them restore 
and improve their flood protection system. From my hometown of 
Sacramento to the Louisiana bayou to the plains of the Midwest, 
communities are advancing flood protection infrastructure in order to 
keep Americans safe and secure.

                              {time}  1115

  However, as we work to conform to changing dynamics of flood 
protection, these communities are seeking clarity as they work to meet 
Federal regulations.
  Public safety is my absolute number one priority. And during the last 
year that I worked with local, State, and Federal flood protection 
officials, that remains our priority. This bill will give communities 
clarity so they can continue to uphold public safety and promote proper 
protection. Specifically, this legislation will update current law to 
take local, State, and Federal funding into account when determining 
designations.
  The city of Sacramento and the State of California have devoted 
millions of dollars toward flood protection. That investment should 
simply be recognized by the Federal Government. For my constituents 
this is vital. FEMA needs to recognize what our State and city have 
contributed when they review the progress made on the Natomas levees in 
my district and determine the area's flood designation.
  This legislation also helps communities understand requirements for a 
completed system. Current regulations are vague on what a completed 
system actually is, and this has caused great concern and confusion 
among local communities. This provision brings greater clarity by 
combining a public safety standard with a concrete milestone.
  Protecting our constituents from the dangers of floods requires a 
comprehensive approach. Local communities, States, and the Federal 
Government must all be thoughtful and committed partners to achieve 
public safety. I am glad that the bill before us today includes this 
Federal commitment to

[[Page H8975]]

give communities clear objectives as they work to improve flood 
protection infrastructure.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
coauthor of the amendment we have been discussing, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. The American people have an indomitable spirit, and 
judging from my constituents, they don't expect the Federal Government 
to come to their aid for every problem. But they also don't expect us 
to stand in their way when they are trying to save lives and property.
  The massive flooding and loss of life following Hurricane Katrina was 
a wake-up call for those of us who live along our Nation's beautiful 
coasts, bays, lakes and rivers. I represent the San Francisco 
Peninsula. As the name suggests, there is hardly a spot in my district 
where you can't see water. Currently, an advanced new levee system is 
being constructed to protect parts of three cities along San Francisco 
Bay. The levee is being built with local money. The residents have 
voted to tax themselves to do it. This is exactly how it should be, 
communities handling their issues themselves.
  But currently, FEMA only recognizes Federally funded or managed 
projects. So, despite the fact that these levees are built to the exact 
same specifications, until the project is completed, homeowners and 
businesses in those areas will be forced to pay dramatically higher 
flood insurance, and any new construction will be required to be built 
on stilts above where the flood plain would be if the levees had not 
been built or improved. Imagine putting homes on stilts in an 
earthquake area. It just doesn't make sense.
  Again, the levees are not the issue. These levees are being built to 
Federal standards. The only reason that tens of thousands of 
hardworking Americans will have to pay thousands of dollars more in 
insurance and local builders will have to put their buildings on stilts 
is because the forward-thinking residents of San Mateo, Foster City and 
Redwood Shores decided to improve their levees without Federal dollars.
  I urge the passage of this amendment and this bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. 
And I would yield for a question to our colleague from Mississippi, who 
has been, with our support on our committee, a major proponent for 
protecting the people he represents in the area of wind and elsewhere.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, last year you had extensive hearings on 
this subject. The bill that was proposed by the House increased the 
coverage amount since it was a shock to a lot of people who had to 
rebuild--$250,000 just doesn't buy the kind of house that it used to 10 
years ago.
  We took the step to end the practice of concurrent causation, where 
if, according to testimony before the Mississippi Supreme Court, a 
house was 95 percent destroyed by the wind before the water got there, 
the insurance companies would bill the Federal Government for 100 
percent of the cost of the damage, as testimony before the Mississippi 
Supreme Court. And then the other thing is the possibility of adding 
wind insurance to the National Flood Insurance Program so that there 
isn't any discrepancy. It doesn't matter if the wind destroyed your 
house or if the water destroyed your house, if you built it to code, if 
your community built to code and you paid your premiums, that you are 
going to get paid.
  I realize your committee has been very busy with the housing crisis. 
Everyone is aware of that. But the folks in the affected regions--which 
is now 52 percent of all Americans--are curious; at what point do you 
think there will be some talk of these changes to the flood insurance?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, as the gentleman knows, there has 
been a request from the administration for a longer extension, but the 
gentleman conferred with the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters), and expressed his concern that that would 
put off further any chance to do this, and we agreed with that. That is 
why this is a 6-month extension. And the answer is, I believe the House 
remains committed to that. What happens in the Senate will be another 
issue. But it is certainly our intention, the leadership of the 
committee on the majority side, once again, to work with the gentleman 
to extend that protection, and hope that maybe things will change in 
the Senate.
  I yield again to the gentleman.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Specifically, does the gentleman envision hearings this 
fall on the subject?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, it would be very appropriate.
  As Members know, we have been a little busy with the financial 
material, but we are probably not going away for a while this calendar 
year. And yes, I know the gentlewoman from California, who chairs the 
subcommittee which has jurisdiction, is very interested in this and 
does plan to have some hearings.
  Mr. TAYLOR. I thank the gentleman.
  And to the previous speaker, as someone who lives in a house on 
stilts and represents a lot of people who live in houses on stilts, 
they're not all that bad.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would just finish up by saying that the 
gentlewoman did talk about the problem of houses on stilts in an 
earthquake area.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I don't live in a house on stilts, I live on a mountain, 
so I don't need stilts. I guess that's a good thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and urge support of 
this legislation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I will yield back after recalling 
for no particular reason the views of the British philosopher, Jeremy 
Bentham, who said that he thought talk of natural law was nonsense and 
talk of natural rights was nonsense on stilts. That is irrelevant, but 
it just occurred to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3139, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________