[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 23, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H4687-H4690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM EXTENSION ACT of 2010

  Ms. KOSMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 5569) to extend the National Flood Insurance Program until 
September 30, 2010.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5569

       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 2010''.

     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 ``September 30, 2010''.
       (b) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     4016(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``September 30, 2008'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2010''; and
       (2) by striking ``$20,775,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$20,725,000,000''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall be considered to have taken effect on May 31, 
     2010.

     SEC. 3. BUDGET COMPLIANCE.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Kosmas) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. 
Miller) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.


                             General Leave

  Ms. KOSMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. KOSMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas who earlier spoke on this particular 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about this crucial bill, H.R. 
5569, the National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2010, which 
would extend

[[Page H4688]]

the National Flood Insurance Program through the end of September this 
year.
  The flood insurance program provides valuable protection for 
approximately 5.5 million homeowners. Unfortunately, the lack of a 
long-term authorization has placed this program at risk. The program 
has lapsed three times now since the beginning of this year: for 2 days 
in March, for 18 days in April, and again since June 1.

                              {time}  1100

  These lapses meant that FEMA was not able to write new policies, 
renew expiring policies, or increase coverage limits. This also means 
that each day 1,400 home buyers who wanted to purchase homes located in 
flood plains are unable to close on their homes. Given the current 
crisis in the housing market, this instability in the flood insurance 
program is hampering the market's recovery, and it must be addressed.
  This bill would simply extend the current program through September 
30, 2010, to address the immediate issue of individuals being able to 
close on their homes.
  Soon I will be able to support Ms. Waters in bringing comprehensive 
flood insurance reform to the floor. This bill passed out of the 
Financial Services Committee on a simple voice vote in April. Ms. 
Waters' bill would restore stability to the flood insurance program by 
reauthorizing the program for 5 years and would address the impact of 
new flood maps by delaying the mandatory purchase requirement for 5 
years and then phasing in actuarial rates for another 5 years.
  Ms. Waters' bill also makes other improvements to the program by 
phasing in actuarial rates for pre-FIRM properties, raising maximum 
coverage limits, providing notice to renters about contents insurance, 
and establishing a flood insurance advocate similar to the taxpayer 
advocate at the Internal Revenue Service.
  In the meantime, we must extend the current National Flood Insurance 
Program. This country is reeling from major floods in Tennessee, 
Arkansas, and Oklahoma. And we are now officially in hurricane season. 
I urge my colleagues to stand with me in support of this important 
extension, and I thank Ms. Waters and Chairman Frank, and urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on another temporary short-term 
extension of the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, which expired 
more than 3 weeks ago on May 31, 2010. This is the third time this year 
that the flood insurance program has expired, causing disruption in the 
housing market in cases where individuals are trying to purchase a home 
located in a floodplain which requires them to buy flood insurance to 
close on a federally backed mortgage.
  It is unfortunate that the fate of the National Flood Insurance 
Program has to be authorized on a temporary basis because of other 
unrelated issues. The result has created uncertainty and instability in 
the market at a time when this country can least afford it. Immediate 
action is needed to support homeowners and small businesses owners who 
depend on flood insurance for an important measure of financial 
security, especially during the June to November storm season.
  This bill provides for a temporary extension through the end of the 
current fiscal year, September 30, 2010. The bill would also make the 
reauthorization retroactive to May 31, 2010, and offset the cost by 
reducing the NFIP's borrowing authority by $50 million from $20.775 
billion to $20.725 billion. As a result, according to consultations 
with CBO, this bill would have no net impact on the Federal budget.
  Congress also needs to move forward this year with serious long-term 
reforms of the flood insurance program. The NFIP carries a debt of more 
than $18 billion and continues to subsidize premium rates of nearly 25 
percent of all insured properties. The program cannot continue on this 
path with a built-in shortfall.
  On April 27, 2010, the Financial Services Committee reported this 
bill, the Flood Insurance Reform Priority Act, to reauthorize and 
reform the NFIP for 5 years. This bill includes several important 
provisions that represent a good first step toward repairing the 
financial soundness of the NFIP, but more reforms are urgently needed. 
I support the extension of the NFIP program and encourage my colleagues 
to vote for it today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KOSMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5569, 
extending the National Flood Insurance Program until September 30, 
2010, making it retroactive to May 31, 2010.
  I commend Chairwoman Maxine Waters for introducing this timely bill. 
Congress must extend authority for the National Flood Insurance Program 
to write or renew flood insurance policies which are required in order 
to obtain a mortgage in a 100-year floodplain.
  Now that the National Flood Insurance Program authorization has 
lapsed, property owners in federally designated areas across nearly 
20,000 communities nationwide are unable to obtain a mortgage or flood 
insurance to protect their properties. We are well into hurricane 
season. Congress must pass this legislation. Congress must reauthorize 
as soon as possible the National Flood Insurance Program to provide my 
constituents in Texas and all other constituents across the United 
States access to a program they will need should they become victims of 
a hurricane. I encourage my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank my good friend for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill to extend the 
National Flood Insurance Program, as administered by FEMA, until 
September 30, 2010. About 90 percent of all flood insurance policies 
nationwide are provided through the National Flood Insurance Program, 
and nearly half of those policies are held in my home State of Florida.
  Flood insurance in a hurricane-prone State is not merely a necessity; 
it is a requirement for those homeowners with mortgages. For nearly 1 
month, prospective homeowners in my congressional district of south 
Florida have been in limbo. Unable to secure the required flood 
insurance, these individuals and families have been unable to close on 
their homes. Their frustration is palpable. New buyers in the housing 
market are needed to help my congressional district recover from this 
economic downturn.
  At a time when the Federal Government is increasing incentives for 
homeownership, it is utterly bizarre that Congress would fail to extend 
a program that is required for many mortgages to be finalized. The 
National Flood Insurance Program is a necessity, and its extension 
should not be subject to partisan politics.
  This bill extends the program until the end of September, but it must 
be extended for several years so that homeowners can buy and sell their 
properties without worries. This uncertainty produced by Band-Aid 
extensions of the flood insurance program is hurting an already ailing 
housing market.
  I am a cosponsor of Congressman Cao's bill, which extends the program 
for 3 years; and I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the bill of the 
gentleman from Louisiana, H.R. 5553, and I will also be introducing a 
bill to further extend this popular flood insurance program.
  Mr. Speaker, we have extended this program three times since it has 
expired. Let's get this right. Flood insurance is critically important 
for homeowners. Also, let's reform it so it does not face continual 
financial shortfalls.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' for this much-
needed, way overdue, important extension.
  Ms. KOSMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to make a comment.
  I want to suggest how important I think this legislation is and to 
also say as a member of the National Association of Realtors myself for 
over 30 years, and having been an active member of the realty community 
assisting friends and neighbors in my community to achieve the American 
Dream of

[[Page H4689]]

homeownership, I am pleased to offer a letter of support from the NAR 
and include it for the Record.

                                           National Association of


                                         REALTORS',

                                    Washington, DC, June 23, 2010.
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The National Association of 
     REALTORS' strongly supports H.R. 5569. The bill 
     would extend authority for the National Flood Insurance 
     Program (NFIP) until September 30, 2010.
       Five and a half million taxpayers depend on the NFIP as 
     their main source of protection against flooding, the most 
     common natural disaster in the United States. Since May 31, 
     the NFIP has not had the statutory authority to issue new or 
     renewal policies. By law, flood insurance is required to 
     obtain federally related mortgage loans in nearly 20,000 
     communities nationwide. This has resulted in the delay, if 
     not cancellation, of thousands of real estate transactions 
     during one of the worst down-turns in residential and 
     commercial real estate markets since the Great Depression.
       We urge immediate approval of H.R. 5569 to extend NFIP 
     authority and avoid exacerbating the uncertainty for 
     taxpayers who rely on the program, particularly in a 
     recovering real estate market.
           Sincerely,

                                        Vicki Cox Golder, CRB,

                           2010 President, National Association of
                                             REALTORS'.

  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. CAO).
  Mr. CAO. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5569 to focus attention 
on an important issue that has left our constituents financially and 
economically vulnerable. The National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, 
has lapsed for the third time this year, meaning that life decisions 
have to be put on hold, leaving our constituents to wait out 
congressional action.
  When I was in New Orleans over the weekend, a constituent came up to 
me and sadly stated: I could not sell my home because the buyer could 
not purchase flood insurance.

                              {time}  1110

  Today, I also read in the U.S. News and World Report that home sales 
have slipped 2 percent in May, even though Federal stimulus efforts 
kept real estate transactions artificially elevated. One of the 
contributing elements is the lapse in the NFIP. Many potential sales 
are being delayed by an interruption in the National Flood Insurance 
Program, according to the National Association of Realtors.
  Mr. Speaker, the most recent NFIP lapse couldn't have come at a worse 
time. As we deal with the worst oil spill in history, we are facing 
what is predicted to be an active hurricane season along the gulf 
coast. Now, more than ever, we need to be supporting our constituents 
during these difficult times.
  Many of the fishermen and others who have had their livelihoods 
turned upside down because of the oil spill also live in flood-prone 
areas. Therefore, we must act not only to extend this program in the 
short term but ensure that in the future communities devastated by the 
oilspill will have affordable access to insurance.
  That is why on Thursday I introduced H.R. 5553 that would extend the 
NFIP for 3 years and would include a sense of Congress that the program 
should not expire again. This extension would remove uncertainty and 
would show our desire to see real reform to an inefficient program.
  I appreciate the gentlelady from California's, Maxine Waters, 
attention to this important issue, and I hope that we can work together 
in reforming this critical program for both of our people in the 
future.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5569.
  Ms. KOSMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady 
from Michigan, Mrs. Candice Miller.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my very serious concerns about 
this program and to remind my colleagues that this program is actually 
a very bad deal for my constituents in the State of Michigan and many 
other States in the Great Lakes Basin as well.
  For the past few years, FEMA has been engaged doing what Congress did 
direct them to do, and that is updating and modernizing our flood maps 
across the entire Nation. We all recognize that with technology we can 
and we should update the maps to reflect our best science and to 
convert our existing outdated maps into user-friendly digital format. 
Let me just make clear, I totally support that effort and those 
objectives.
  However, property owners in the Great Lakes are being treated very 
unfairly by these new maps which have taken effect in my district and 
all through the basin during the past several years, and the net effect 
is that we can show how these property owners whose properties very 
rarely flood, nor have the potential to flood, are being treated badly 
because, in fact, they are being abused by the National Flood Insurance 
Program.
  My constituents, many of them on the water, are paying very, very 
high flood insurance premiums, and yet we very rarely even claim on 
this or receive any money for our claims. Essentially, Michigan and 
other States in the Great Lakes Basin are being forced to subsidize 
those in other States who are prone to severe weather events. If that's 
what we are going to do, we should just call it what it is and have a 
national catastrophic fund as opposed to this national flood insurance 
fund. In other words, let everybody pay. Why should the people in the 
Great Lakes Basin have to subsidize this particular program?
  A GAO report on this program that was published in April found that 
nearly one in four property owners pay subsidized rates for their flood 
insurance that do not reflect the full risk of flooding. You have to 
ask, no wonder this program is $19 billion in debt, and to add insult 
to injury, this program keeps paying claims year after year so some 
Americans can continue to live in flood-prone areas. That's fine if 
they want to live there, but I don't know why those people in the Great 
Lakes have to keep paying for these repetitive claims year after year. 
It's only 1 percent of the policy, but it is 25 percent of all of the 
claims.
  I think it is well past time that this program either be scrapped 
entirely or reformed. My constituents in Michigan, with little risk of 
flooding, again who have experienced little or no flooding, are funding 
the National Flood Insurance Program at astronomical rates. States that 
we see flooded year after year and, again, allow people to keep 
building and rebuilding in a floodplain, or who keep experiencing 
hurricanes, are essentially using this FEMA fund as an ATM machine, and 
I don't think it's fair. Really, if we're going to have a National 
Flood Insurance Program, I think everybody should be paying fairly. 
Again, I think a national catastrophic fund would be the most fair 
approach to this.
  I think, if this situation continues, that Michigan and other States 
should consider opting out of this national plan and self-insuring. 
I've written a letter to our Governor, and I hope that she considers 
that.
  In Michigan, I would say this: We look down at the water.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
another 30 seconds.
  In Michigan, we look down at the water. We don't look up at the 
water, and we just think it is very unfair that we have to keep 
subsidizing all of the other areas just because we live on the water as 
well. I think this program needs to be revamped, and I would say again, 
we should have a national catastrophic fund.
  We have great empathy and sympathy for those who want to live in a 
flood-prone area, but I don't know why those of us on the shores of the 
Great Lakes have to be the only ones in the Nation to subsidize this. I 
think it is very unfair.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, April 3, 2008.
     Hon. Jennifer Granholm,
     Lansing, MI.
       Dear Governor Granholm: I write to bring to your attention 
     an issue of great importance to the economic health and well-
     being of the State of Michigan.
       The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is in the 
     process of updating

[[Page H4690]]

     and modernizing flood maps across the entire nation. This 
     process is necessary to account for property development and 
     growth over the past several decades as well as changes in 
     topography. If done properly, this process would bring more 
     fairness for those who live in flood plains and are required 
     to purchase flood insurance.
       Unfortunately, property owners in Michigan are being 
     treated unfairly by these new maps, which have recently taken 
     effect in my district and other parts of the state. These 
     property owners, whose properties very rarely flood --nor 
     have the potential to flood--are paying very high flood 
     insurance premiums and yet they very rarely receive claims.
       In regards to FEMA's proposal for remapping in the Great 
     Lakes region, they are raising the base flood elevation an 
     additional 14 inches--they say to accurately reflect the risk 
     of flooding. This is predicated on data from 1988, 2 years 
     after the absolute highest recorded levels for the Great 
     Lakes. However, in Lake St. Clair alone, the lake levels have 
     dropped over 3 feet since then and are now 5\1/2\ feet below 
     the old base flood elevation. In spite of this, FEMA's new 
     base flood elevation is now 6\1/2\ feet above the current 
     lake level.
       I have been trying to stop FEMA from implementing their new 
     flood maps until the International Joint Commission's Upper 
     Great Lakes study has been completed. This study will be the 
     most comprehensive study of this region ever undertaken. 
     Nevertheless, my constituents are currently paying much 
     higher premiums for an insurance plan that they will likely 
     not ever file a claim on. These new maps will cost my 
     constituents literally millions of dollars at a time when 
     lake levels are at historic all time lows. This means that 
     they are not going to be making claims, but they will be 
     subsidizing other parts of the country through the National 
     Flood Insurance Program.
       What is happening is that many states and their property 
     owners, with little risk of flooding, who have experienced 
     little or no flooding, are funding the National Flood 
     Insurance Program at astronomical rates. Between 1978, the 
     year the National Flood Insurance Program began, and 2002, 
     there were 10 states that received more in claims than what 
     they paid in policies. In fact over $1.5 billion dollars 
     more--and the average premium for policyholders in those 
     states was only $223.
       Michigan, on the other hand, paid almost $120 million more 
     into the program than it received back in claims, yet the 
     average premium for Michigan policyholders was $257 dollars. 
     As you can see, this program is draining millions of dollars 
     from Michigan and dispensing it throughout other areas of the 
     country.
       As you know, the residents of our state are already 
     experiencing tremendous economic strain due to rising 
     gasoline costs, the high unemployment rate, and the housing 
     crisis. They do not need to spend an additional several 
     hundred dollars each year on insurance they will likely never 
     need. And they should not be mandated to sacrifice for 
     residents of other states much more prone to severe weather 
     events.
       One of the potential solutions to this disparity is for the 
     State of Michigan to take action to opt out of the National 
     Flood Insurance Program and self insure. While I realize that 
     some will consider this a rather drastic measure, this 
     problem is having such a negative impact on our constituents 
     that I believe it must be considered,
       If Michigan were to opt out of this program, it would 
     undoubtedly save our constituents millions of dollars each 
     year which could then be used to further stimulate our 
     state's economy. I urge you to work with the state 
     legislature and the Commissioner of Financial and Insurance 
     Services to explore this option to see if it could result in 
     significant savings to Michigan taxpayers.
       Thank you for your attention to this issue. I look forward 
     to working with you on this important matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Candice S. Miller,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  It is very unfortunate that the fate of the National Flood Insurance 
Program has to be authorized on a temporary basis because of unrelated 
issues. What the marketplace needs today is certainty and stability, 
and we should do whatever we can to create that.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5569--To 
extend the National Flood Insurance Program until September 30, 2010. 
It's Hurricane Season--we cannot put off the reauthorization of this 
program. We can no longer wait on the extenders package--we must pass 
an extension now.
  I have constituents in Southeast Texas both in flood-prone and 
hurricane-prone areas that are unable to access flood insurance. This 
is a major problem for potential homeowners, if their lender requires 
flood insurance before closing.
  Though I am supportive of this measure, I am advocating for a longer 
term extension of the National Flood Insurance Program through May 31, 
2011. I hope my colleagues will join me in advancing such a measure.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
support of keeping promises to the American people. To speak plainly 
about it, I do not support the federal government's growing role in the 
private sector.
  But for reasons known to all of my colleagues, the federal government 
has, for some time, been the primary provider of flood insurance to 
America's homeowners. Because of Congress' inaction, that insurance is 
no longer available.
  Simply put, as a matter of principle and responsible public policy, 
when the government makes commitments to the American people, and 
families and businesses come to rely on the fulfillment of those 
commitments, it is flat out wrong to fail to live up to them. That is 
where we are right now.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have control over every lever of 
government and your majorities in both chambers are significant. So to 
allow the National Flood Insurance Program, the ``SGR'', the state 
sales tax deduction, and others to expire demonstrates a complete lack 
of responsibility and an inability to govern.
  This is hurting my constituents. My district, like many in Florida, 
has been pummeled by the housing crisis. And while the President may 
believe that press conferences touting his foreclosure initiatives are 
sufficient to addressing the problem, my constituents know that the 
only thing that will turn their situation around is a recovery in 
demand.
  I am sure that Members on both sides of the aisle can understand my 
frustration when I get calls from realtors in my district explaining 
that three of their clients can't close on houses because the Flood 
Insurance program has lapsed.
  There is nothing they can do about it and they want answers. They 
want to know when the government is going to get the situation fixed. 
And frankly, I don't know what to tell them. To me, the idea that a 
single-party government can't pass must-pass legislation is 
incomprehensible.
  So I would like to thank the gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters, 
for stepping up to the plate and bringing this legislation to the 
floor. And while I support the bill and will be the first of my 
colleagues to vote for it, my constituents also want assurances from 
the Speaker and Majority Leader that this isn't just ``pat ourselves on 
the back'' legislation--that it isn't just ``pass it to say we did'' 
legislation. My constituents want real results and that means actually 
getting the Flood Insurance program, the tax cuts, and other 
commitments that this government have made extended quickly. It is 
simply the right thing to do.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. KOSMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Kosmas) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 5569.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________