[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 105 (Thursday, July 15, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H5626-H5656]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM PRIORITIES ACT OF 2010
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5114.
{time} 1128
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5114) to extend the authorization for the national flood
insurance program, to identify priorities essential to reform and
ongoing stable functioning of the program, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Pastor of Arizona in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentlewoman from
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to bring my bill, H.R. 5114, the Flood
Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010, to the floor today; and I
stand in strong support of its passage. Moreover, I'm proud that this
bill has the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle,
having passed out of the Financial Services Committee in April on voice
vote.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is essential. The Flood Insurance Program
provides valuable protection for approximately 5.5 million homeowners;
but, unfortunately, the lack of a long-term authorization has placed
the 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 from June 1 to July 2, when President Obama signed my bill to
provide for a short-term extension of the program through the end of
September of this year.
These lapses meant that FEMA was not able to write new policies,
renew expiring policies, or increase coverage limits. These delays also
meant that each day 1,200 home buyers who wanted to purchase homes
located in flood plains were unable to close on their homes. Given the
current crisis in the housing market, this instability in the Flood
Insurance Program is hampering that market's recovery and must be
addressed.
Mr. Chairman, in drafting this bill, I also wanted to address the
challenges posed to communities by the imposition of new flood maps. I
saw these challenges firsthand in my home city of Los Angeles. Earlier
this year I was able to assist homeowners in the Park Mesa Heights area
of Los Angeles who had been mistakenly placed in a flood plain. In this
case, FEMA acted quickly to respond to new data and correct the
mistake. However, there are thousands of homeowners nationwide who now
find themselves in flood zones and subject to mandatory purchase
requirements.
H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010, would
restore stability to the Flood Insurance Program by reauthorizing the
program for 5 years. It would also 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.
The bill also makes other improvements to the program by phasing in
actuarial rates from 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.
Mr. Chairman, we must reauthorize the National Flood Insurance
Program and pass the reforms included in H.R. 5114. This country is
reeling from major floods in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Oklahoma; and we
are now officially in hurricane season, with south Texas still
recovering from Hurricane Alex. I urge my colleagues to stand with me
in support of this important extension.
In closing, I would like to recognize the many Members on both sides
of the aisle who have approached me with their concerns about flood
insurance programs. I'm further gratified that, through this bill,
we're able to address many of those concerns. I remain committed to
working with Members on ensuring that this program works for their
communities and their constituents.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to thank the chairwoman, Chairwoman Waters, for her hard
work on this very important piece of legislation.
H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act, provides for
the long-term reauthorization reform of the National Flood Insurance
Program, extending it for 5 years, through September 30, 2015. The bill
would phase out subsidized premium rates for certain properties,
increase the annual limit on premium rate increases, and impose minimum
deductibles for all policies.
The bill before us today, I believe, makes constructive reforms to
eliminate certain subsidies and strengthens the financial soundness of
the NFIP. Unfortunately, it also includes wasteful government spending.
While I wish the bill went further to place the program on a path
toward self-sufficiency and limit taxpayer exposure, I will support the
final passage of this bill.
The NFIP is currently operating under a short-term extension through
September 30, 2010, after experiencing its third lapse this year. H.R.
5114 makes constructive reforms to eliminate certain subsidies and
strengthen financial soundness. In addition, several Republican
proposals have been incorporated in H.R. 5114 to strengthen the reforms
in this bill, including provisions to eliminate subsidized rates over
time for homes that were sold to a new owner, impose minimum
deductibles for all insured properties, require a report on the
feasibility of incorporating national recognized building codes into
the NFIP flood plain management criteria, and to direct the NFIP to
report to Congress with a plan to repay its debt to the Treasury within
10 years.
The NFIP is facing serious financial challenges and cannot afford to
continue on its current path. The GAO has included the NFIP on its
annual list of high-risk government programs since 2006 because of its
ongoing potential to incur billions of dollars in losses. With
[[Page H5627]]
an $18 billion debt to the Treasury now and the persistence of
subsidized premium rates for properties in high-risk areas, the NFIP
continues to be underfunded and Federal taxpayers remain at risk.
Unfortunately, recent temporary lapses of the NFIP created
uncertainty in the housing market and resulted in negative consequences
for home buyers trying to purchase flood insurance protection in high-
risk areas where it is required. While many property owners depend on
flood insurance for some measure of financial security, and many more
should consider purchasing it to protect themselves from potential
losses, fundamental reforms are needed to make the flood insurance
program more self-sufficient, reduce the potential for losses, and
minimize the financial risk to taxpayers.
In the long run, it is my hope, along with most of my Republican
colleagues, that all flood insurance premium rate subsidies should be
eliminated and underwriting risks should be transferred to the private
insurance market to the maximum extent possible.
In this respect, the provisions of H.R. 5114 that phase out and
eventually eliminate certain premium rate subsidies represent very
positive steps. The bill includes constructive measures to eliminate
subsidized rates over time for nonresidential properties and nonprimary
residences, including second homes and vacation homes.
H.R. 5114 also raises the cap on rate increases from 10 to 20
percent, which will allow the NFIP to charge premiums more appropriate
to the risk within a shorter period of time. These useful reforms are
overshadowed, unfortunately, by provisions authorizing almost $500
million in new Federal spending for new mitigation and outreach grant
programs and to establish an Office of Flood Insurance Advocate within
FEMA, which administers the Flood Insurance Program.
While there is a definite need to improve FEMA's communication with
communities and to increase advocacy about the impact of the new flood
risk maps, Republicans believe that this effort should be undertaken
using the existing NFIP funds, rather than new Federal spending in this
time of historic deficits.
{time} 1140
I know some of my Republican colleagues offered amendments to do just
this, to address these concerns. And I wish that they had been made in
order today, as their inclusion would have enhanced our debate.
The NFIP was originally intended to reduce the need for emergency
disaster assistance from Federal taxpayers to local communities, and
the program has a long ways to go to reach the point of being self-
funded and self-sustaining. Furthermore, I believe that Congress has an
obligation to U.S. taxpayers to challenge the premise that most
flooding hazards will never be insurable by the private insurance
market.
I remain committed to enacting comprehensive reforms that not only
modernize the National Flood Insurance Program so that homeowners will
continue to have access to flood insurance, but at the same time
protect the American taxpayer.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois, Representative Costello, who has been the leader on this
issue of the maps, the remapping. And because of him we have a strong
bill. He worked very hard, and I am very grateful.
Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5114. I have worked on
this issue, as Representative Waters has said. She chairs this
committee, has provided great leadership, along with Chairman Frank.
And I thank them for their leadership in bringing the bill to the floor
today.
We have worked together with them and members of the Congressional
Levee Caucus. We authored provisions included in this bill to delay the
onset of mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements in the newly
remapped areas for 5 years, and then phase in insurance rates for the
next 5 years. This will give communities the time necessary to rebuild
levees and address other flood control projects and allow our
constituents to make their own decision regarding the purchase of flood
insurance.
In August of 2007, FEMA announced that through the remapping process,
the levees protecting the Metro East area of Illinois along the
Mississippi River, which had been protecting our area for decades,
including in the major flood of 1993, would be decertified and treated
for flood protection purposes as if they didn't exist. As soon as the
new maps became final, any homeowner or small business with federally
backed mortgages would have to purchase flood insurance. It could cost
literally thousands of dollars annually.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that we have made a lot of progress as part
of this process. Local officials continually ask for some relief. What
we do in this legislation is, in the provisions that I described
earlier in this legislation, the bill allows FEMA, the flood remapping
process to proceed, and requires communities to have evacuation and
communication plans in place, which must include information about the
availability of flood insurance and the consequences of having a flood.
I want to be very clear at this point, while it is not mandatory, I
continue to encourage all of my constituents in the affected area to
purchase flood insurance. But that decision should be theirs.
The Federal Government needs to work with local officials to solve
these local and national issues. I strongly support H.R. 5114. I thank
Chairman Frank and Chairlady Waters for all of their work and ask my
colleagues to support the bill.
Mrs. CAPITO. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr.
Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Chair, this House recently passed a financial markets regulatory
restructuring bill which in essence, unfortunately, will create a new
Federal insurance program, or bailout authority, for large financial
companies that take on too much risk. I wish we would leave, given the
state of the national debt, I wish we would leave the safety net where
it currently is, under federally insured depository institutions. And
instead, ultimately I fear we will one day be looking at taxpayer
subsidies to cover the likes of Goldman Sachs, AIG, and Lehman
Brothers.
I wish we had learned our lesson from the National Flood Insurance
Program, which we know was supposed to never require any taxpayer
funds, any general revenue. But unfortunately, we know today already
$19 billion is owed to the Federal taxpayer. And we look at the other
federally administered insurance programs: Social Security, long term
deficit of $15 trillion; Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,
debt of $22 billion, projections of $34 billion by 2019; Federal crop
insurance, Medicaid--the list goes on and on and on.
This bill adds to the tab. And the Congressional Budget Office has
projected this bill will increase spending by roughly a half-billion
dollars over 10 years. Even by Washington standards, I hope we still
consider that to be significant funding.
Now, I wish the Federal Government wasn't in this business, but we
are in this business. And if we are in this business, we have to ensure
that we are not subsidizing and incenting people to live, essentially
put them in harm's way and put them in harm's way at taxpayers'
expense. If they are going to put themselves and their property in
harm's way, that's a decision they need to be making. But we shouldn't
be a party to incenting them to that.
So we still have a program that oversubsidizes certain properties,
including condos and vacation homes, and we're asking people in my
district, the factory worker in Mesquite, Texas, and maybe making
$50,000 a year, to subsidize the flood insurance of somebody who may be
making a half a million dollars a year, maybe because they have a condo
on a beach. That's not a program that's particularly fiscally sound or
one that I believe is fair.
I certainly want to thank the chairman, I want to thank the ranking
member for their work. And there are a number of improvements in this
legislation that will help improve the program. I want to thank the
chairman for incorporating a modest amendment I offered in 2007 that
would at least require the NFIP to conduct a study
[[Page H5628]]
within the next 6 months of how do you end up repaying the taxpayer at
least over a 10-year period so they can recoup their losses on a
program they were never supposed to bail out in the first place.
I appreciate the fact that the underlying legislation will raise the
annual cap on premium rate increases. I appreciate the leadership of
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) who offered an amendment
that was incorporated that would eliminate subsidies over time for
homes that are sold to new owners and phases in actuarially sound
premiums on second homes.
There is also language in here that will impose minimum deductibles
for all insured properties. All of these are several steps in the right
direction to help ensure that the taxpayer doesn't suffer further
losses.
But unfortunately, the bill really doesn't do anything to deal with
the current almost $19 billion of funds that are owed to the taxpayer
today. Nothing in the bill will help recoup that particular loss. It
delays the implementation of actuarial rates, which I think again puts
the taxpayer in further harm. It does not phase out the taxpayer
subsidies. We still have insurance at subsidized rates, creating
perverse incentives that encourage people to essentially live in harm's
way. And just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have already cost
the taxpayer $150 billion roughly and counting, those programs
ultimately need to be returned to competition, and so does this program
ultimately need to be returned to market competition.
Now, I know we can't outlaw hurricanes, we can't outlaw floods, but
we can at least make sure that the factory worker in Mesquite, Texas,
in my district, doesn't have to keep picking up the tab over and over.
And very importantly, this is a program that authorizes almost a half a
billion in new spending on an outreach program when one already exists.
We cannot afford it.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas, who has fought so hard for his constituents and making sure
that they have a strong advocacy program in this bill, Marion Berry.
Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the great job you have done
and the concern for the people that you have exhibited.
For the time that FEMA has existed, the exception being during the
Clinton administration when James Lee Witt ran that agency, FEMA has
exhibited an incredible inability to get anything done and
accomplished. FEMA, in my part of the world, is worse than the natural
disaster that they came to deal with. When we see FEMA show up, it
strikes fear in the hearts of grown men and women and small children.
So I thank the chairman for this bill, the constraints she put in
this bill as it relates to the floodplains and the designation of them,
and urge the passage of this bill.
{time} 1150
Mrs. CAPITO. I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mrs.
Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me some
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this program and to this bill,
and I would once again remind my colleagues that this program is a
very, very bad deal for my constituents in the great State of Michigan,
the Great Lake State. In fact, it's a bad deal for most all the States
that are in the Great Lake States.
As an example, my constituents in Michigan are paying very high flood
insurance premiums, yet we rarely receive any claims, and I will give
you examples. Since we've instituted this flood program in the Nation
since 1978, in Michigan we've received $44 million in claims; however,
we've paid in over $200 million during that time in premiums. This year
alone, in Michigan, our citizens are going to pay $19 million in
claims, which means that in just 2 years of paying premiums, we will
have covered all of our losses for the last 32 years. In fact, the GAO
report on this program that was published in April found that one in
four property owners are paying subsidized rates for their flood
insurance that do not reflect the full risk of their flooding.
That same report found that repetitive losses represent only 1
percent of policies but over 25 percent of all of the claims. In short,
we keep paying over and over and over again claims for some Americans
to live in flood-prone areas, and it is no wonder that this program is
$19 billion in debt.
Unfortunately, the Rules Committee didn't make one of my amendments
in order that would have addressed this problem of repetitive losses,
and this is a case in so many properties. They just keep rebuilding and
refiling their claims over and over and over again, and I just don't
think that's fair to the rest of the Nation. If you insist on
rebuilding, then you should assume the risk.
Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, my home State of Michigan feels like the
ATM machine for this flood debt program. I think this program is very,
very unfair. One thing I would say, in Michigan, we actually look down
at the water. We don't look up at the water. And we are very
sympathetic, Mr. Chairman, very sympathetic to areas of other parts of
the country that are prone to floods, that are prone to hurricanes, et
cetera. We appreciate the challenges that they face, but I don't think
it's fair that citizens in a State like Michigan have to pay for those
kinds of things.
I think we need to have a national catastrophic fund that establishes
more fairly the burden on this rather than looking for States like
Michigan. I'm not opposed to redigitizing the maps and using the state-
of-the-art technology that's happening. I think that's very important.
We want to know the proper elevations. You can use it for planning.
Local municipalities need it, et cetera. But in Michigan, I can tell
you tens of thousands of properties that are now being included in this
floodplain that have never been included previously, that have no
history of flooding. In the last couple of years, the Great Lakes have
had historic lows.
I'm going to be voting against this. I urge my colleagues to vote
against this bill, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to make sure that
the gentlelady understands that we are moderating the subsidy in
several ways on second homes, on nonresidential property, and when the
homes are sold, and that's an important point that we will have some
discussion on later.
At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Scott), who's been responsible for making sure that we give homeowners
an opportunity to pay installments instead of up front all of these
premiums that they will be responsible for.
Thank you so very much for your work.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you so very much.
I want to extend tremendous accolades to our chairperson, Ms. Waters,
who has done just an absolutely excellent job on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, you know, there is nothing more devastating, more
heartbreaking than for individual families to lose their homes and all
of their possessions. And if there ever was a time that the role of
government plays its most important role, it is to come to their rescue
immediately, quickly, and help them to recapture their lives as quickly
and to make sure that they have the insurance that is needed.
Nowhere has that been more devastating in terms of flooding than in
my own district. As you all recall, many of you sent out prayers and
best wishes. As you know, in my district, about a year ago, we had a
tremendous flood, the worst flood in Georgia in this century,
especially in the Cobb County/Douglas area where we lost seven lives.
This amendment, which will help to provide people the opportunity,
that don't have to pay that insurance in one lump sum but will pay it
in installments, will go a long way to helping them.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from
Florida, Ms. Brown-Waite.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today actually
in support of H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act. And
since the word ``priorities'' is mentioned in the title, I wanted to
share a few of my constituents' priorities.
On balance, they would say this is a good bill, particularly given
the fact that over the last few weeks I received numerous calls from
Realtors and
[[Page H5629]]
would-be home buyers who could not close on houses because of the lapse
in the National Flood Insurance Program.
While the situation has been taken care of temporarily and while the
home buyer tax credit closing deadline was pushed back, I think my
colleagues can understand the frustration back home in Florida that
this simply is not how we should be handling issues in Washington, D.C.
As for the bill we have on the floor today, I want to draw my
colleagues' attention to one provision in particular that gives me
pause. Section 5 of the legislation effectively raises homeowners'
insurance costs for struggling homeowners. There are a lot of things
that keep Floridians up late at night: unemployment, hurricane season,
the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, and among others,
homeowners insurance premiums.
We have to remember that the NFIP was self-sufficient until Hurricane
Katrina and, frankly, it should continue to be. But raising rates
during this recession in Gulf States already devastated by hurricanes,
oil spills, and failed stimulus plans is a horrifically bad idea.
I offered an amendment at the Rules Committee that would have
prevented these increases, but unfortunately my Democrat and Republican
colleagues in flood-prone areas around the country will not have an
opportunity to vote on that amendment.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New
York (Mrs. McCarthy), who has worked very hard on these issues, and we
have, in the manager's amendment, some of the work that she did.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I thank the chairwoman, and I thank her
for the work on bringing this issue to the floor. She basically has
covered everything that certainly a lot of my constituents were
concerned about.
I want to thank her also for accepting a number of my amendments that
will encourage local government agencies who receive grant funds under
the Outreach Program to coordinate with entities and agencies that have
experience with certain populations in the communities, such as the
disabled, older Americans, and minorities. We know that this is a
complicated formula, but I believe that with this legislation, it's
going to be much easier to go through it.
My other amendment would clarify that once a borrower sufficiently
demonstrates to a lender they have purchased flood insurance within the
45 days, the lender must terminate the ``force-placed'' insurance. The
force-placed insurance is something that's put in place until the
insurance comes through, and I thank Ms. Waters for her work with me on
getting this legislation through. It is going to help our constituents.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. I yield 1 minute to my colleague from California, Linda
Sanchez, who has given a lot of her time to this effort.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. I rise today on behalf of
residents of southern California who are struggling to make ends meet.
In recent months, I've heard from a number of constituents who will
soon be required to pay more than a thousand dollars a year in flood
insurance premiums even though they live in a virtual desert. That's
right. Southern California is officially a semi-arid, near-desert
region, but many of my constituents are being told to pay a thousand
dollars a year or more to guard against floods.
These families want to know why their homes were considered safe just
months ago but are now considered to be in a flood zone under new FEMA
maps. They want to know what has changed in such a short time to
threaten their safety, particularly given the recent infrastructure
investments in the L.A. River Basin.
Let me be clear, I support the National Flood Insurance Program
because floods can devastate a community, but where flood maps are
outdated, they should be corrected to better protect communities.
{time} 1200
However, local residents should be involved in the process and given
a chance to be heard before their homes are rezoned. This bill will
also allow families the choice to pay their premiums in installments
and allow families to lessen the burden on their budget.
I thank Congresswoman Waters, and I urge passage of the bill.
Mrs. CAPITO. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from D.C., Ms. Eleanor
Holmes Norton.
Ms. NORTON. I'd like to thank Chairwoman Waters for not only today's
bill but for her comprehensive bill, the first since 1994; also
Chairman Frank for his work, making sure we got to the floor today as
well.
I chair the subcommittee with primary jurisdiction over FEMA and
understand how important the chairwoman's comprehensive bill is. I
understand also that Katrina was a wake-up call. As controversial as
these maps are, and they have been controversial in my district, the
most important thing we do in this bill is the 5-year grace period and
appeal period delay. It's the least we can do instead of facing
property owners with a new and expensive mandate in the middle of an
economic crisis that began in a mortgage crisis with hundreds of people
waiting to close on homes, others newly in a flood map zone. This is
needed relief and the least we can do before we go home. We've had our
separate fights. Let's get this temporary bill done and then get on to
comprehensive reform.
Mrs. CAPITO. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. I yield 1 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al
Green). His State has experienced a lot of hardship with Katrina and
Alex, and I thank him for his hard work.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank Ranking
Member Capito for her assistance as well.
Quickly, I would add two things. One, this bill helps us to stabilize
the housing market. There are many persons who seek to buy homes who
have not been able to buy homes because the flood insurance was not
available, yet required, to make the purchase. We also have persons who
are concerned about the hurricane season. We have extended the flood
insurance program, but this helps us to stabilize it and stabilize the
housing market
My final point is this: auto insurance is not something that I
necessarily want to have. I don't use it regularly. There are many who
purchase it and never use it, but it sure is good to know that you have
it in the event of an accident. Flood insurance is something that we
need, not because we know it will happen to us but because of the
possibility.
I thank the chair. I thank the ranking member. I beg that we pass
this legislation.
Mrs. CAPITO. Could I ask the chairwoman if she has any additional
speakers.
Ms. WATERS. I have no other speakers, Mr. Chairman; and I would
reserve the right to close.
Mrs. CAPITO. Then I would just like to say that this has been an
effort that has been moving forth. As we've said, we've had a lot of
lapses in this program across the country. It's caused a lot of
disturbances for folks who are trying to purchase new homes or
refinance, and I think that we need a permanent extension of this for 5
years.
So, again, I do have reservations about the additional spending; $500
million at this time of high debt and deficit and high unemployment is,
I think, improperly placed, but this bill does have another purpose,
and that is to make sure that homeowners and home purchasers can have
the access that they need to the flood insurance program.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the ranking member
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for her cooperation and the work that
she has put into the formulation of this very, very important bill.
I would like to thank Members on both sides of the aisle for the
cooperation that we have seen exhibited on this bill, and I think that
the Members on both sides of the aisle have done a fabulous job
representing their constituencies on this issue.
It is time for us to have a reauthorization for 5 years, given the
lapses that we have had and the risks that we have placed homeowners at
when we
[[Page H5630]]
don't have flood insurance coverage. And so Members have come one by
one on this issue explaining what is going on in their districts, and
of course, we have had a lot of criticism about FEMA. We have had
Members explain that neighbors are getting together to fight some of
the mapping that is being done. All of that has been brought to our
attention, and we've been able to deal with most of those complaints,
not only in this bill but, of course, in the manager's amendment.
We have some people who are going to bring amendments to the floor
from both sides of the aisle, and I'm confident that with the work that
has gone into this bill, the amendments that we will have on the
floor--many of them will be adopted--that we will see a good, solid
piece of legislation move from this floor that will address the
concerns of so many of our constituents across this country.
I'm proud of this legislation. I thank not only the Members on both
sides of the aisle but the staffs from both sides of the aisle who have
worked so hard to ensure that we address these concerns.
So, now, with this authorization for 5 years, with the delayed time
so that people have the opportunity to prepare, with the installment,
with the way that we have done all of this, including putting an
advocate in, our constituents are going to get some justice, some real
attention; and I think they will be proud of the work that we have
done.
American Insurance Association,
Washington, DC, July 15, 2010.
Hon. Barney Frank,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Spencer Bachus,
Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Representative Bachus: The American
Insurance Association (AIA) would like to express its strong
support for the House Financial Services Committee reported
bill reauthorizing and reforming the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), H.R. 5114. The recent lapses in the NFIP
followed by the use of short-term extensions have caused
disruptions to homeowners, businesses and hindered real
estate closings nationwide. A long-term NFIP reauthorization
will bring much-needed stability to the market and fiscal
soundness to the program.
However, we strongly oppose the amendment to be offered by
Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS). The Taylor amendment would
negatively impact ``Write Your Own'' (WYO) companies and
significantly alter the way in which claims are processed by
the NFIP. Consumers want reasonably priced insurance for the
risks they confront. To help meet that objective, insurers
must be able to contractually define the parameters of their
exposure. Adopting the Taylor amendment will cause WYO
companies to take a hard look at their continued
participation in the program and jeopardize our support for
the underlying bill.
We look forward to continuing to work with you to enact a
long-term NFIP reauthorization.
Sincerely,
Leigh Ann Pusey,
President and CEO,
American Insurance Association.
____
National Association of
REALTORS'
Washington, DC, July 13, 2010.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.1 million members
of the National Association of REALTORS' (NAR),
thank you for the progress that Congress is making toward
comprehensive reform of the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). Later this week, the House of Representatives is
scheduled to consider H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform
Priorities Act, to strengthen the NFIP and bring certainty to
real estate markets that are much in need. NAR strongly
supports the provision to reauthorize the NFIP through fiscal
year 2015, which continues to be a top priority of our
membership.
Reauthorizing the NFIP through 2015 is critical to millions
of taxpaying American families who rely on the program for
flood insurance, which by law, is required to obtain a
mortgage in nearly 20,000 communities across the nation.
Since September of 2008, Congress has approved eight short-
term extensions of the NFIP's authority to issue new and
renewal flood insurance policies. Twice, this authority has
been allowed to expire, resulting in multi-week delays if not
cancellation of thousands of real estate transactions. The
many shut-downs and short-term reauthorizations of this
program over the past two years have caused many hardships
and lost sales for property buyers, sellers, and their
communities. Enacting a multi-year NFIP reauthorization would
restore flagging confidence in this vital program by ensuring
its continuation for several years without further disruption
to real estate markets upon which the U.S.'s economic
recovery depends.
We continue to have concerns with provisions of H.R. 5114
that would phase-in actuarial rates for most pre-Flood
Insurance Rate Map (pre-FIRM) properties. Section 5 would
increase rates on these properties by up to 20 percent a
year, beginning on the date of enactment for those non-
residential properties and non-primary residences and at the
point of sale for the primary residences. The bill already
reauthorizes the mitigation program for ``severe repetitive
loss'' properties; there is a sound public policy argument
for increasing rates on such properties where there is
demonstrated history of repeated losses, representing a
disproportionate share of claims on the program. That is not
the case for other pre-FIRM properties that would be impacted
by the proposed changes included in H.R. 5114.
As a result, the bill in effect increases insurance rates
on properties where the risk of flooding has not necessarily
changed. Yet, these properties were built before the
community's flood risks were known or mapped and therefore
could not have been built to NFIP standards. Retrofitting
reduces housing affordability, which has a multiplier effect
on the tax base of surrounding communities that are older or
rely on tourism. We will continue to work with the House and
Senate to ensure the fair and effective application of
reforms through the home transaction process.
We support moving H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform
Priorities Act, to the Senate and pledge to continue to work
with you on these and other important issues.
Sincerely,
Vicki Cox Golder, CRB,
2010 President, National Association of
REALTORS.'
____
[Statement on Behalf of the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of
America Before the Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on
Housing and Community Opportunity April 21, 2010]
IIABA is the nation's oldest and largest trade association
of independent insurance agents and brokers, and we represent
a nationwide network of more than 300,000 agents, brokers,
and employees. IIABA represents independent insurance agents
and brokers who present consumers with a choice of policy
options from a variety of different insurance companies.
These small, medium, and large businesses offer all lines of
insurance--property, casualty, life, health, employee benefit
plans, and retirement products. It is from this unique
vantage point that we understand the capabilities and
challenges of the insurance market when it comes to insuring
against flood risks.
Background
The Big ``I'' believes that the NFIP provides a vital
service to people and places that have been hit by a natural
disaster. The private insurance industry has been, and
continues to be, largely unable to underwrite flood insurance
because of the catastrophic nature of these disasters.
Therefore, the NFIP is virtually the only way for people to
protect against the loss of their home or business due to
flood loss. The NFIP currently provides 95% of flood
insurance in the United States and 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.
Prior to the introduction of the Program in 1968, the
Federal Government spent increasing sums of money on disaster
assistance to flood victims. Since then, the NFIP has saved
disaster assistance money and provided a more reliable system
of payments for people whose properties have suffered flood
damage. It is also important to note that for almost two
decades, up until the 2005 hurricane season, no taxpayer
money had been used to support the NFIP; rather, the NFIP was
able to support itself through the premiums it collected
every year.
Under the NFIP, independent agents play a vital role in the
delivery of the product through the Write Your Own (WYO)
system. Independent agents serve as the sales force of the
NFIP and the conduits between the NFIP, the WYO companies,
and consumers. This relationship provides independent agents
with a unique perspective on the issues surrounding flood
insurance, yet also means that the role of the insurance
agent in the delivery process of flood insurance is
considerably more complex than that of traditional property/
casualty lines. Agents must possess a higher degree of
training and expertise than their non-NFIP participating
counterparts, which requires updating their continuing
education credits through flood conferences and seminars.
This is done regularly and can involve traveling to different
regions of the country, costing personal time and money.
Every agent assumes these responsibilities voluntarily and
does so as part of being a professional representative of the
NFIP. In an effort to bring the education process to as many
people as possible, many of our State associations now
provide Internet based seminars. This training has been
extremely popular and a tremendous tool. We believe in the
effectiveness of the Program and would like to see it
continue and offer consumers even greater protections in the
years ahead.
Long Term Extension
The NFIP has traditionally been authorized for periods of
five years in order to provide much needed stability to the
marketplace and to instill confidence in consumers
[[Page H5631]]
that the program will be there for future years. Since 2006,
however, the program has unfortunately been caught up in a
series of short term extensions while Congress considers
large scale reforms of the program. The Big ``I'' strongly
supports Congress' efforts to reform the program in order to
bring much needed stability to the program for the benefit of
consumers and taxpayers. However, of paramount concern to the
IIABA is that the program receives a long term extension,
preferably five years.
In 2009 and the first few months of 2010, Congress was
forced to pass seven short term extensions of the program.
This problem has been exacerbated recently as flood insurance
has been included in extensions of unemployment extensions
and COBRA subsidies that last for only 1 or 2 months. In
fact, twice during the last few months Congress failed to
extend the flood insurance program before its expiration and
the program was allowed to lapse, most recently in the
beginning of April when the program was expired for nearly 3
weeks.
The Big ``I'' urges Congress to recognize that each time
the program expires there are real consequences for the
American people. Expirations inevitably lead to confusion and
harm to real estate markets, consumers are potentially put at
risk of uninsured losses, and there is the potential of
additional tax money put at risk to cover any relief efforts
that may occur during such expiration. The effect on the real
estate market, in particular, should not be overlooked.
During the most recent expiration, IIABA fielded numerous
inquiries from agents across the country asking how to
proceed with real estate closings for properties in flood
zones. Though the federal banking regulators thankfully did
the right thing and allowed closings to proceed even without
the required flood insurance coverage, unfortunately IIABA
heard anecdotal stories from some agents saying that some
banks did not, after all, agree to proceed with the closings.
At the very least, there was significant confusion
immediately following the expiration, evidenced by the fact
that the federal banking regulators did not issue their
guidance until approximately four days after the program had
already been expired.
We are grateful Congress passed another short term
extension last week, and that the extension was retroactive
to cover the timeframe of the expiration. Unfortunately the
program is set to once again expire on May 31, 2010. Congress
will likely be forced to pass its eighth extension in the
next few weeks. The National Flood Insurance Program is meant
to provide some level of stability and protection for
homeowners and businesses against dangerously unpredictable
and costly flooding events, not to be an unpredictable `here
one minute-gone the next' program subject to monthly
congressional action. The Big ``I'' strongly urges Congress
to pass a long term extension of this critical program.
For this reason, the IIABA supports Chairwoman Waters and
Ranking Member Capito's draft legislation to reform and
extend the program for five years. Though IIABA has some
recommended improvements to the draft legislation, the
underlying long term extension is vital to provide stability
and security to consumers.
Modernization of Coverages
The Big ``I'' also urges the Committee to include much
needed modernizations of the NFIP. The draft legislation
includes one such modernization of the program by increasing
maximum coverage limits. The NFIP maximum coverage limits
have not been increased since 1994 and since then, the United
States has seen a housing market boom of epic proportions.
Labor and materials costs have skyrocketed, and yet the
maximum indemnity a homeowner can receive for a flood loss is
$250,000, Similarly, a total loss on a commercial property
would only net the occupant $500,000. These figures are
caught in time, and they do not provide reasonable
financial relief for policyholders facing a complete
rebuilding process. The hurricanes of the last several
years have clearly showed that homeowners and businesses
need higher NFIP coverage limits in order to properly
insure their properties. An increase in the maximum
coverage limits will better allow both individuals and
commercial businesses to insure against the damages that
massive flooding can cause, and we're grateful that this
increase was included in the draft legislation.
The IIABA urges the Committee to also include two other
very important modernizations in any flood insurance reform
bill that they consider. These are optional business
interruption insurance and additional living expenses. Both
of these additions, which would be purchased at the option of
the consumer at actuarial rates, would offer essential
coverage to consumers, bring the program additional revenue,
and make the program more attractive to consumers.
The inclusion of optional business interruption coverage is
particularly crucial to Big ``I'' members and their
commercial customers. If a flooding catastrophe causes
business premises to be temporarily unusable, that business
may have to relocate or even close down temporarily. Property
owners are still required to pay employees, mortgages, leases
and other debts during this process, and these ongoing
expenses can mount up quickly for a business that has reduced
income or no income at all. For property insurance policies,
business interruption insurance provides protection against
the loss of profits and continuing fixed expenses resulting
from an interruption in commercial activities due to the
occurrence of a peril. The inclusion of an optional business
interruption provision will provide stability to the local
economies in the areas affected by flood damage and will
offset government disaster relief payments should the flood
peril result in widespread destruction across a region.
Business interruption coverage, and the security and peace of
mind it provides, is crucial to our members and to small
businesspeople across America.
The other provision which we strongly recommend that the
Committee add to the flood insurance reform legislation is
the option to purchase additional living expenses. This
provision would provide consumers with greater security
during the often bewildering post-flood period, and will do
so in an actuarial basis as opposed to relying solely on FEMA
grants and assistance. Both business interruption and
additional living expenses are common options available to
consumers for private commercial and homeowners' property/
casualty insurance.
These provisions have been a part of the flood insurance
reform bills going back to 2006, when Chairman Mike Oxley and
Subcommittee Chairman Richard Baker included these optional
coverages in their ``Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization
Act of 2006'' (H.R. 4973) that passed the House. These
provisions were again included in H.R. 3121, introduced by
Chairwoman Waters in 2007 and also passed by the full House.
Increased coverage limits, optional business interruption,
and optional additional living expenses are all pieces of the
puzzle that will fit together to modernize the NFIP for the
21st century, and the Big ``I'' strongly urges the Committee
to include all three provisions in the flood insurance reform
legislation. These modernizations will hopefully have three
positive effects on the NFIP as a whole. First, it will allow
consumers to more adequately insure their properties and
valuables against their true risks. This will in turn make
the NFIP as a whole a more attractive product for consumers,
thereby increasing participation in the program. And finally,
as optional purchases that would be sold at actuarial rates,
these modernizations of coverages will result in a NFIP that
is closer to being on actuarially sound footing--which is a
goal that the Big ``I'' strongly supports.
Conclusion
The IIABA is very pleased that the Subcommittee is
conducting today's hearing on comprehensive flood insurance
reform and we urge the Financial Services Committee to pass
the Waters-Capito flood insurance legislation and send it to
the full House of Representatives for approval. The
legislation is critical to ensure the long-term stability of
the NFIP. The NFIP is essential to Americans and to the U.S.
economy, and we strongly support your efforts to update it to
reflect today's risks. Extending this program for five years,
and avoiding the recent short term extensions and occasional
expirations, would have a profound effect on consumers'
confidence in the program. Finally, we also strongly support
your efforts to increase the maximum coverage limits and urge
you to consider adding provisions to provide for the optional
coverage of business interruption insurance and additional
living expenses to your draft legislation.
We thank the Committee for the opportunity to express the
views of the IIABA on this important program. We hope very
much that this hearing will contribute to additional action
taken by Congress to pass flood insurance reforms and to
ensure the stability of the National Flood Insurance Program.
____
The Council of Insurance
Agents and Brokers,
Washington, DC, July 13, 2010.
Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
ATTENTION: Financial Services Staff
Re H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform and Priorities Act
of 2010.
Dear Representative Kanjorski: Legislation reauthorizing
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) may be considered
by the House of Representatives this week. H.R. 5114, the
``Flood Insurance Reform and Priorities Act of 2010,'' would
restore predictability to a market that is often jolted by
unrelated political battles, resulting in four lapses since
September 2008. As representatives of the nation's largest
and most successful commercial insurance brokerages, who
collectively sell 90 percent of the nation's business
insurance, we strongly encourage you to support H.R. 5114,
the ``Flood Insurance Reform and Priorities Act of 2010.''
The legislation would reauthorize NFIP for five years,
increase outdated coverage limits for residential and
commercial properties, and encourage consumers in newly
designated flood zones to purchase coverage by phasing in
rates. The current authorization of NFIP expires on September
30, 2010.
This long-term strategy to maintain the program, as opposed
to short-term reauthorizations passed by Congress over the
past two years, is the responsible policy to pursue. H.R.
5114 is key to providing predictability in flood-prone
economies, and seeks to responsibly increase coverage in
flood zones.
We strongly urge you to support H.R. 5114, the ``Flood
Insurance Reform and Priorities Act of 2010.'' If we can
answer any of your questions, or be of assistance in any way,
[[Page H5632]]
please feel free to contact us at (202) 783-4400. Thank you
very much.
Sincerely,
Ken A. Crerar,
President.
Joel Wood,
Senior Vice President, Government Affairs.
Joel Kopperud,
Director, Government Affairs.
____
Property Casualty Insurers
Association of America,
Des Plaines, IL, April 26, 2010.
Hon. Barney Frank,
House Financial Services Committee, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Spencer Bachus,
House Financial Services Committee, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus: On behalf of
the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI),
I strongly urge your support of H.R. 5114, the ``Flood
Insurance Reform and Priorities Act of 2010'', sponsored by
Representative Maxine Waters. The Committee is scheduled to
mark-up this bill on Tuesday, April 27.
Floods are the most common natural disasters to occur in
the United States. Over 5.5 million Americans rely on the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). But with over $18
billion in debt, the NFIP needs meaningful reform.
Since 2008, Congress has entered into a cycle of passing
short-term extensions for the NFIP, leading to lapses in
program coverage. This year, there have already been two gaps
in the program, including March 1-2 and March 29-April 15.
This disjointed approach to NFIP leaves homeowners vulnerable
and adds greater uncertainty to the real estate market in
flood-prone areas.
The NFIP is currently set to expire again on May 31, 2010,
one day before the start of hurricane season and just three
months before the 5th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. We
need a long-term, sustainable solution to the flood program.
Rep. Waters' bill takes a very responsible approach to making
the NFIP more financially stable, providing the program with
an important multi-year extension through 2015 and limiting
additional federal exposure to natural disasters. The bill
also works to increase local awareness of the devastating
effects of flooding and the need to purchase flood insurance.
This legislation also addresses the cost of flood insurance
for consumers who now find themselves in a special flood
hazard area and are required to purchase the product by
phasing-in the cost.
H.R. 5114 promotes safer building practices to prevent and
reduce flood losses. Significant property development,
population growth, and rapidly rising real estate prices in
areas prone to natural disasters exacerbate the potential for
larger human and economic losses, requiring stronger loss
prevention, mitigation and greater financial resources for
recovery. Stronger building codes are one of the most
effective ways to mitigate storm damage. We believe that
state and local governments must address the need to restrict
development in flood-prone areas and discourage irresponsible
development. The first step is to improve outdated and
inconsistent requirements for building codes and code
enforcement.
We look forward to passage of this important and well-
balanced legislation. We would be happy to discuss any
questions regarding our support with you. We believe that
H.R. 5114 will make buildings stronger, families safer, and
the insurance market in flood-prone areas more stable over
the long-term. We highly recommend its passage and urge your
support of H.R. 5114, the ``Flood Insurance Reform and
Priorities Act of 2010.''
Sincerely,
David A. Sampson,
President and CEO.
____
National Association of
Professional Insurance Agents,
Alexandria, VA, July 13, 2010.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Boehner,
Republican Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner: On behalf of the
National Association of Professional Insurance Agents (PIA)
and our independent insurance agency owners, we are
encouraging swift passage this week of H.R. 5114, the Flood
Insurance Reform and Priorities Act of 2010, sponsored by
Congresswoman Maxine Waters.
It is imperative for our members and the consumers they
serve to have a stable flood insurance program available.
H.R. 5114 will reauthorize the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) for five years, providing stability to the
marketplace and fulfilling its vital role in helping citizens
protect themselves from the devastating losses floods can
cause.
Flooding events are the most common natural disaster in the
United States. Since the NFIP's inception, tens of billions
of dollars have been paid out to flood insurance customers,
providing protection to the citizens of this nation that
often can't be found in the private market.
Quickly passing this essential bill will help ensure that
the Senate has ample time to consider it before the NFIP
lapses again, currently set for September 30, 2010. Allowing
the program to regularly lapse, something that has occurred
multiple times this year alone, makes it much more difficult
for us to convince those who need flood insurance to buy it,
leaving America's homes and businesses uninsured.
Permitting uncertainty regarding the long-term future of a
program that enjoys broad bipartisan support has had the
unintended consequence of delaying real estate closings at a
time when our nation is struggling to build a sustainable
economic recovery. This has occurred at the same time that we
are dealing with an environmental disaster in the Gulf of
Mexico and facing the prospect of an active hurricane season.
H.R. 5114 provides much-needed reforms to the NFIP,
including increasing NFIP coverage limits, phasing in
actuarial property rates and phasing out premium subsidies
for second and vacation homes and making business
interruption and additional living expense coverages
available at actuarial cost.
There is broad consensus that the National Flood Insurance
Program is a vital component of America's economic prosperity
that provides affordable protection to homeowners and
business owners. PIA strongly supports the NFIP because it
has been protecting us from flood risks since its inception
over 40 years ago. We urge you to bring this bill to the
floor and that it be passed quickly.
Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. If you
need additional assistance from PIA, please contact Mike
Becker at 703-518-1365.
Sincerely,
Jon D. Spalding,
President.
Len Brevik,
Executive Vice President.
____
National Multi Housing Council,
National Apartment Association,
Washington, DC, April 20, 2010.
Hon. Maxine Waters,
Chair, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Outreach, U.S.
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Shelley Moore Capito,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Outreach, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member Capito: The
National Multi Housing Council (NMHC) and The National
Apartment Association (NAA) appreciate the opportunity to
express our views to the Committee as you consider
legislative proposals to reform the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) to ensure long term financial stability. Our
members rely on this critical program to not only protect
their property investment but to help manage the increasing
costs of providing housing. Therefore, efforts to ensure the
long term financial stability of the program are of critical
importance to the apartment industry and we applaud your
leadership.
The NMHC and NAA represent the nation's leading firms
participating in the multifamily rental housing industry. Our
combined memberships are engaged in all aspects of the
apartment industry, including ownership, development,
management, and finance. The NMHC represents the principal
officers of the apartment industry's largest and most
prominent firms. The NAA is the largest national federation
of state and local apartment associations. NAA is a
federation of 170 state and local affiliates comprised of
more than 50,000 multifamily housing companies representing
more than 5.9 million apartment homes. NMHC and NAA jointly
operate a federal legislative program and provide a unified
voice for the private apartment industry.
Our membership is extremely concerned about the future
stability of the overall property insurance market and its
ability to withstand the continued occurrence of not just
floods but all natural disasters. Policyholders need some
assurances that the resources will be available to cover the
risks both now and in the future. As Congress continues its
deliberations on how best to address this critical issue, we
hope to participate in this broader discussion.
We support the discussion draft legislation as offered by
Chairwoman Waters, the Flood Insurance Reform and Priorities
Act of 2010, and specifically the following provisions that
have the greatest impact on the multifamily industry:
Long Term Reauthorization of NFIP--Continuous short term
extensions create uncertainty in an already challenging
economy. The inability to issue new policies, renew existing
policies, change limits or pay claims upon program expiration
creates unnecessary problems for consumers and businesses
alike. A 5 year reauthorization of the NFIP is appropriate
and necessary.
Maximum coverage limits: Raising the policy limits for
multifamily properties from $250,000 to $335,000 recognizes
that current limits are outdated and do not reflect the
increased real estate values.
Subsidized rates for pre-FIRM properties--The draft bill
proposes to phase in actuarial rates for non-residential and
non-primary residences. We support the clarifying language in
Section 5 that effectively maintains the subsidized rate for
multifamily properties of 4 or more dwelling units.
Currently pre-FIRM multifamily properties located in flood
zones and thus eligible for subsidized rates through the
NFIP, most likely represent a significant segment of the
affordable housing market. The country is
[[Page H5633]]
already experiencing a shortage of affordable housing. As
operating costs increase, these properties will be forced to
pass along these costs to their residents in the form of
higher rent, thus exacerbating this shortage. The impact can
be far more severe for those property owners who are
prohibited from raising rents due to rent stabilization
restrictions or federal assistance program rules. These
property owners cannot adjust their rents and must therefore
determine their ability to continue in this market. Many may
be forced to withdraw. And those that choose to remain may
simply decline adequate coverage, exposing their properties
to deterioration and declining property value.
We thank you for your work to ensure the future viability
of the NFIP and look forward to working with you to secure
reauthorization of this critical program. If however, a
reform measure cannot be enacted prior to the May 31, 2010
expiration, we encourage Congress to enact a long term
extension of the program to ensure the confidence of
policyholders and stability in the market.
Sincerely,
Douglas M. Bibby,
President, National Multi Housing Council.
Douglas S. Culkin, CAE,
President, National Apartment Association.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5114, the
Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010, which extends the flood
insurance program that provides peace of mind and security for millions
of Americans. This measure also enacts important reforms that make the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) more financially sustainable
and provide much-needed assistance to individuals in newly mapped flood
zones.
I thank Chairman Frank for his leadership in bringing this bill to
the floor. I also thank Congresswoman Waters for her commitment to
ensuring that this bill is equitable and does riot disadvantage
struggling families and businesses.
Mr. Chair, the NFIP is an important government program that makes
flood insurance available to many vulnerable families that otherwise
would be unable to find coverage. However, it is critical for us to
ensure that this program does not unnecessarily disadvantage
individuals in newly mapped flood zones by imposing immediate insurance
mandates and crippling premiums.
Fortunately, H.R. 5114 contains important provisions ensuring that it
will not overburden families and businesses, many of whom are already
struggling in these tough economic times. This bill delays for five
years the mandatory purchase requirement for flood insurance. Following
this five year delay, the bill allows for a five year phase-in of
actuarial rates for newly mapped areas. These provisions provide
necessary relief to families who have not been required to purchase
flood insurance in the past and may be unprepared for this new expense.
For example, areas in my district with little or no history of
flooding have recently been remapped into a flood zone that assigns a
``once in 100 years'' risk of flooding. The five year delay in the
purchasing requirement and the five year phase-in of actuarial rates
will give my district a grace period in which we can improve our levee
and flood protection systems and ultimately lose our ``at risk''
designation. This bill gives districts like mine all across the country
the opportunity to make improvements without taking on the financial
burden of flood insurance premiums in this period of economic recovery.
Mr. Chair, this bill is important for the people for whom it provides
flood insurance and the people that it protects from unnecessary
financial burdens. It is an appropriate measure that is worthy of our
support. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5114.
Mr. HARE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5114, The
Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010. This legislation would
give families in my district and across the Nation the peace of mind
that comes with knowing they'll be protected from the financial
insecurity caused by flooding.
I'd like to thank Chairwoman Waters for her leadership on this issue
and for working with me to include language in the managers amendment
that would require FEMA to update its flood maps for an area that has
had its levee system improved to eliminate the risk of flooding.
My language also clarifies that updated flood maps that are issued
will result in the elimination of the mandatory purchase requirement
for the improved areas.
My district in Illinois lies on the banks of the Mississippi River
and contains large parts of the Illinois and Rock Rivers--a district
obviously that is impacted greatly by policies dealing with the
National Flood Insurance Program.
It is why I strongly support the underlying bill and urge my
colleagues to do the same--this legislation reauthorizes the National
Flood Insurance Program for five years and puts an end to Congress
passing short-term flood insurance extensions that leave the program in
a state of uncertainty.
There are several other provisions of this bill that are common sense
and long overdue which I would like to briefly highlight. The bill:
Phases in Premium Increases; creates a flood insurance premium payment
installation plan for low-income families; and establishes the Office
of Flood Insurance Advocate within FEMA, which would help communities
and homeowners interpret, implement and appeal flood insurance rate
maps.
These are just a few of the provisions of this bill that I thank the
chairwoman for including, and I again urge my colleagues to support
both the manager's amendment and the underlying bill.
Passage of this important legislation will benefit all Americans who
live in flood-prone areas of our Nation.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this legislation to
reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which is
essential for people who live in hazardous areas. The bill makes a
number of important reforms that will help increase the fiscal
soundness and stability of the Program.
First, I am especially pleased that the bill extends the successful
Severe Repetitive Loss Pilot Program, which was created in the Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 2004. This program provides resources to
communities to mitigate properties that have flooded repeatedly.
Repetitive loss properties cost the NFIP about $400 million annually.
While they comprise approximately 2 percent of the program, they
account for more than 25 percent of the claims paid.
By extending the Pilot Program, this legislation will help reduce the
cost burden of these properties on the Program and will release
homeowners from the cycle of flood, rebuild, and flood again. I
appreciate that Chairwoman Waters included a provision in the manager's
amendment making a technical fix to ensure that FEMA is implementing
the Pilot Program as Congress intended.
I also support language in this bill that will phase in actuarial
rates for non-residential properties and non-primary residences. Many
houses in hazardous areas were built before the NFIP was put in place
and those hazards was identified. For too long, these properties have
enjoyed subsidized rates that drive up costs for everyone else in the
program and send the wrong signals to property-owners about their
risks. By setting rates based on risk, this legislation bolsters the
stability of the NFIP and may result in lower costs for all policy-
holders.
I am disappointed, however, that the bill includes provisions that I
believe will result in consumers not understanding the flood risks they
face and will potentially harm both policyholders and taxpayers.
Under direction from Congress, FEMA has undertaken a map
modernization process around the country. The purpose is to identify
areas at risk, as flooding patterns have changed over time.
Section 6 of this bill essentially says that even if the new maps
find that a property is at risk, property owner will not have to
purchase flood insurance for 5 years. This undermines the mandatory
purchase requirement of the Program. If there's a flood in the next
five years, taxpayers will be on the hook to bail these property owners
out.
Section 7 of the bill takes this denial of risk even further, saying
that after the five year delay, a property owner newly identified as
living in a flood hazard area will enjoy subsidized rates for another 4
years.
Finally, I'm concerned about Section 10, which automatically deems
safe properties ``protected'' by a levee or other flood protection
system, effectively removing the mandatory purchase requirement even if
the flood protection system no longer works. As my friends from New
Orleans know, levees can break. With this provision, we send a signal
to homeowners that they do not need to mitigate their risks.
While the bill includes some important reforms, it doesn't go far
enough to address the structural problems that have cost taxpayers
money, harmed the environment, and kept people in harm's way.
The challenges for the program will only increase with time, as
increased development and climate change put more people at risk.
Already, over the past thirty years, the number of billion dollar US
weather disasters has increased. From 1980-1989, there were 10
disasters that resulted in over $1 billion in damage. From 2000-2009
there were 44. If we don't take steps now to reform the system, this
number will only continue to increase exponentially.
For this reason, I would have preferred that this bill extend the
program for less than five years. I understand that FEMA is undertaking
a comprehensive review of the program, long overdue, and will come to
Congress in two years to make administrative and legislative
recommendations to strengthen the Program for the future. I hope that
as this bill moves
[[Page H5634]]
forward through the process we can better coordinate the extension with
this review so that Congress can keep the focus on reform.
In the interest of moving this legislation forward and ending the
short-term extensions that the NFIP has been facing this year, I urge
passage of H.R. 5114. But I look forward to working with my colleagues
to make further forms to protect taxpayers, policyholders, and the
environment.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of
H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010.
The National Flood Insurance Program makes federally-backed flood
insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in
participating communities in exchange for those communities adopting
and enforcing floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood
damage. Unfortunately, Congress did not reauthorize the program by the
May 31 deadline of this year, and as a result many Americans living in
flood-prone areas, including people in my congressional district, have
been unable to obtain flood insurance or renew their coverage.
Hurricane season is now upon us, and therefore this is an issue on
which Congress must show urgency.
The Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010 would reauthorize
the National Flood Insurance Program through the year 2015, along with
making certain reforms. One such reform involves a five year phase-in
of flood insurance rates for newly mapped areas not previously
designated as having special flood hazard. This is particularly
important for low-income citizens living in where flood maps change
frequently.
I have always been a supporter of the National Flood Insurance
Program because I believe that hard-working Americans deserve the peace
of mind that comes from knowing that their homes and businesses will be
protected in the event of a major flood. I urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 5114 and reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program
so that people are once again able to obtain this peace of mind.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5114,
``the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010.'' I want to thank
Chairwoman Waters and Chairman Frank for their hard work on H.R. 5114.
This bill will provide enhanced security, better organization,
increased participation, and a clear and improved direction for the
future of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). By addressing
the financial and administrative issues regarding NFIP, this bill will
help protect millions of Americans from the potentially devastating
economic effects created by a flood.
Communities like mine in Houston rely heavily on NFIP to provide
security against the risk of flood. Without this national flood
insurance program, many communities across the U.S. would cease to
exist because it is virtually impossible to buy flood insurance in the
private market. The importance of this insurance program has grown
significantly over the last decade as more and more communities have
increased their dependence on the NFIP.
As a direct result of certain natural disasters, including the 2005
hurricanes, and increased annual rain and flooding, NFIP has reached
its highest participation rate in its 42-year history. Today, over 5
million homes and businesses rely on NFIP for flood coverage security.
It is of extreme importance that this program continues to grow and
develop to serve this population.
Mr. Chair, as you know, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) has authority to issue, renew, or increase coverage of flood
insurance policies under the NFIP; and this authority will again lapse
on September 30, 2010. H.R. 5114 will extend these authorities to
fiscal year 2015 and continue this program in a renewed and revitalized
direction. This bill represents a great opportunity to improve and
redefine NFIP and to provide greater security to the American people.
Not only will this bill clean up the NFIP requirements and expand
coverage with ``phase-ins'' of actuarial rates to more properties and
in newly mapped high flood risk areas; this bill will also address
outreach issues, risk analysis, and economic effects. It will initiate
studies to report the impact, effectiveness, and feasibility of NFIP
policies as well as potential methods, practices, and incentives that
would increase participation by low-income families owning residential
properties located within special flood risk areas. The bill will also
create an office to oversee and better manage all of the
responsibilities of NFIP and provide assistance to communities,
businesses, and homeowners with all flood insurance issues.
Furthermore, this bill will require a comprehensive strategy
assessing the goals of NFIP to ensure that the program has a clear plan
to pay off its debt and ensure itself a healthy future. This not only
benefits the recipients of the flood insurance coverage, it also
benefits the program, the U.S. budget, and the American people.
I submitted several amendments to complement the goals of this
legislation. One would have required a study to analyze important data
regarding the damages resulting from floods. The amendment would have
directed the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
to conduct a study on the impacts of excessive rainwater on residences
located in areas at high risk for flooding from bayous and highways.
The results of this study would have been reported to Congress no later
than 5 years after the enactment of this bill. Through this study, my
amendment would have provided vital information necessary to assess the
dangers of an at-risk area and better prepare communities to protect
themselves from flood.
Mr. Chair, the only way to achieve the maximum security and
preparedness for at-risk communities is to understand these risks with
updated, relevant data and analysis. In the Houston area, there is
already an on-going study, analyzing the effects of the bayou and
rainfall, as flooding and its detrimental consequences are often a
concern for the Houston area. The White Oak Bayou Federal Flood Damage
Reduction Project is an existing project in Houston which is a
partnership project between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the
Corps) and the Harris County Flood Control District (the District). In
developing a flood damage reduction project for White Oak Bayou, the
Harris County Flood Control District has performed extensive data
collection and analysis. The District has held public meetings within
the community several times over the course of developing the project
to determine the community's interests and flood damage reduction
needs. Using this information, the District developed the flood damage
reduction project for White Oak Bayou.
In 1998, the District began a feasibility study for the White Oak
Bayou Federal Flood Damage Reduction Project. This investigation has
involved an extensive study of the White Oak Bayou watershed.
Components to address flooding were analyzed and evaluated in great
detail, which generated several alternatives for consideration as part
of the project. Some of the components are already being implemented.
Unfortunately, there are many other areas in Houston/Harris County,
Texas and other communities throughout this country that experience an
inordinate amount of flooding. In Houston, these areas that are
frequently flooded from excessive rainwater include the Buffalo Bayou,
the Greens Bayou, and the Halls Bayou. These areas could greatly
benefit from a study and analysis to determine the impact of excessive
rainwater on residences located in areas at high risk for flooding from
bayous and highways. Such a study would allow for investigators to
better determine the amount of flood damage and create and implement
measures to prevent such future damage.
Another amendment I offered would have stated that it is the sense of
Congress that it is important to provide resources to address the
devastating effects of flooding; that homeowners are particularly
negatively affected by flooding; that excessive rainfall often leads to
unsafe and hazardous living conditions; that flooding presents
unexpected destruction and damage; and that it is necessary to provide
consumers the opportunity to buy flood insurance.
This amendment declares to the American people in a loud voice, that
Congress understands the seriousness of flooding and the importance of
flood insurance. It is important that we candidly illustrate our
reasoning for the issuance of this legislation.
Mr. Chair, it is clear that we have not been taking this issue as
seriously as we should. We have had three lapses of authority this year
alone with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). We must not
continue to simply extend this program for 30 days at a time. We must
not continue to play with the security of the American people when it
pertains to an issue so serious and potentially devastating as floods.
The people who own homes in these areas and the businesses who own
property deserve better. The communities and the many potential
homeowners, who cannot purchase homes without access to flood
insurance, deserve better. We must take the first step by making it
perfectly clear that we as a Congress will no longer play and toil with
this issue. We must affirm that we are very serious about protecting
our constituents and securing our nation from the devastating
consequences of floods.
Finally, I also offered a well crafted amendment that would have
effectively prohibited states and local governments from misusing new
federal flood insurance program requirements to disadvantaged
businesses and homeowners in any way. Unfortunately, federal law is
often misinterpreted by state and local officials, resulting in
unintended consequences in many communities across this country. My
amendment was a practical and reasonable response to a previously
enacted Houston ordinance that had just such unintended consequences.
This ordinance prohibited property construction on vacant land or
[[Page H5635]]
substantially damaged property located in major floodways and bayous
and almost resulted in the wrongful taking of property from innocent
homeowners, merely because their property was located in the wrong
place.
In 2006, I began meeting with hundreds of homeowners in Houston from
areas such as Shady Acres, a 100-year-old neighborhood, as a result of
the implementation of changes to Chapter 19, the City of Houston's
floodplain ordinance. Listening to their testimonies and frustration
made the impact of this bill very relevant. Just think, in my home
district an ordinance was passed that resulted in the massive reduction
in property values for almost 10,000 developed and vacant properties,
including 2,400 single family homes. The ordinance took advantage of
the fact that FEMA would be expected to decrease flood insurance
premiums by 5 percent for those areas. Although the communities could
pay less for flood insurance, the difference was minimal compared to
the losses to their property values. Many owners were afraid that they
would have to sell their homes because of the dramatic drop in value.
By firmly stating that state and local governments should not
misinterpret these flood insurance laws to put property owners at a
disadvantage, I believe we could have sent a strong message that
Congress will protect the property rights and interests of American
citizens and the people this bill is intended to aid. It is important
to make it known that the use of any unforeseen circumstances to treat
flood insurance program requirements as a proxy for the wrongful taking
of property is utterly unacceptable.
I truly believe my amendments would have complemented H.R. 5114.
However, I still believe the bill is a proactive measure that has been
long overdue to address the urgent needs of Americans throughout this
country, many of whom experience damage and losses to their homes,
property and businesses from flooding.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to pass this important bill.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chair, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act makes
a number of changes to the National Flood Insurance Program. Some of
these changes are in the interests of taxpayers, such as the new
restrictions on subsidies for second houses and vacation homes, while
others, particularly the coverage limits, are in the interest of those
who own property in flood plains. However, taken in its entirety this
bill is not really in the interest of taxpayers or property owners
because it creates new federal programs that appear to serve no useful
purpose and it continues to allow the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) to impose unnecessary costs on local communities.
At a time when the flood insurance program is running a deficit of 2
billion dollars this legislation wastes millions of taxpayer dollars on
``outreach'' and ``education'' programs designed to make sure people
living in flood prone areas are aware of the need for flood insurance.
Madame Speaker, as a homeowner in a flood plain, I can assure you that
property ownership these areas are very aware of the need for flood
insurance and do not need any outreach or reminders of the need for
flood insurance.
Many critics of flood insurance have pointed out that federally-
subsidized insurance encourages people to develop land in areas where
under a free market system flood insurance would be prohibitively
expensive. This is a valid point; however, it is also true that the
flood insurance program often imposes flood insurance mandates on
property owners in areas where there is little actual risk of flooding.
Much of the controversy over the redrawing of the flood plain maps
revolves around concerns that FEMA may force local communities to spend
millions of dollars refurbishing levees and dams even though these
structures were constructed specifically to protect against the worst
conceivable storms.
In some cases, FEMA is even demanding that communities spend money to
alter levies that were constructed after consultation with the Corp of
Engineers! While I am pleased the bill at least provides a phase-in of
the flood insurance mandate for property owners living in the newly-
mapped flood plains, I am concerned that it does not do enough to
ensure communities and individuals are not forced to incur needless
expenses simply to satisfy FEMA bureaucrats. At the least, Congress
should not give FEMA the ability to impose new flood maps without
adequate oversight. Yet, under this bill, it would be five years before
Congress seriously re-examines the flood program.
The basic problem with the flood insurance program is that it assumes
government officials are capable of knowing who should and who should
not be required to purchase flood insurance, and also determine the
premiums for every individual living in a flood-prone area. However,
there is no way that government bureaucrats can determine correct
amounts of coverage and premium prices for millions of individual
homeowners.
If flood insurance were allowed to be provided by the market, private
insurance could do an accurate job of pricing risk so that those who
wished to live in flood-prone areas could do so as long as they were
willing to pay for the risk. Under this market system, property owners
and insurance companies would have incentives that are lacking when the
program is subsidized by the government; i.e., incentives to adopt
innovative ways to mitigate the damage from floods.
My district has experienced numerous storms and floods, including
Hurricane Ike in 2008. After each incident, my office inevitably
receives complaints from my constituents regarding FEMA's failure to
provide them with timely assistance and compensation. My constituents'
dissatisfaction with FEMA, along with the shameful way extension of the
flood insurance program was held hostage last month in order to
blackmail representatives into supporting adding billions more to the
national debt, has strengthened my conviction that private markets,
local communities, and states can more efficiently and humanely deal
with the demand for flood insurance than the federal government.
The Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act does take some steps toward
fixing some of the problems with the flood insurance system, but it
also needlessly spends taxpayer money and does not adequately address
concerns that FEMA may impose unnecessary costs on local communities--
communities which do have plenty of incentive to make sure they are
adequately prepared for a flood. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5114, the
Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010. This legislation makes
several significant changes to the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) and extends the authorization of the program through 2015.
I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the Chairman
of the Committee on Financial Services, and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters ) for their efforts to advance this important
legislation. I thank them for the cooperative spirit in which they have
worked with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on flood
issues.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has jurisdiction
over the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and its programs
authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (Stafford Act). Flooding is the most common risk
communities across the country face and floods are the most frequent
type of disaster declared by the President. The NFIP works hand in hand
with FEMA's pre- and post-disaster programs authorized by the Stafford
Act.
The NFIP provides assistance to communities through all the phases of
emergency management: preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation.
Initially, the program helps communities prepare by providing
incentives to participate in the program; in return for improved zoning
and other ordinances, communities received subsidized flood insurance.
Further, flood maps under the NFIP help communities prepare for floods
by helping to predict where flooding will occur and the likely
severity. This in turn helps first responders know which communities
need to be evacuated, or where people may need to be rescued, and where
flood fighting efforts need to take place.
The NFIP helps in recovery by providing payments to policy holders
above and beyond what disaster assistance under the Stafford Act will
cover and by transferring these costs from the Federal taxpayers to
insurance rate payers. The NFIP pays numerous claims each year for
events that do not warrant Federal disasters assistance under the
Stafford Act. The NFIP and flood mapping also helps mitigate damage to
property and risks to lives by identifying and mandating steps
communities can take to rebuild safer and smarter after a flood, or,
proactively, before a flood strikes a community. This assistance works
in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Grant Program authorized by the Stafford Act.
The amendments to the NFIP made by H.R. 5114 will provide for both a
strong insurance program and strengthen the NFIP's risk communication
and mitigation functions. The bill provides for outreach to communities
and residents to ensure that they are aware of the risks they face and
the insurance available to them. Even where this bill provides
temporary relief from insurance purchase requirements, it requires
communities to have the appropriate notice, risk communication, and
emergency management plans in place to protect their citizens from the
risks posed by floods.
Mr. Chair, I also wish to note several additional issues related to
the nation's efforts to address the risk of flooding that are not
addressed in this legislation and to state the commitment of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to continue to work on
these issues in the hopes of bringing forward
[[Page H5636]]
comprehensive reform of the nation's flood damage reduction efforts in
the near future.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has a longstanding
interest in the maintenance and safety of our nation's infrastructure.
Over the past few years, the importance of maintaining the safety of
our nation's flood control structures, including our levee systems, has
been reinforced by pictures of the catastrophic consequences of their
failure.
Since the events of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure has held numerous hearings on the
condition of the nation's flood damage reduction infrastructure. Most
shocking was the realization that our nation had never conducted a
simple inventory of all the levees in this country. We learned that
Federal, State, and local agencies did not have comprehensive knowledge
about where all of the levees in our Nation were located, what
condition they are in, or what resources are at risk if they fail or
should they be overtopped.
In the 110th Congress, this body voted, by a vote of 361-54 to
override a Presidential veto of the Water Resources Development Act
2007, in order to authorize critical but long overdue spending on our
nation's water infrastructure. Section 9003 of WRDA 2007 created the
National Committee on Levee Safety to develop plans and recommendations
for a National Levee Safety Program.
Earlier this Congress, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment held a hearing on the draft recommendations of the National
Committee and on proposals to take a more holistic view towards
sustainable flood damage reduction including: improvements to the
Nation's system of flood control structures; the establishment of
clear, national standards for the condition of levees and for
maintaining these critical structures; for communicating to the public
the inherent risks associated with potential flooding events; and for
encouraging the incorporation of nonstructural approaches into the
overall system of flood protection.
Over the past year, our Committee has reached out to numerous
Federal, State, and local agencies responsible for flood protection, as
well as numerous non-governmental organizations to begin the
discussions on how to comprehensively reform our Nation's efforts to
protect the lives and livelihoods of its citizenry. I want to thank the
Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services (Mr. Frank) for his
participation in these discussions and for his willingness to find
longterm, comprehensive solutions to the flooding issues facing this
Nation.
The answers to these questions are likely to be lengthy and
expensive, but investing in our levee systems now will save billions of
dollars and many lives later.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates
that hurricanes and floods cost the country over $10 billion in damages
in an average year. However, extreme events in the past several decades
push this number up. For example, Hurricane Katrina, the costliest and
most deadly hurricane we have seen this century, caused an estimated
$100 billion in damages and the loss of hundreds of lives.
Additionally, the Midwest has seen two 500-year floods in the past 15
years. Flooding in 2008 alone resulted in upwards of $15 billion in
damages and the loss of two dozen lives.
Our goal is to prevent such massive losses in the future by creating
an effective national flood damage reduction and levee safety program.
We must be clear that no program can effectively eliminate all risk of
flooding. However, implementing certain policies will lower this risk.
We must have an accurate assessment of the condition of our current
levee system and based on that assessment, create national standards
that will apply to all levee systems. Taking into consideration new
risk factors, such as changing hydrological conditions, increased
development within floodplains, and the effects of global climate
change, will be essential in this process. In light of these factors,
the current 100-year flood model may no longer be sufficient as a
minimum standard for some levees.
Some would have liked the legislation before the House today to
address both reforms to the NFIP and to the Nation's overall flood
damage reduction efforts. Such broad reform to our system of flood
control requires careful consideration and additional work, which the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure stands ready to do. I
look forward to continuing to work with Chairman Frank and other
Members to address this important issue in the near future.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5114.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010. This
legislation would reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) through fiscal year 2015 and make several improvements to the
program.
My Congressional District is home to some of the most flood prone
rivers and streams in the United States. Nearly every major rain event
causes some type of the flooding for residents and businesses. As a
result, the NFIP is a tremendously important program for my
constituents and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this
legislation.
H.R. 5114 contains provisions I authored to help communities that are
currently constructing flood control projects where new scientific data
would require changes in the design of the levee systems. In this
situation, residents and businesses would be required to pay flood
insurance rates as if the levees were not even constructed.
Mr. Chair, it is enormously unfair for communities that have
contributed millions of dollars toward a flood control project to be
penalized with higher flood insurance rates because of conflicting
scientific data. Communities invest in flood control projects with not
only the expectation of being protected from future floods but also
having the expectation of receiving reduced flood insurance rates.
My provisions ensure that when this situation arises the community
will be treated fairly for purposes of purchasing flood insurance
during the construction of flood protection measures.
Ms. WATERS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 5114
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Flood
Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Extension of national flood insurance program.
Sec. 4. Maximum coverage limits.
Sec. 5. Phase-in of actuarial rates for nonresidential properties,
certain pre-FIRM properties, and non-primary residences.
Sec. 6. 5-year delay in effective date of mandatory purchase
requirement for new flood hazard areas.
Sec. 7. 5-year phase-in of flood insurance rates for newly mapped
areas.
Sec. 8. Increase in annual limitation on premium increases.
Sec. 9. Consideration of construction, reconstruction, and improvement
of flood protection systems in determination of flood
insurance rates.
Sec. 10. Treatment of certain flood protection projects.
Sec. 11. Notification to homeowners regarding mandatory purchase
requirement applicability and rate phase-ins.
Sec. 12. Coverage for additional living expenses and business
interruption.
Sec. 13. Exception to waiting period for effective date of policies.
Sec. 14. Minimum deductibles for claims.
Sec. 15. Payment of premiums in installments for low-income
policyholders.
Sec. 16. Enforcement.
Sec. 17. Notification to tenants of availability of contents insurance.
Sec. 18. Flood insurance outreach.
Sec. 19. Notice of availability of flood insurance and escrow in RESPA
good faith estimate.
Sec. 20. Authorization of additional FEMA staff.
Sec. 21. Plan to verify maintenance of flood insurance on Mississippi
and Louisiana properties receiving emergency supplemental
funds.
Sec. 22. Flood insurance advocate.
Sec. 23. Eligibility of property demolition and rebuilding under flood
mitigation assistance program.
Sec. 24. Study regarding mandatory purchase requirement for non-
federally related loans.
Sec. 25. Study of methods to increase flood insurance program
participation by low-income families.
Sec. 26. Report on inclusion of building codes in floodplain management
criteria.
Sec. 27. Study on repaying flood insurance debt.
Sec. 28. Study regarding impact of rate increases on pre-FIRM
properties.
Sec. 29. Study of effects of Act.
Sec. 30. Rulemaking.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) since the enactment of National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, the national flood insurance program has been the
primary source of reliable, reasonably priced, flood
insurance coverage for millions of American homes and
businesses;
(2) today over 5,500,000 homes and businesses in the United
States rely on the national flood insurance program to
provide a degree of financial security;
(3) although participation in the national flood insurance
program has, in the past, largely been limited to properties
required to participate in the program because of the
program's
[[Page H5637]]
mandatory purchase requirement for properties in special
flood hazard areas with loans from federally regulated
lenders, recent annual and extraordinary flooding has
resulted in the program enjoying its highest voluntary
participation since the establishment of the mandatory flood
insurance purchase requirement;
(4) several years of below-average flood claims losses and
increased voluntary participation in the national flood
insurance program have allowed the program to fully service
the debt incurred following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and
allowed the program to pay $598,000,000 of the principal of
that outstanding debt;
(5) though significant reforms are needed to further
improve the financial outlook of the national flood insurance
program, long-term and reliable authorization of the program
is an essential element to stabilizing the already fragile
United States housing market;
(6) increased flooding in areas outside designated special
flood hazard areas prompted the Executive and the Congress in
2002 to begin calling for the national flood insurance
program to develop and disseminate revised, updated flood
insurance rate maps that reflect the real risk of flooding
for properties not previously identified as being located
within a special flood hazard area;
(7) dissemination of accurate, up-to-date, flood-risk
information remains a primary goal of the national flood
insurance program and such information should be disseminated
as soon as such information is collected and available;
(8) communities should be encouraged to make their
residents aware of updated flood-risk data while communities
are assessing and incorporating updated flood-risk data into
long-term community planning;
(9) the maximum coverage limits for flood insurance
policies should be increased to reflect inflation and the
increased cost of housing; and
(10) phasing out flood insurance premium subsidies
currently extended to vacation homes, second homes, and
commercial properties would result in significant average
annual savings to the national flood insurance program.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to identify priorities essential to the reform and
ongoing stable functioning of the national flood insurance
program;
(2) to increase incentives for homeowners and communities
to participate in the national flood insurance program and to
improve oversight to ensure better accountability of the
national flood insurance program and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency; and
(3) to increase awareness of homeowners of flood risks and
improve the information regarding such risks provided to
homeowners.
SEC. 3. 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, 2015''.
(b) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
4016(a)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2008'' and
inserting ``September 30, 2015''.
(c) 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 ``2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and
2015''; and
(2) by striking subsection (l).
SEC. 4. MAXIMUM COVERAGE LIMITS.
Subsection (b) of section 1306 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$250,000'' and
inserting ``$335,000'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``$100,000'' and
inserting ``$135,000''; and
(3) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking ``$500,000'' each place such term appears
and inserting ``$670,000''; and
(B) by inserting before ``; and'' the following: ``; except
that, in the case of any nonresidential property that is a
structure containing more than one dwelling unit that is made
available for occupancy by rental (notwithstanding the
provisions applicable to the determination of the risk
premium rate for such property), additional flood insurance
in excess of such limits shall be made available to every
insured upon renewal and every applicant for insurance so as
to enable any such insured or applicant to receive coverage
up to a total amount that is equal to the product of the
total number of such rental dwelling units in such property
and the maximum coverage limit per dwelling unit specified in
paragraph (2); except that in the case of any such multi-
unit, nonresidential rental property that is a pre-FIRM
structure (as such term is defined in section 578(b) of the
National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4014
note)), the risk premium rate for the first $500,000 of
coverage shall be determined in accordance with section
1307(a)(2) and the risk premium rate for any coverage in
excess of such amount shall be determined in accordance with
section 1307(a)(1)''.
SEC. 5. PHASE-IN OF ACTUARIAL RATES FOR NONRESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES, CERTAIN PRE-FIRM PROPERTIES, AND
NON-PRIMARY RESIDENCES.
(a) In General.--Section 1308(c) of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015(c)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (5); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraphs:
``(2) Nonresidential properties.--Any nonresidential
property, which term shall not include any multifamily rental
property that consists of four or more dwelling units.
``(3) Non-primary residences.--Any residential property
that is not the primary residence of any individual,
including the owner of the property or any other individual
who resides in the property as a tenant.
``(4) Recently purchased pre-firm single-family properties
used as principal residencies.--Any single family property
that--
``(A) has been constructed or substantially improved and
for which such construction or improvement was started, as
determined by the Director, before December 31, 1974, or
before the effective date of the initial rate map published
by the Director under paragraph (2) of section 1360 for the
area in which such property is located, whichever is later;
and
``(B) is purchased after the date of enactment of the Flood
Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010.''.
(b) Technical Amendments.--Section 1308 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``the limitations provided under paragraphs (1) and (2)'' and
inserting ``subsection (e)''; and
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, except'' and all that
follows through ``subsection (e)''; and
(2) in subsection (e), by striking ``paragraph (2) or (3)''
and inserting ``paragraph (5)''.
(c) Effective Date and Transition.--
(1) Effective date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall apply beginning upon the expiration of the 3-
year period that begins on the date of the enactment of this
Act, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(2) Transition for properties covered by flood insurance
upon effective date.--
(A) Increase of rates over time.--In the case of any
property described in paragraph (2), (3), or (4) of section
1308(c) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as
amended by subsection (a) of this section, that, as of the
effective date under paragraph (1) of this subsection, is
covered under a policy for flood insurance made available
under the national flood insurance program for which the
chargeable premium rates are less than the applicable
estimated risk premium rate under section 1307(a)(1) for the
area in which the property is located, the Director of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency shall increase the
chargeable premium rates for such property over time to such
applicable estimated risk premium rate under section
1307(a)(1).
(B) Annual increase.--Such increase shall be made by
increasing the chargeable premium rates for the property
(after application of any increase in the premium rates
otherwise applicable to such property), once during the 12-
month period that begins upon the effective date under
paragraph (1) of this subsection and once every 12 months
thereafter until such increase is accomplished, by 20 percent
(or such lesser amount as may be necessary so that the
chargeable rate does not exceed such applicable estimated
risk premium rate or to comply with subparagraph (C)).
(C) Properties subject to phase-in and annual increases.--
In the case of any pre-FIRM property (as such term is defined
in section 578(b) of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act
of 1974), the aggregate increase, during any 12-month period,
in the chargeable premium rate for the property that is
attributable to this paragraph or to an increase described in
section 1308(e) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
may not exceed 20 percent.
(D) Full actuarial rates.--The provisions of paragraphs
(2), (3), and (4) of such section 1308(c) shall apply to such
a property upon the accomplishment of the increase under this
paragraph and thereafter.
SEC. 6. 5-YEAR DELAY IN EFFECTIVE DATE OF MANDATORY PURCHASE
REQUIREMENT FOR NEW FLOOD HAZARD AREAS.
(a) In General.--Section 102 of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Delayed Effective Date of Mandatory Purchase
Requirement for New Flood Hazard Areas.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any area that was not
previously designated as an area having special flood hazards
and that, pursuant to any issuance, revision, updating, or
other change in flood insurance maps that takes effect on or
after September 1, 2008, becomes designated as an area having
special flood hazards, if each State and local government
having jurisdiction over any portion of the geographic area
has complied with paragraph (2), such designation shall not
take effect for purposes of subsection (a), (b), or (e) of
this section, or section 202(a) of this Act, until the
expiration of the 5-year period beginning upon the date that
such maps, as issued, revised, update, or otherwise changed,
become effective.
``(2) Notice requirements.--A State or local government
shall be considered to have complied with this paragraph with
respect to any geographic area described in paragraph (1)
only if the State or local government has, before the
effective date of the issued, revised, updated, or changed
maps, and in accordance with such standards as shall be
established by the Director--
``(A) developed an evacuation plan to be implemented in the
event of flooding in such portion of the geographic area; and
``(B) developed and implemented an outreach and
communication plan to advise occupants in such portion of the
geographic area of potential flood risks, the opportunity to
purchase flood insurance, and the consequences of failure to
purchase flood insurance.
[[Page H5638]]
``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in paragraph (1) may
be construed to affect the applicability of a designation of
any area as an area having special flood hazards for purposes
of the availability of flood insurance coverage, criteria for
land management and use, notification of flood hazards,
eligibility for mitigation assistance, or any other purpose
or provision not specifically referred to in paragraph
(1).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The second sentence of
subsection (h) of section 1360 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101(h)) is amended by
striking ``Such'' and inserting ``Except for notice regarding
a change described in section 102(i)(1) of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a(i)(1)), such''.
(c) No Refunds.--Nothing in this section or the amendments
made by this section may be construed to authorize or require
any payment or refund for flood insurance coverage purchased
for any property that covered any period during which such
coverage is not required for the property pursuant to the
applicability of the amendment made by subsection (a).
SEC. 7. 5-YEAR PHASE-IN OF FLOOD INSURANCE RATES FOR NEWLY
MAPPED AREAS.
Section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4015), as amended by the preceding provisions of
this Act, is further amended--
(1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by inserting ``or notice'' after ``prescribe by
regulation'';
(2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``and subsection (g)''
before the first comma; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) 5-Year Phase-In of Flood Insurance Rates for Newly
Mapped Areas.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
relating to chargeable risk premium rates for flood insurance
coverage under this title, in the case of any area that was
not previously designated as an area having special flood
hazards and that, pursuant to any issuance, revision,
updating, or other change in flood insurance maps, becomes
designated as such an area, during the 5-year period that
begins upon the expiration of the period referred to in
section 102(i)(1) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973 with respect to such area, the chargeable premium rate
for flood insurance under this title with respect to any
property that is located within such area shall be--
``(1) for the first year of such 5-year period, 20 percent
of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable
under this title to the property;
``(2) for the second year of such 5-year period, 40 percent
of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable
under this title to the property;
``(3) for the third year of such 5-year period, 60 percent
of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable
under this title to the property;
``(4) for the fourth year of such 5-year period, 80 percent
of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable
under this title to the property; and
``(5) for the fifth year of such 5-year period, 100 percent
of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable
under this title to the property.''.
SEC. 8. INCREASE IN ANNUAL LIMITATION ON PREMIUM INCREASES.
Section 1308(e) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4015(e)) is amended by striking ``10 percent'' and
inserting ``20 percent''.
SEC. 9. CONSIDERATION OF CONSTRUCTION, 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)'' before the period at the end;
(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 90 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.
(c) Implementation.--The Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency shall implement this section and
the amendments made by this section in a manner that will not
materially weaken the financial position of the national
flood insurance program or increase the risk of financial
liability to Federal taxpayers.
SEC. 10. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECTS.
Section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4015), as amended by the preceding provisions of
this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(h) Treatment of Certain Flood Protection Projects.--
``(1) Inapplicability of mandatory purchase requirement;
premium rates.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
upon full completion, as designed, of a flood protection
system that was intended to provide flood protection with
respect to a covered area, such covered area--
``(A) shall not be considered to be an area having special
flood hazards for purposes of this Act or subsections (a),
(b), or (e) of section 102, or section 202(a) of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973; and
``(B) shall be eligible for flood insurance under this Act,
if and to the extent that such area is eligible for such
insurance under the other provisions of this Act, at premium
rates not exceeding those that would be applicable under this
section if the flood protection system referred to in
paragraph (2) for such area had been completed and accredited
as providing protection from floods at the level that the
system was designed to provide (before construction,
reconstruction, or improvement of the system, as applicable,
began).
The flood insurance rate maps shall indicate, for each
covered area, the status of the area under subparagraphs (A)
and (B).
``(2) Covered area.--For purposes of this subsection, a
covered area is an area that was intended to be protected by
a flood protection system--
``(A)(i) for which, as of April 15, 2010--
``(I) construction, reconstruction, or improvement has not
been completed;
``(II) adequate progress, within the meaning of section
1307(e), has been made on such construction, reconstruction,
or improvement; and
``(III) is in an area having special flood hazards; or
``(ii) for which, as of such date--
``(I) construction, reconstruction, or improvement has been
completed;
``(II) a determination regarding accreditation has not been
made; and
``(III) is in an area having special flood hazards;
``(B) that was designed to provide protection for at least
the 100-year frequency flood; and
``(C) that has been determined, pursuant to waterflow data
or other scientific information of a Federal agency obtained
after, or that has changed since, commencement of
construction, reconstruction, or improvement, will not
provide protection from floods at the level referred to in
subparagraph (B).''.
SEC. 11. NOTIFICATION TO HOMEOWNERS REGARDING MANDATORY
PURCHASE REQUIREMENT APPLICABILITY AND RATE
PHASE-INS.
Section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
(42 U.S.C. 4105) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(f) Annual Notification.--The Director, in consultation
with affected communities, shall establish and carry out a
plan to notify residents of areas having special flood
hazards, on an annual basis--
``(1) that they reside in such an area;
``(2) of the geographical boundaries of such area;
``(3) of whether section 1308(h) of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 applies to properties within such area;
and
``(4) of the provisions of section 102 requiring purchase
of flood insurance coverage for properties located in such an
area, including the date on which such provisions apply with
respect to such area, taking into consideration section
102(i); and
``(5) of a general estimate of what similar homeowners in
similar areas typically pay for flood insurance coverage,
taking into consideration section 1308(g) of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968;''.
SEC. 12. COVERAGE FOR ADDITIONAL LIVING EXPENSES AND BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION.
Subsection (b) of section 1306 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (5)--
(A) by inserting ``pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), or (4)''
after ``any flood insurance coverage''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting a
semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(6) in the case of any residential property, each renewal
or new contract for flood insurance coverage shall provide
not less than $1,000 aggregate liability per dwelling unit
for any necessary increases in living expenses incurred by
the insured when losses from a flood make the residence unfit
to live in, which coverage shall be available only at
chargeable rates that are not less than the estimated premium
rates for such coverage determined in accordance with section
1307(a)(1);
``(7) in the case of any residential property, optional
coverage for additional living expenses described in
paragraph (6) shall be made available to every insured upon
renewal and every applicant in excess of the limits provided
in paragraph (6) in such amounts and at such rates as the
Director shall establish, except that such chargeable rates
shall not be less than the estimated premium rates for such
coverage determined in accordance with section 1307(a)(1);
and
[[Page H5639]]
``(8) in the case of any commercial property or other
residential property, including multifamily rental property,
optional coverage for losses resulting from any partial or
total interruption of the insured's business caused by damage
to, or loss of, such property from a flood shall be made
available to every insured upon renewal and every applicant,
except that--
``(A) the Director may provide such coverage under such
terms, conditions, and requirements as the Director considers
appropriate to meet the needs of small businesses while
complying with the requirement under subparagraph (C); and
``(B) any such coverage shall be made available only at
chargeable rates that are not less than the estimated premium
rates for such coverage determined in accordance with section
1307(a)(1).''.
SEC. 13. EXCEPTION TO WAITING PERIOD FOR EFFECTIVE DATE OF
POLICIES.
Section 1306(c)(2)(A) of the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013(c)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting
before the semicolon the following: ``or is in connection
with the purchase or other transfer of the property for which
the coverage is provided (regardless of whether a loan is
involved in the purchase or transfer transaction), but only
when such initial purchase of coverage is made not later 30
days after such making, increasing, extension, or renewal of
the loan or not later than 30 days after such purchase or
other transfer of the property, as applicable''.
SEC. 14. MINIMUM DEDUCTIBLES FOR CLAIMS.
Section 1312 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4019) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Director is'' and inserting the
following: ``(a) In General.--The Director is''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Minimum Annual Deductibles.--
``(1) Pre-FIRM properties.--For any structure that is
covered by flood insurance under this title, and on which
construction or substantial improvement occurred on or before
December 31, 1974, or before the effective date of an initial
flood insurance rate map published by the Director under
section 1360 for the area in which such structure is located,
the minimum annual deductible for damage to or loss of such
structure shall be--
``(A) $1,500, if the flood insurance coverage for such
structure covers loss of, or physical damage to, such
structure in an amount equal to or less than $100,000; and
``(B) $2,000, if the flood insurance coverage for such
structure covers loss of, or physical damage to, such
structure in an amount greater than $100,000.
``(2) Post-FIRM properties.--For any structure that is
covered by flood insurance under this title, and on which
construction or substantial improvement occurred after
December 31, 1974, or after the effective date of an initial
flood insurance rate map published by the Director under
section 1360 for the area in which such structure is located,
the minimum annual deductible for damage to or loss of such
structure shall be--
``(A) $750, if the flood insurance coverage for such
structure covers loss of, or physical damage to, such
structure in an amount equal to or less than $100,000; and
``(B) $1,000, if the flood insurance coverage for such
structure covers loss of, or physical damage to, such
structure in an amount greater than $100,000.''.
SEC. 15. PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS IN INSTALLMENTS FOR LOW-INCOME
POLICYHOLDERS.
Section 1306 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4013) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(d) Payment of Premiums in Installments for Low-income
Policyholders.--In addition to any other terms and conditions
under subsection (a), such regulations shall provide that, in
the case of any residential property that is owned by a
family whose income level is at or below 200 percent of the
poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and
Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 673
of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C.
9902)) applicable to the size of such family, or a family
that has no adult member who is employed, premiums for flood
insurance coverage for such property may be paid in monthly
installments.''.
SEC. 16. ENFORCEMENT.
Section 102(f) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
(42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking ``or'' at the
end;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) in connection with the making, increasing, extending,
servicing, or renewing of any loan, requiring the purchase of
flood insurance coverage under the National Flood Insurance
Act of 1968, or purchasing such coverage pursuant to
subsection (e)(2), in an amount in excess of the minimum
amount required under subsections (a) and (b) of this
section.'';
(2) in paragraph (5)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``$350'' and
inserting ``$2,000''; and
(B) in the last sentence, by striking ``$100,000'' and
inserting ``$1,000,000; except that such limitation shall not
apply to a regulated lending institution or enterprise for a
calendar year if, in any three (or more) of the five calendar
years immediately preceding such calendar year, the total
amount of penalties assessed under this subsection against
such lending institution or enterprise was $1,000,000''; and
(3) in paragraph (6), by adding after the period at the end
the following: ``No penalty may be imposed under this
subsection on a regulated lending institution or enterprise
that has made a good faith effort to comply with the
requirements of the provisions referred to in paragraph (2)
or for any non-material violation of such requirements.''.
SEC. 17. NOTIFICATION TO TENANTS OF AVAILABILITY OF CONTENTS
INSURANCE.
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is amended by
inserting after section 1308 (42 U.S.C. 4015) the following
new section:
``SEC. 1308A. NOTIFICATION TO TENANTS OF AVAILABILITY OF
CONTENTS INSURANCE.
``(a) In General.--The Director shall, upon entering into a
contract for flood insurance coverage under this title for
any property--
``(1) provide to the insured sufficient copies of the
notice developed pursuant to subsection (b); and
``(2) require the insured to provide a copy of the notice,
or otherwise provide notification of the information under
subsection (b) in the manner that the manager or landlord
deems most appropriate, to each such tenant and to each new
tenant upon commencement of such a tenancy.
``(b) Notice.--Notice to a tenant of a property in
accordance with this subsection is written notice that
clearly informs a tenant--
``(1) whether the property is located in an area having
special flood hazards;
``(2) that flood insurance coverage is available under the
national flood insurance program under this title for
contents of the unit or structure leased by the tenant;
``(3) of the maximum amount of such coverage for contents
available under this title at that time; and
``(4) of where to obtain information regarding how to
obtain such coverage, including a telephone number, mailing
address, and Internet site of the Director where such
information is available.''.
SEC. 18. FLOOD INSURANCE OUTREACH.
Chapter I of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4011 et seq.), as amended by the preceding provisions
of this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 1326. GRANTS FOR OUTREACH TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND
RENTERS.
``(a) In General.--The Director may, to the extent amounts
are made available pursuant to subsection (h), make grants to
local governmental agencies responsible for floodplain
management activities (including such agencies of Indians
tribes, as such term is defined in section 4 of the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of
1996 (25 U.S.C. 4103)) in communities that participate in the
national flood insurance program under this title, for use by
such agencies to carry out outreach activities to encourage
and facilitate the purchase of flood insurance protection
under this Act by owners and renters of properties in such
communities and to promote educational activities that
increase awareness of flood risk reduction.
``(b) Outreach Activities.--Amounts from a grant under this
section shall be used only for activities designed to--
``(1) identify owners and renters of properties in
communities that participate in the national flood insurance
program, including owners of residential and commercial
properties;
``(2) notify such owners and renters when their properties
become included in, or when they are excluded from, an area
having special flood hazards and the effect of such inclusion
or exclusion on the applicability of the mandatory flood
insurance purchase requirement under section 102 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a) to such
properties;
``(3) educate such owners and renters regarding the flood
risk and reduction of this risk in their community, including
the continued flood risks to areas that are no longer subject
to the flood insurance mandatory purchase requirement;
``(4) educate such owners and renters regarding the
benefits and costs of maintaining or acquiring flood
insurance, including, where applicable, lower-cost preferred
risk policies under this title for such properties and the
contents of such properties; and
``(5) encouraging such owners and renters to maintain or
acquire such coverage.
``(c) Cost Sharing Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--In any fiscal year, the Director may not
provide a grant under this section to a local governmental
agency in an amount exceeding 3 times the amount that the
agency certifies, as the Director shall require, that the
agency will contribute from non-Federal funds to be used with
grant amounts only for carrying out activities described in
subsection (b).
``(2) Non-federal funds.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `non-Federal funds' includes State or local
government agency amounts, in-kind contributions, any salary
paid to staff to carry out the eligible activities of the
grant recipient, the value of the time and services
contributed by volunteers to carry out such services (at a
rate determined by the Director), and the value of any
donated material or building and the value of any lease on a
building.
``(d) Administrative Cost Limitation.--Notwithstanding
subsection (b), the Director may use not more than 5 percent
of amounts made available under subsection (g) to cover
salaries, expenses, and other administrative costs incurred
by the Director in making grants and provide assistance under
this section.
``(e) Application and Selection.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall provide for local
governmental agencies described in subsection (a) to submit
applications for grants under this section and for
competitive selection, based on criteria established by the
Director, of agencies submitting such applications to receive
such grants.
[[Page H5640]]
``(2) Selection considerations.--In selecting applications
of local government agencies to receive grants under
paragraph (1), the Director shall consider--
``(A) the existence of a cooperative technical partner
agreement between the local governmental agency and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency;
``(B) the history of flood losses in the relevant area that
have occurred to properties, both inside and outside the
special flood hazards zones, which are not covered by flood
insurance coverage;
``(C) the estimated percentage of high-risk properties
located in the relevant area that are not covered by flood
insurance;
``(D) demonstrated success of the local governmental agency
in generating voluntary purchase of flood insurance; and
``(E) demonstrated technical capacity of the local
governmental agency for outreach to individual property
owners.
``(f) Direct Outreach by FEMA.--In each fiscal year that
amounts for grants are made available pursuant to subsection
(h), the Director may use not more than 50 percent of such
amounts to carry out, and to enter into contracts with other
entities to carry out, activities described in subsection (b)
in areas that the Director determines have the most immediate
need for such activities.
``(g) Reporting.--Each local government agency that
receives a grant under this section, and each entity that
receives amounts pursuant to subsection (f), shall submit a
report to the Director, not later than 12 months after such
amounts are first received, which shall include such
information as the Director considers appropriate to describe
the activities conducted using such amounts and the effect of
such activities on the retention or acquisition of flood
insurance coverage.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for grants under this section $50,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015.''.
SEC. 19. NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FLOOD INSURANCE AND ESCROW
IN RESPA GOOD FAITH ESTIMATE.
Subsection (c) of section 5 of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2604(c)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Each such
good faith estimate shall include the following conspicuous
statements and information: (1) that flood insurance coverage
for residential real estate is generally available under the
national flood insurance program whether or not the real
estate is located in an area having special flood hazards and
that, to obtain such coverage, a home owner or purchaser
should contact the national flood insurance program; (2) a
telephone number and a location on the Internet by which a
home owner or purchaser can contact the national flood
insurance program; and (3) that the escrowing of flood
insurance payments is required for many loans under section
102(d) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, and may
be a convenient and available option with respect to other
loans.''.
SEC. 20. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL FEMA STAFF.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Director of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency may employ such
additional staff as may be necessary to carry out all of the
responsibilities of the Director pursuant to this Act and the
amendments made by this Act. There are authorized to be
appropriated to Director such sums as may be necessary for
costs of employing such additional staff.
SEC. 21. PLAN TO VERIFY MAINTENANCE OF FLOOD INSURANCE ON
MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA PROPERTIES RECEIVING
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS.
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall
jointly develop and implement a plan to verify that persons
receiving funds under the Homeowner Grant Assistance Program
of the State of Mississippi or the Road Home Program of the
State of Louisiana from amounts allocated to the State of
Mississippi or the State of Louisiana, respectively, from the
Community development fund under the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of
Mexico and Pandemic Influenza, 2006 (Public Law 109-148) are
maintaining flood insurance on the property for which such
persons receive such funds as required by each such Program.
SEC. 22. FLOOD INSURANCE ADVOCATE.
Chapter II of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is
amended by inserting after section 1330 (42 U.S.C. 4041) the
following new section:
``SEC. 1330A. OFFICE OF THE FLOOD INSURANCE ADVOCATE.
``(a) Establishment of Position.--
``(1) In general.--There shall be in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency an Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate
which shall be headed by the National Flood Insurance
Advocate. The National Flood Insurance Advocate shall report
directly to the Director and shall, to the extent amounts are
provided pursuant to subsection (f), be compensated at the
same rate as the highest rate of basic pay established for
the Senior Executive Service under section 5382 of title 5,
United States Code, or, if the Director so determines, at a
rate fixed under section 9503 of such title.
``(2) Appointment.--The National Flood Insurance Advocate
shall be appointed by the Director, and without regard to the
provisions of title 5, United States Code, relating to
appointments in the competitive service or the Senior
Executive Service.
``(3) Qualifications.--An individual appointed under
paragraph (2) shall have a background in customer service as
well as insurance.
``(4) Staff.--To the extent amounts are provided pursuant
to subsection (f), the National Flood Insurance Advocate may
employ such personnel as may be necessary to carry out the
duties of the Office.
``(b) Functions of Office.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be the function of the Office
of the Flood Insurance Advocate to--
``(A) assist insureds under the national flood insurance
program in resolving problems with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency relating to such program;
``(B) identify areas in which such insureds have problems
in dealings with the Agency relating to such program;
``(C) identify potential legislative, administrative, or
regulatory changes which may be appropriate to mitigate such
problems; and
``(D) assist communities and homeowners with interpreting,
implementing, and appealing floodplain maps and floodplain
map determinations.
``(2) Annual reports.--
``(A) Activities.--Not later than December 31 of each
calendar year, the National Flood Insurance Advocate shall
report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate on the activities of the Office
of the Flood Insurance Advocate during the fiscal year ending
during such calendar year. Any such report shall contain full
and substantive analysis, in addition to statistical
information, and shall--
``(i) identify the initiatives the Office of the Flood
Insurance Advocate has taken on improving services for
insureds under the national flood insurance program and
responsiveness of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
with respect to such program;
``(ii) identify areas of the law or regulations relating to
the national flood insurance program that impose significant
compliance burdens on such insureds or the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, including specific recommendations for
remedying these problems; and
``(iii) include such other information as the National
Flood Insurance Advocate may deem advisable.
``(B) Direct submission of report.--Each report required
under this paragraph shall be provided directly to the
committees identified in subparagraph (A) without any prior
review or comment from the Director, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, or any other officer or employee of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Department of
Homeland Security, or the Office of Management and Budget.
``(c) Funding.--Pursuant to section 1310(a)(4), the
Director may use amounts from the National Flood Insurance
Fund to fund the activities of the Office of the Flood
Advocate in each of fiscal years 2011 through 2016, except
that the amount so used in each such fiscal year may not
exceed $5,000,000 and shall remain available until expended.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, amounts
made available pursuant to this subsection shall not be
subject to offsetting collections through premium rates for
flood insurance coverage under this title.''.
SEC. 23. ELIGIBILITY OF PROPERTY DEMOLITION AND REBUILDING
UNDER FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Section 1366(e)(5)(B) of the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c(e)(5)(B)) is amended by striking
``or floodproofing'' and inserting ``floodproofing, or
demolition and rebuilding''.
SEC. 24. STUDY REGARDING MANDATORY PURCHASE REQUIREMENT FOR
NON-FEDERALLY RELATED LOANS.
(a) In General.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a
study to assess the impact, effectiveness, and feasibility
of, and basis under the Constitution of the United States
for, amending the provisions of the Flood Disaster Protection
Act of 1973 regarding the properties that are subject to the
mandatory flood insurance coverage purchase requirements
under such Act to extend such requirements to any property
that is located in any area having special flood hazards and
which secures the repayment of a loan that is not described
in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 102(b) of such Act,
and shall determine how best to administer and enforce such a
requirement, taking into consideration other insurance
purchase requirements under Federal and State law.
(b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a report
to the Congress regarding the results and conclusions of the
study under subsection (a) not later than the expiration of
the 6-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 25. STUDY OF METHODS TO INCREASE FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
PARTICIPATION BY LOW-INCOME FAMILIES.
(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study to identify and analyze
potential methods, practices, and incentives that would
increase the extent to which low-income families (as such
term is defined in section 3(b) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b))) that own residential
properties located within areas having special flood hazards
purchase flood insurance coverage for such properties under
the national flood insurance program. In conducting the
study, the Comptroller General shall analyze the
effectiveness and costs of the various methods, practices,
and incentives identified, including their effects on the
national flood insurance program.
(b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit to the
Congress a report setting forth the conclusions of the study
under this section not later than 12 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
[[Page H5641]]
SEC. 26. REPORT ON INCLUSION OF BUILDING CODES IN FLOODPLAIN
MANAGEMENT CRITERIA.
Not later than the expiration of the 6-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
shall conduct a study and submit a report to the Committee on
Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate regarding the impact, effectiveness, and feasibility
of amending section 1361 of the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4102) to include widely used and
nationally recognized building codes as part of the
floodplain management criteria developed under such section,
and shall determine--
(1) the regulatory, financial, and economic impacts of such
a building code requirement on homeowners, States and local
communities, local land use policies, and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency;
(2) the resources required of State and local communities
to administer and enforce such a building code requirement;
(3) the effectiveness of such a building code requirement
in reducing flood-related damage to buildings and contents;
(4) the impact of such a building code requirement on the
actuarial soundness of the National Flood Insurance Program;
(5) the effectiveness of nationally recognized codes in
allowing innovative materials and systems for flood-resistant
construction; and
(6) the feasibility and effectiveness of providing an
incentive in lower premium rates for flood insurance coverage
under such Act for structures meeting whichever of such
widely used and nationally recognized building code or any
applicable local building code provides greater protection
from flood damage.
SEC. 27. STUDY ON REPAYING FLOOD INSURANCE DEBT.
Not later than the expiration of the 6-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
shall submit a report to the Congress setting forth a plan
for repaying within 10 years all amounts, including any
amounts previously borrowed but not yet repaid, owed pursuant
to clause (2) of subsection (a) of section 1309 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)(2)).
SEC. 28. STUDY REGARDING IMPACT OF RATE INCREASES ON PRE-FIRM
PROPERTIES.
(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study to assess the impacts of
implementing provisions regarding pre-FIRM properties (as
such term is defined in section 578(b) of the National Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4014)), including the
impact on the program participation rate among owners,
renters, and tenants of non-primary residences or commercial
nonresidential properties. In conducting the study, the
Comptroller General shall analyze the cost effectiveness and
effect on local government tax base of various options,
including an option of implementing such provisions on the
severe repetitive loss properties only.
(b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a report
to Congress regarding the results and conclusions of the
study under subsection (a) not later than the expiration of
the 9-month period beginning on the date of enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 29. STUDY OF EFFECTS OF ACT.
(a) Study.--The Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency shall conduct a study to identify and
assess the impacts, including short-term and long-term
impacts, of this Act and the amendments made by this Act on
the financial soundness of the national flood insurance
program.
(b) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit a
report to the Congress setting forth the results and
conclusions of study under subsection (a), which shall
include specific recommendations for actions to mitigate
against any negative financial impacts resulting from this
Act and the amendments made by this Act that could increase
the debt of the national flood insurance program.
SEC. 30. RULEMAKING.
(a) Interim Final Rule.--The Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency shall issue an interim final rule
as a temporary regulation implementing this Act and the
amendments made by this Act as soon as practicable after the
date of the enactment of this Act, without regard to the
provisions of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code. All
regulations prescribed under the authority of this subsection
that are not earlier superseded by final regulations shall
expire not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(b) Initiation of Rulemaking.--The Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency may initiate a rulemaking
to implement this Act and the amendments made by this Act as
soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this
Act. The final rule issued pursuant to such rulemaking may
supersede the interim final rule promulgated under subsection
(a).
The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order except
those printed in House Report 111-537. Each amendment may be offered
only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Waters
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 111-537.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that was
made in order under the rule.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 9, strike lines 1 through 3 and insert the following:
SEC. 5. PHASE-IN OF ACTUARIAL RATES FOR CERTAIN PRE-FIRM
PROPERTIES, SEVERE REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES,
AND PROPERTIES SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED OR
SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED.
Page 9, lines 7 and 8, strike ``paragraph (5)'' and insert
``paragraph (7)''.
Page 9, lines 21 and 22, strike ``used as principal
residences''.
Page 10, lines 5 and 6, strike ``date of enactment'' and
insert ``effective date of this paragraph, pursuant to
section 5(c)(1)''.
Page 10, line 7, strike the quotation marks and the last
period.
Page 10, after line 7, insert the following:
``(5) Severe repetitive loss properties.--Any severe
repetitive loss property, as such term is defined in section
1361A(b), that is so designated as such as a result of losses
occurring on or after the date of the enactment of the Flood
Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010.
``(6) Properties substantially damaged or substantially
improved.--Any property that, on or after the date of the
enactment of the Flood Insurance Reform and Priorities Act of
2010, has experienced or sustained--
``(A) substantial damage exceeding 50 percent of the fair
market value of such property; or
``(B) substantial improvement exceeding 30 percent of the
fair market value of such property.''.
Page 10, line 20, strike ``paragraph (5)'' and insert
``paragraph (7)''.
Page 11, line 7, strike ``or (4)'' and insert ``(4), (5),
or (6)''.
Page 12, line 21, strike ``and (4)'' and insert ``(4), (5),
and (6)''.
Page 13, line 6, strike ``subsection'' and insert
``subsections''.
Page 13, line 13, strike ``September 30, 2008'' and insert
``September 30, 2007''.
Page 14, line 22, strike the quotation marks and the last
period.
Page 14, after line 22, insert the following:
``(j) Availability of Preferred Risk Rating Method
Premiums.--The preferred risk rate method premium shall be
available for flood insurance coverage for properties located
in areas referred to in subsection (i)(1) and during the time
period referred to in subsection (i)(1).''.
Page 15, line 13, before ``Section'' insert ``(a) In
General.--''.
Page 17, after line 3, insert the following:
(b) Regulation or Notice.--The Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency shall issue an interim final rule
or notice to implement this section and the amendments made
by this section as soon as practicable after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Strike line 20 on page 18 and all that follows through page
19, line 2, and insert the following:
(b) Regulations.--The Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency shall promulgate regulations to
implement this section and the amendments made by this
section as soon as practicable, but not more than 18 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act. 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.
Page 21, after line 21, insert the following new section:
SEC. 11. PROHIBITION OF EXTENSION OF SUBSIDIZED RATES TO
LAPSED POLICIES.
Section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4015), as amended by the preceding provisions of
this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(i) Prohibition of Extension of Subsidized Rates to
Lapsed Policies.--The Director shall not provide flood
insurance coverage under this title to any prospective
insured at a rate less than the applicable estimated risk
premium rates for the area (or subdivision thereof) for any
policy under the flood insurance program that has lapsed in
coverage, as a result of the deliberate choice of the holder
of such policy.''.
Page 22, line 25, strike the semicolon and insert a period.
Page 22, after line 25, insert the following new sections:
SEC. 13. COMMUNITY OUTREACH PLAN FOR UPDATING FLOODPLAIN
AREAS AND FLOOD-RISK ZONES.
The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency shall, not later than the expiration of the 60-day
period beginning upon the date of the enactment of this Act,
submit to the Congress a community outreach plan for the
updating of floodplain areas and flood-risk zones under
section 1360(f) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4101(f)).
SEC. 14. NOTIFICATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOOD ELEVATIONS.
Section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4101) is amended
[[Page H5642]]
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(l) Notification to Members of Congress of Map
Modernization.--Upon any revision or update of any floodplain
area or flood-risk zone pursuant to subsection (f), any
decision pursuant to subsection (f)(1) that such revision or
update is necessary, any issuance of preliminary maps for
such revision or updating, or any other significant action
relating to any such revision or update, the Director shall
notify the Senators for each State affected, and each Member
of the House of Representatives for each congressional
district affected, by such revision or update in writing of
the action taken.''.
Page 27, line 8, strike ``LOW-INCOME POLICYHOLDERS'' and
insert ``RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES''.
Page 27, line 13, strike ``Low-income Policyholders'' and
insert ``Residential Properties''.
Page 27, strike line 16 and all that follows through ``is
employed'' in line 22.
Page 27, line 23, strike ``monthly''.
Page 27, after line 23, insert the following new section:
SEC. 19. TERMINATION OF FORCE-PLACED INSURANCE.
Section 102(e) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
(42 U.S.C. 4012a(e)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(5) and 6), respectively; and
(2) by adding inserting after paragraph (2) the following
new paragraphs:
``(3) Termination of force-placed insurance.--Within 15
days of receipt by the lender or servicer of a confirmation
of a borrower's existing flood insurance coverage, the lender
or servicer shall--
``(A) terminate the force-placed insurance; and
``(B) refund to the borrower all force-placed insurance
premiums paid by the borrower during any period during which
the borrower's flood insurance coverage and the force-placed
flood insurance coverage were each in effect, and any related
fees charged to the borrower with respect to the force-placed
insurance during such period.
``(4) Sufficiency of demonstration.--A lender or servicer
for a loan shall accept any reasonable form of written
confirmation from a borrower of existing flood insurance
coverage, which shall include the existing flood insurance
policy number along with the identity of, and contact
information for, the insurance company or agent.''.
Page 30, after line 20, insert the following new section:
SEC. 21. GRANTS FOR DIRECT FUNDING OF MITIGATION ACTIVITIES
FOR INDIVIDUAL REPETITIVE CLAIMS PROPERTIES.
(a) Direct Grants to Owners.--Section 1323 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4030) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``DIRECT'' before
``GRANTS''; and
(2) in the matter in subsection (a) that precedes paragraph
(1)--
(A) by inserting ``, to owners of such properties,'' before
``for mitigation actions''; and
(B) by striking ``1'' and inserting ``two''.
(b) Availability of Funds.--Paragraph (9) of section
1310(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4017(a)) is amended by inserting ``which shall remain
available until expended,'' after ``any fiscal year,''.
Page 31, line 4, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(i)''.
Page 33, line 14, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(i)''.
Page 34, line 19, strike ``and''.
Page 34, line 22, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 34, after line 22 insert the following:
``(F) the number of flood-related major disaster or
emergency declarations made by the President with respect to
the relevant area under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)
during the preceding five years.
Page 34, line 25, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(i)''.
Page 35, after line 4, insert the following new subsection:
``(g) Coordination With Other Agencies.--A local
governmental agency that receives a grant under this section,
and an entity that receives amounts pursuant to subsection
(f), may coordinate or contract with other agencies and
entities having particular capacities, specialties, or
experience with respect to certain populations or
constituencies, including elderly or disabled families or
persons, to carry out activities described in subsection (b)
with respect to such populations or constituencies.''.
Page 35, line 5, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(h)''.
Page 35, line 14, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(i)''.
Page 35, after line 16, insert the following new section:
SEC. 24. TREATMENT OF SWIMMING POOL ENCLOSURES OUTSIDE OF
HURRICANE SEASON.
Chapter I of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), as amended by the preceding provisions
of this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 1327. TREATMENT OF SWIMMING POOL ENCLOSURES OUTSIDE OF
HURRICANE SEASON.
``In the case of any property that is otherwise in
compliance with the coverage and building requirements of the
national flood insurance program, the presence of an enclosed
swimming pool located at ground level or in the space below
the lowest floor of a building after November 30 and before
June 1 of any year shall have no effect on the terms of
coverage or the ability to receive coverage for such building
under the national flood insurance program established
pursuant to this title, if the pool is enclosed with non-
supporting breakaway walls.''.
Page 36, line 17, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.
Page 36, line 17, before the period insert ``, and the
national flood insurance program''.
Page 39, line 6, strike ``and''.
Page 39, line 10, strike the period and insert a semicolon.
Page 39, after line 10 insert the following:
``(E) facilitate the sharing of the best-practices of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency amongst all offices of
the Agency with respect to the creation and updating of
floodplain maps;
``(F) not less than one year after receipt of a request
from a community, perform an economic impact analysis for
such community on the economic impact of floodplain maps and
floodplain map determinations on small businesses, lending,
real estate development, and other economic indicators within
such community;
``(G) establish a national arbitration panel regarding
flood map modernization, with panel members consisting of
experts in flood insurance, flood map determination, real
estate development, structural engineering, and other such
experts, including a representative from the Federal
Emergency Management Administration, to allow individuals or
communities impacted by a flood map revision to challenge
such a revision; such panel may, under such terms and
conditions it may establish, temporarily suspend
implementation of a floodplain map pending such panel's
review of evidence submitted by such individuals or
communities as part of such challenge;
``(H) establish a process under which scientific and
engineering data, including maps and an explanation of how
the Director makes a determination regarding a map revision,
will be made publicly available to any interested individuals
to be impacted by a flood map revision; and
``(I) establish a process under which each community to be
impacted by a flood map revision will be provided an open
community forum to consult with and ask questions of
representatives of the Federal Emergency Management
Administration.
Page 41, after line 8, insert the following new sections:
SEC. 29. TREATMENT OF PREVIOUSLY MAPPED AREAS.
Section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4101) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(k) Treatment of Previously Mapped Areas.--If the
Director issues a letter of map revision for an area or a
portion of an area to correct an error in a recently issued
flood insurance rate map and such letter results in the
designation of such area as not having special flood hazards,
the Director shall reexamine the designation of any areas
bordering or abutting the area that was the subject of such
letter if such areas are located within a special flood
hazard area. The Director shall inform the community and
residents within such area of the results of such examination
no later than one year after the date of the initial letter
of map revision.
``SEC. 30. REMAPPING OF AREAS WITH IMPROVED LEVEES.
``Section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4101) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
`` `(a) Remapping of Areas With Improved Levees.--If at any
time any community, any State, the Army Corps of Engineers,
or any other entity improves any levee system that protects
any area that is located in an area having special flood
hazards and the Director determines that such improvement
mitigates flood risk in a manner that eliminates the risk of
flooding in the area, the Director shall--
`` `(1) revise and update the floodplain areas and flood
risk zones, and the flood insurance maps reflecting such
areas and zones, for the areas protected by such levee system
so that any requirement under the Flood Disaster Protection
Act of 1973 for mandatory purchase of flood insurance does
not apply to such area; and
`` `(2) make the updated maps and any information regarding
such updating available to the affected communities.'.''.
Page 41, line 12, strike ``Section'' and insert the
following:
(a) Flood Mitigation Assistance Program.--Section
Page 41, line 15, before the quotation marks insert ``of
properties to at least base flood elevation or greater, if
required by any local ordinance''.
Page 41, after line 15, insert the following:
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
section 1366 of the Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
4104c), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment
of this Act, authorized the Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to consider property demolition
and rebuilding as eligible activities under the Flood
Mitigation Assistance Program. The purpose of the amendment
made by subsection (a) is to clarify that such authority
exists.
Page 42, line 15, before the period insert ``AND FAMILIES
IN RURAL COMMUNITIES AND ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS''.
[[Page H5643]]
Page 42, line 21, after ``(42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)))'' insert
``, families residing in rural communities, and families who
reside on Indian reservations,''.
Page 44, line 14, strike ``and''.
Page 44, line 20, strike the period and insert a semicolon.
Page 44, after line 20, insert the following new
paragraphs:
(7) the impact of such a building code requirement on rural
communities with different building code challenges than more
urban environments; and
(8) the impact of such a building code requirement on
Indian reservations.
Page 45, after line 5, insert the following new sections:
SEC. 36. STUDY REGARDING CERTAIN HARBOR AREAS.
(a) Study.--The Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency shall carry out a study to identify the
impacts of the National Flood Insurance Program on harbor
areas that are working waterfronts, which shall--
(1) identify the models and assumptions used under such
program with respect to wave action in working waterfronts
and harbors;
(2) determine whether these are the same models and
assumptions used for open or unprotected coast lines;
(3) identify the assumptions used under such program in
modeling V-zones;
(4) identify the underlying basis for projected impact of
waves on working waterfronts,
(5) identify the frequency with which individual working
waterfronts receive revised flood-risk based on the data they
provide;
(6) determine the feasibility of basing flood maps for such
working waterfronts on actual historical flood and damage
data;
(7) identify the standards for construction and design of
working waterfront infrastructure that would be needed to
safely develop commercial buildings in the V-zone;
(8) determine the economic impacts of the National Flood
Insurance Program on working waterfronts and working
waterfront dependant businesses;
(9) identify any new or alternative models that may be used
to more accurately reflect the risk of flooding in working
waterfronts and harbor environments;
(10) review the current coastal flood insurance study
guidelines and recommended methodologies;
(11) determine whether methodologies other than those
referred to in paragraph (10) should be applied with respect
to complicated harbors and open shorelines;
(12) review where 2-D ST Wave methodology should be applied
and where other methodologies should be applied;
(13) review available data on wave attenuation through
pilings and piers and determine whether a physical model for
the attenuation of waves in that environment can be
undertaken to derive such data; and
(14) include any other information the Administrator
considers relevant to evaluating the flood risk and insurance
challenges facing working waterfronts.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the
Congress a report setting forth the results and conclusions
of the study, including--
(1) a description of all of the matters identified and
determined pursuant to subsection (a); and
(2) an analysis of the feasibility of developing a
sheltered harbor flood zone for purposes of the National
Flood Insurance Program that specifically recognizes the
unique challenges faced by working waterfronts and built-up
harbors.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``working
waterfront'' means real property (including support
structures over water and other facilities) that provides
access to coastal waters to persons engaged in commercial
fishing, recreational fishing business, boatbuilding,
aquaculture, or other water-dependent coastal-related
business and is used for, or that supports, commercial
fishing, recreational fishing, boatbuilding, aquaculture, or
other water-dependent coastal-related business.
SEC. 37. STUDY REGARDING HAZARD MODELING.
The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency shall conduct a study to identify and assess the
impacts, including short-term and long-term impacts, of
significant flooding events and subsequent revisions of
hazard modeling and mapping since January 1, 2000, on the
financial soundness of the national flood insurance program.
The Administrator may enter into an agreement with Water
Resources Research Institutes to conduct the study under this
section. The Administrator shall provide for a final report
regarding the study to be submitted to the Congress not later
than the expiration of the 16-month period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act. The report may include
recommendations of the Administrator with respect to revising
hazard modeling and mapping.
Strike line 16 on page 46 and all that follows through page
47, line 7, and insert the following:
SEC. 40. INTERIM FINAL RULEMAKING.
The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency shall issue an interim final rule to implement the
amendments made by this Act as soon as practicable, but not
more than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act. The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency shall issue a final rule within one year after the
effective date of the interim final rule. In the event that
the deadlines in this section are not met, the Administrator
shall report to the Congress monthly on the status of the
rulemakings and the reasons for the failure to comply with
the statutory deadlines.
Page 19, after line 8, insert the following new section:
SEC. 10. DISCOUNTED FLOOD INSURANCE RATES FOR PROPERTIES
PROTECTED BY A FLOOD-PROTECTION SYSTEM FROM
LESS THAN A 100-YEAR FREQUENCY FLOOD.
Section 1307 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4014) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(g) Except as provided in subsection (f) and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, flood insurance
coverage shall be made available for a property that the
Director determines is protected by a flood-protection system
that does not provide protection against a 100-year frequency
flood at premium rates that reflect a discount for the actual
protection against flood risk afforded by such flood-
protection system.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment I have submitted to the
committee would make further improvements on the bill. The amendment
would contribute to the stability of the flood insurance program by
prospectively phasing in actuarial rates for severe repetitive loss
properties and properties sustaining substantial damage.
The financial solvency of the program would also be protected by a
provision that would make sure that homeowners receiving preferred
rates who deliberately drop out of the program are charged actuarial
rates if they rejoin the program.
The amendment also strengthens protections for homeowners by allowing
all homeowners to pay flood insurance premiums in installments,
providing grants to homeowners experiencing repeated flooding with
funds to mitigate their flood risk, requiring FEMA to take a second
look at areas that may be incorrectly mapped, and requiring FEMA to
study the impacts of the flood insurance program on working
waterfronts.
I am pleased that this amendment also incorporates amendments offered
by many Members, including Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Clyburn, Ms. Herseth
Sandlin, Mr. Hare, Ms. Markey, Mrs. McCarthy, Mr. Melancon, and Mr.
Pascrell. I thank these Members and others who have made suggestions to
me for their constructive additions to this amendment.
This amendment makes significant improvements to the underlying
legislation, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment,
although I'm not opposed.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West Virginia is
recognized for 10 minutes.
There was no objection.
{time} 1210
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the chairwoman's
manager's amendment does make good improvements to the underlying bill
by phasing out taxpayer subsidies for severe repetitive losses.
As we know, and as I said in my opening statement, the NFIP is facing
serious financial challenges and the program cannot afford to go on its
current path. So in this respect, I think that Chairwoman Waters'
manager's amendment is a positive step in the right direction. In
addition, the manager's amendment includes additional reforms that
seeks to reduce the subsidies over time that continue to burden this
program.
The measure includes several provisions to address local community
concerns that we have all heard in our districts resulting from new
flood risk maps and the ongoing flood control projects, resulting in
delays of purchase requirements and higher rates in certain cases.
I would like to point out why I believe that phasing out the
subsidies for severe repetitive loss properties is important. If you
look at the accounting
[[Page H5644]]
for these losses over the last several years, the repetitive loss
properties only account for 1 percent of the total policies in the
program nationwide, yet the repetitive loss properties account for
almost 30 percent of the claims paid annually.
Well, I think there is a sense of fairness about this, and most of us
recognize that this is unfair. The subsidies for folks who continue to
live in repetitive loss property areas continue to run up the losses in
this very important flood insurance program. The high incidence of
claims on repetitive loss properties has cost the National Flood
Insurance Program more than $2.7 billion since 1978.
So with the reforms that the chairwoman has made in the manager's
amendment, I support the manager's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. I think everything has been said that needs to be said.
I simply again want to thank all of the Members that have been
involved. I am very pleased that we finally are responding to the
concerns of all of our constituents, particularly about new mapping.
There are a lot of concerns about that. But the way that we delay
implementation will give our constituents an opportunity to prepare the
installment plans, the way we deal with the actuarial rates. I think
this is some of the best work that could have been done to honor the
concerns of our constituents.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Putnam
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 111-537.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 35, strike line 5 and insert the following:
``(g) Reporting.--
``(1) Local governments.--Each local government agency
that''.
Page 35, after line 13, insert the following new paragraph:
``(2) Director.--The Director shall submit an annual
report, not later than December 31 of each year, to the
Committee on Financial Services of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate on the effectiveness of grants
awarded under this section to local government agencies, the
activities conducted using such grant amounts, and the effect
of such activities on the retention or acquisition of flood
insurance coverage.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Putnam) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chair, I rise to outline a minor issue but an
important issue.
Hurricane season began June 1, and in Florida, the seventh-largest
State in terms of flood insurance claims and the third-highest in terms
of foreclosure rates, we cannot afford any more uncertainty in our
housing market.
When legislation recently failed to move on two separate occasions
that would have provided for a temporary extension of flood insurance,
I heard from my constituents that were beyond the point of frustration
that they could not close on a home or renew an expiring policy, and
they had every right to be frustrated.
Florida and Texas combined represent half of the properties covered
by the National Flood Insurance Program, and a lapse in NFIP
reauthorization prohibits the issuance of new flood insurance policies
and renewal of expired ones. Our communities are located along the gulf
coast. If a home is damaged by a storm or surge waters contaminated by
the oil spill, only flood insurance would cover the cost of those
repairs. For a program that has continually been placed on the GAO's
high-risk list of government programs since 2006, this is unacceptable.
It is time for Congress to reform and provide for a long-term extension
of this important program.
Floods are the number one most common natural disaster in the United
States, and since 2008 the National Flood Insurance Program has been
temporarily extended six times. Whether you are a homeowner, business
owner, or renter, the NFIP provides an opportunity to guard against the
loss of property. We should encourage individuals and families to
protect their property before the next storm hits, not just those
communities located in high-risk flood zones.
Given the challenges facing the NFIP, the financial and management
challenges, this amendment provides a step in the right direction in
working towards the necessary reforms to assist in the long-term
viability of the program.
Not expanding the scope of perils that the program currently covers,
as well as eliminating subsidized rates over time for vacation homes
and charging premiums that more accurately cover the risk associated
with the property, are some of the reforms that will strengthen the
NFIP. While the NFIP still has a long way to go to reach self-
sufficiency, I applaud the bill's sponsors for taking the necessary
steps and encourage the Senate to act on the long-term extension as
well.
This amendment would require FEMA to submit to Congress though a
report on the effectiveness of a portion of the bill that relates to
new grants created and awarded to local government agencies for
outreach to owners and renters. The report would include the activities
conducted with those grants and an assessment of the results, the
assessment of the effect that those activities have on the retention or
purchase of additional flood insurance.
I caution against whether this is the most fiscally responsible
approach to spend tax dollars and ensure that property owners and
renters understand the apparent flood risks that exist, even though
they are not subject to the mandatory purchase requirement.
The underlying legislation appropriates $250 million for new outreach
grants over a 5-year period. At a time of record deficits and spending,
and frustration over a lack of transparency and accountability in our
Nation's government, it is imperative that this new spending be fully
accounted for.
Clearly, there is a need to control FEMA's communication with
property owners and communities concerning flood risk maps and threats
of flooding, but this is a large sum of new money to appropriate to an
agency that is currently $18.75 billion in debt to Treasury and
consistently on the high-risk list. That is why it is essential to
guarantee that the management and utilization of grant funding is
completed in an effective and transparent way. I further encourage FEMA
to go above and beyond and provide this information in an easily
accessible form on their Web site so the taxpayers are aware of how
their money is being spent.
We must ensure that these grants are used to increase participation
in the program and educate owners and renters on flood preparedness and
mitigation efforts which lower risk. This annual report will be an
important first step in doing so.
I want to thank the sponsor of the legislation for her work on this
issue for two consecutive Congresses and urge adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition,
although I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Cuellar). Without objection, the gentlewoman
from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Florida for offering this amendment.
The underlying bill authorizes grants to local communities to reach
out to homeowners and communities about the flood insurance program and
flood risk. As we know, the process by which homeowners receive
notification of new flood maps is severely lacking.
Too often, homeowners learn that they are in a floodplain when they
receive a letter from their mortgage company informing them that they
have 45 days to buy flood insurance or it will be purchased on their
behalf. Local communities are supposed to inform residents about new
maps. However, communities often receive little notification from FEMA
themselves. Also, some communities simply lack the resources to do the
type of notification that is necessary to ensure that homeowners are
aware of changes to the flood maps.
[[Page H5645]]
By providing a grant program to assist communities, the underlying
bill would address this problem. The gentleman's amendment would
require the director of the flood insurance program to submit annual
reports to the Congress on the effectiveness of these grants. I think
that is important. And I think that Congress should know how these
grants are working and how these funds are being spent.
So I support the gentleman's amendment, and I would urge an ``aye''
vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. I appreciate the gentlewoman's kind comments.
The amendment was agreed to.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1220
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Driehaus
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 111-537.
Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 46, after line 15, insert the following new section:
SEC. 30. REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS INCURRED BY HOMEOWNERS
OBTAINING LETTERS OF MAP AMENDMENT.
If the owner of any property located in an area described
in section 102(i)(1) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973 (as added by the preceding provisions of this Act)
obtains a letter of map amendment during the 5-year period
for such area referred to in such section, the Administrator
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall reimburse
such owner, or such entity or jurisdiction acting on such
owner's behalf, for any costs incurred in obtaining such
letter.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Ms.
Waters, for her tremendous work on this legislation. Also, the
cosponsors of this amendment, Mr. Welch and Mr. Hinchey. This amendment
is pretty straightforward. It would authorize the administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency to reimburse property owners or
entity or jurisdiction acting on their behalf for any expenses that
they incurred in order to file for a letter of map amendment if they
are ultimately successful in petitioning the exclusion of their
property from a flood zone between fiscal year 2007 to the present, and
in the future.
The problem is this, Mr. Chairman. We have thousands of property
owners who are challenging these maps as FEMA has currently drawn them.
They find out about them after the maps have been drawn, after the maps
are official. They then want to challenge that designation. They hire
the surveyors. They hire the engineers. They go ahead and incur that
cost. And in many cases, when we find out that in fact the property
owner was correct and they should not have been included in the
designation to begin with, they're excluded. Yet they have incurred the
cost. This amendment simply says that if that's the case and we find
that the property owner is correct or if we find that the municipality
or jurisdiction is correct in challenging the map, that they will be
reimbursed by FEMA. CBO has scored this and said it would be negligible
in terms of cost, yet it would relieve thousands of homeowners from the
burden that they currently see in terms of incurring these costs.
Just a little background. Under current law, FEMA is authorized to
reimburse property owners, lessees, and communities for engineering and
surveying expenses that they incur for petitioning the inclusion of the
property in a flood zone prior to the enactment of a new flood map. But
this doesn't serve the folks that we're talking about. I've got a
community in Harrison, Ohio, where over 370 households have been
included in the flood map. Now, they didn't start the process of
challenging the map until after the map was already official. So
they're well beyond the time period that FEMA currently allows for that
amendment to take place. This would address what is currently wrong in
that situation--and that is, it would allow the homeowners to be
reimbursed for their expenses.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand. And I've had
constituents myself who have been remapped and fallen into the flood
plain and questionable areas a lot, to their frustration. And I
understand the gentleman from Ohio's intent on his amendment. But I
think it sort of opens the door a little too broadly and a little too
widely. While the amendment that he is proposing helps property owners
who seek to recoup their expenses of appealing the flood map, it
provides for full reimbursement for any costs. There's no specification
to what reasonable costs could be--but any cost. And I think this is
too broad.
I would prefer to see the amendment go back to the drawing board,
reshape it, so that we can address the needs and the cost issues to our
constituents but also make sure that we don't leave it so the door is
so wide open that it would encourage in some possibilities maybe re-
looking at it, overly expensive investigations into the flood mapping,
without any kind of reasonable assurances that the costs that are
incurred in challenging the maps would fall within a reasonable amount.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concerns of my colleague
from West Virginia. I take those very seriously. Although, FEMA does
have rulemaking authority that allows them to address the concerns that
were raised. This is really an issue of fairness--an issue of fairness
for property owners. You've got the Federal Government coming onto your
property, telling you that you have to purchase flood insurance because
you're now designated within the map. When you find FEMA to be wrong,
that payment shouldn't be incurred by you, the property owner, but it
should be reimbursed by FEMA. It's just that simple. This is a taking.
And the Federal Government shouldn't be in the business of taking
property, which is what they're doing in this case, in the form of the
expenses that are incurred by the homeowners. This has impacted
thousands of Americans. And it's wrong that the Federal Government is
making them pay the price to challenge the Federal Government.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the cosponsor of the amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010 and the
manager's amendment. I want to thank Representative Waters for bringing
forward this essential legislation, which will extend the national
flood insurance program and make essential reforms to ensure that the
program works efficiently and effectively. I also thank Representative
Waters and the committee for including in the manager's amendment
several provisions which I sought to help to assist property owners
with new costs they face due to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's flood map modernization program and improve congressional
oversight.
FEMA is currently working to update, revise, and digitize the flood
maps for more than 20,000 communities all across the country. While
nobody doubts that we need to have accurate flood maps, some home and
business owners in my district and also throughout the country are now
finding out that their property is located in a flood zone--even though
they may have never experienced a flood. As a result of FEMA's
remapping process, many of these home and business owners are now
required to purchase insurance.
To help those who suddenly face this new and unexpected cost, the
underlying legislation and the manager's
[[Page H5646]]
amendment do several important things. First, property owners will have
the option to delay the requirement to purchase flood insurance for 5
years. Second, home and business owners will then have the option to
purchase the insurance at a reduced cost for another 5 years. Third,
congressional oversight of the flood mapping process will be greatly
improved by requiring FEMA to notify Members of Congress regarding key
map modernization developments within their districts.
At a time when small businesses and homeowners throughout New York
and everyplace else across the country are still feeling the pinch in a
recovering economy, this bill will help ensure that this remapping
process doesn't provide an additional burden. Again, I thank
Representative Waters for her strong leadership on this issue and I
commend the committee for their understanding of the need for these
reforms.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Flake
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 111-537.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 35, line 16, strike the quotation marks and the last
period.
Page 35, after line 16, insert the following new
subsection:
``(i) Prohibition on Earmarks.--No amounts made available
for grants under this section may be used for a Congressional
earmark as defined in clause 9(e) of Rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment and
should be noncontroversial. H.R. 5114 establishes a new grant program
that would provide grants to local government agencies responsible for
flood plain management in communities that participate in the national
flood insurance program. Funds from this grant program would be used
for outreach to inform both renters and owners of the national flood
insurance program. This amendment would specifically prohibit any
earmarking of the funds made available under this new grant program.
Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure it's the taxpayers'--or, I don't think it
is the taxpayers' responsibility to inform renters and owners of these
flood plain requirements. Having said that, if we are going to provide
funds here and say that it's a competitive grant program, then we
shouldn't go in and earmark it later. Those funds ought to be available
to those who compete for them, not directed by Members of Congress to
favored constituents or groups.
{time} 1230
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition,
although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, quite simply, I support the gentleman's
amendment. While I believe that the bill is clear that the grants
provided under the bill would be competitive and, therefore, not
subject to earmarking, I can understand the gentleman's need for
wanting to clarify that these funds cannot be used for earmarks.
Therefore, I support the amendment, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady for accepting the amendment.
Some have asked, Why do this if there's no intention to earmark the
program? Why do we need this language? Unfortunately, in the past, with
programs that have been adopted like this, competitive grant programs,
we have said and promised in Congress that we won't earmark those
funds, and we've come and earmarked them. A good example is FEMA's Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Grant Program that was put in place. It was not to
be earmarked. It was a grant program like this one. Yet in 2007, nearly
half of the funds for the program were earmarked. I just want to make
sure that they aren't in this program as well.
So I thank the gentlelady for accepting the amendment. I urge its
adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Taylor
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 111-537.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 35, after line 16, insert the following new section:
SEC. __. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO WINDSTORM AND FLOOD.
Section 1345 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4081) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsections:
``(d) Requirements for Write-Your-Own Insurers Relating to
Windstorm and Flood.--
``(1) Written agreement.--The Director may not utilize the
facilities or services of any insurance company or other
insurer or entity to offer flood insurance coverage under
this title unless such company, insurer, or entity enters
into a written agreement with the Director that provides as
follows:
``(A) Prohibition on exclusion of wind damage coverage.--
The agreement shall prohibit the company, insurer, or entity
from including, in any policy provided by the company or
insurer for homeowners' insurance coverage or coverage for
damage from windstorms, any provision that excludes coverage
for wind or other damage solely because flooding also
contributed to damage to the insured property.
``(B) Fiduciary responsibility.--The agreement shall
provide that the company, insurer, or entity--
``(i) has a fiduciary duty with respect to the Federal
taxpayers;
``(ii) in selling and servicing policies for flood
insurance coverage under this title and adjusting claims
under such coverage, will act in the best interests the
national flood insurance program rather than in the interests
of the company, insurer, or entity; and
``(iii) will provide written guidance to each insurance
agent and claims adjuster for the company, insurer, or entity
that sets forth the terms of the agreement pursuant to
subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph.
``(2) Requirements for adjustment of claims.--The Director
shall, in utilizing the facilities of any insurance company
or other insurer or entity pursuant to this section to offer
flood insurance coverage under this title, the Director shall
provide as follows:
``(A) Approval of adjustment procedures.--No such insurance
company, other insurer, or entity may offer flood insurance
coverage under this title unless the Director has approved,
as meeting standards as the Director shall establish, the
procedures, protocols, guidelines, standards, or instructions
used by the company, insurer, or entity in adjusting claims
for identifying, apportioning, quantifying, and
differentiating damage caused by flooding and damage caused
by wind.
``(B) Treatment of wind and flood claims from same event.--
The Director shall require any insurance company or other
insurer or entity that, pursuant to this section, provides
flood insurance coverage under this title for a property and
that also provides insurance coverage for the same property
for losses resulting from wind, when claims are made both for
damage resulting from flood and for damage resulting from
wind involved in a single event, to comply with the following
requirements:
``(i) Contemporaneous adjustment.--The claims for damage to
the property under the coverage under this title for losses
from flood and under the coverage for losses from wind shall
be adjusted contemporaneously.
``(ii) Inclusions in flood claim file.--The insurance
company, other insurer, or entity shall obtain and include in
the file maintained with respect to any claim under the flood
insurance coverage under this title, and make available to
the Director upon request, the following information relating
to the wind claim:
``(I) The amount paid on the claim and the date of such
payment..
``(II) An explanation of rationale used by the company,
insurer, or entity in determining which damage resulted from
flood and which damage resulted from wind.
[[Page H5647]]
``(III) Copies of any photographs, witness statements, and
other evidence related to the wind or flood claim.
``(iii) Review.--The Director shall review the information
obtained pursuant to clause (ii) to ensure that--
``(I) claims are paid under coverage under this title only
for losses resulting from flood; and
``(II) in the adjusting the claims, the insurance company
or other insurer or entity complied with procedures,
protocols, guidelines, standards, or instructions for
identifying, apportioning, quantifying, and differentiating
damage caused by flooding and damage caused by wind that have
been approved by the Director as meeting the standards
established by the Director pursuant to subparagraph (A).
``(iv) Payment under flood coverage when cause of loss
cannot be determined.--If the insurance company or other
insurer or entity determines that the loss claimed was caused
by flooding or wind, but that the evidence is insufficient to
differentiate the losses caused by flooding from those caused
by wind, the company, insurer, or entity shall pay the claim
under the flood insurance coverage for the property as if the
entire loss were caused by flooding, and shall submit all
information regarding the claim to the Director.
``(v) FEMA determination and recovery.--In the case of any
claim paid pursuant to clause (iv), the Director shall review
the information related to the claim and determine, in
accordance with procedures for making such a determination
regarding such claims as the Director shall establish, the
losses caused by wind. The Director shall seek to recover any
portion of the losses that the Director determines were
caused by wind from the insurance company or other insurer or
entity that, pursuant to clause (iv), paid such losses as
flood losses''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to clarify a provision in
the existing law. The existing provision was used to deprive thousands
of homeowners of the wind coverage they should have had in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina. It, unfortunately, had the additional effect of
sticking the taxpayer, through the National Flood Insurance Program,
with billions of dollars that they should not have paid.
Under the national Write Your Own program, we hired the private
sector to write the policy. No problem there. We pay them a commission
of 29 percent to write that policy. It saves us the cost of having
additional government employees. The problem comes in in that we also
let the private insurance company adjust the claim.
So think of it. You are a 29-year-old father of two. You are counting
on your Christmas bonus. You work for State Farm, Nationwide or
Allstate. A hurricane comes through and your house is gone. Now, you
can look at it and say, you know, I see trees falling down. That is an
indication of wind. I see tin up in trees. That means the wind blew it
up there. But that means that my company is going to have to pay
something. Or I could say the flood did it all, which means the
taxpayers have to pay it all.
You see, under the law, they are called upon to do a fair adjustment
of the claim. But buried in a typical wind insurance policy, in the
case of a State Farm policy in Mississippi, on page 10 of a 24-page
document, there is one paragraph that said, If any two things happen
concurrently, then State Farm wasn't going to pay at all. This question
was actually raised before the Mississippi State Supreme Court. And the
attorney for Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Mr. Landau, was asked
a question by the chief justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court,
Justice Pierce, ``I'm giving you--the example is 95 percent of the home
is destroyed, the flood comes in and gets the other 5 percent, and you
know that. Does your interpretation of the word 'sequence' mean you pay
zero?'' The attorney for Nationwide Insurance, Mr. Landau, answered,
``Yes, Your Honor.''
See, that goes beyond just hurting individuals on their payment.
Number one, a typical insurance policy says that if your home is
destroyed, the insurance company will pay to put you up until it's
repaired, but if they deny your claim in full, then they pay nothing.
So in the case of Hurricane Katrina, our Nation went out and bought
140,000 trailers at $15,000 per trailer, then paid a friend of the Bush
administration another $16,000 per trailer to deliver those trailers
just 60 miles, hook them up to a water line and a sewer line. So
$31,000 per trailer times 44,000 trailers, and that was just in
Mississippi. That's $1.3 billion that the taxpayers paid that the
insurance companies, in almost every instance, should have paid. On top
of that, there were the homeowners grants; on top of that, there were
SBA loans, for a total of $34 billion.
I understand the gentlewoman's concern that this program lost $18
billion. The taxpayers lost $34 billion because the insurance companies
didn't pay. This amendment would prohibit the language that was buried
in that State Farm insurance policy. This amendment would prohibit that
language that was buried in that Nationwide policy. It would go back
to, if these people want to do business with the Nation under the
national Write Your Own program, then they are going to stick to their
obligation of doing a fair adjustment of the claim.
If the house is 50 percent destroyed by water, flood insurance pays
50 percent. If it's 50 percent by wind, then the wind insurance company
has to pay 50 percent. But whatever the ratio is, a fair adjustment of
the claim, as it should have been, is already spelled out in the
contract with the Nation. But the contract between the insurance
companies and the individuals had this language buried in there that is
completely contrary to what they told our Nation. And, quite honestly,
I would like to see which shill for the insurance companies wants to
defend what they have done to individuals in the gulf coast and what
they have done to the taxpayers as a whole.
I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of this gentleman's
amendment.
In April, my subcommittee held a hearing on flood and wind insurance
legislative proposals. And at that hearing, the gentleman from
Mississippi testified about the way the insurance industry abused the
flood insurance program following Hurricane Katrina by claiming that if
so much as a drop of water touched a home, that all the resulting
damage was the result of flood and not wind, even if there was damage
to the contrary. Insurers were able to maintain their bottom line at
the expense of the financial solvency of the National Flood Insurance
Program.
Nobody has worked harder on these issues than he has. He deserves
support for this amendment, and we will continue to support his
instructions about what we should be doing in the future.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I rise to claim
the time in opposition to it.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to begin by saying to my friend from
Mississippi, we have kind of had an ongoing discussion on this. I think
he knows this is not a personal issue for me, but it is a very personal
one for him, and I certainly understand that. I can't really even
imagine being in your shoes, quite frankly, and a lot of your fellow
Mississippians in what has happened.
But I am going to oppose this amendment, really, by seeking to
address the water and wind issue, which is something I think we do need
to address. I have several issues that I would like to bring forward.
First of all, I have concern that this could interfere with the State
regulation of insurance. As we all know, insurance is regulated through
the States. It could dictate some of the processes that I think would
undermine the State regulation of insurance.
It's interesting that the gentleman brought up State Farm because--
and I'm sure he's aware that State Farm has just recently announced
that they are going to be withdrawing from the WYO program, which is
the Write Your Own insurance program, for several reasons, I believe.
I'm not certain what they all are. But this means that 800,000
customers nationwide who bought their flood insurance coverage through
State Farm will now need to be picked up by other Write Your Own
insurance companies.
{time} 1240
Third, I think this amendment could impose or would impose a new
fiduciary responsibility on insurance companies that participate in
this program. According to industry experts,
[[Page H5648]]
this could expose insurers to new lawsuits and force them to place the
interests of the Federal program over the interests of their own policy
holders.
I think there could be a better way to address this issue and the
objectives of this amendment by working with FEMA officials and State
insurance regulators to devise a formula with ratios that would
apportion losses fairly to address the situation in the future. Some
States and companies are already using this approach to help clarify
potential wind-versus-water issues.
So, with that, I would like to thank the gentleman for his passion
and his ``stick-to-it-iveness'' to try to solve a very deep problem,
particularly in his region of the country. But with the way this
amendment is written and printed, I would have to be in opposition to
it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Michigan
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 111-537.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk made in order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new section:
SEC. __. STUDY ON PRIVATE INSURANCE MARKET, COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
PROGRAM, AND THE REGIONALIZATION OF THE
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study
on--
(1) ways that the private insurance market can contribute
to insuring against flood damage;
(2) the impact on the National Flood Insurance Program if
communities decide not to participate in the Program; and
(3) the feasibility of regionalizing the National Flood
Insurance Program and ensuring that there is no cross-
subsidization between regions under such Program.
(b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report containing the results of the study
conducted under subsection (a).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, my amendment calls for a GAO
study to study the ways that the private insurance market can
contribute to insuring against flood damage; to further study the
impact on the National Flood Insurance Program if communities decide
actually not to participate in this program; and to study the
feasibility of recognizing the National Flood Insurance Program and
ensuring that there's no cross-subsidization between the regions.
The United States, Mr. Chairman, is actually the only industrialized
nation that uses our form of government to administer flood insurance.
In every other industrialized nation this is done by a private
insurance company. Even in Canada or the U.K., they use the private
industry to do so. And I believe that the role of the U.S. Government
in terms of flood insurance certainly is the creation and maintenance
of accurate flood maps, and to have those that live in flood-prone
areas, though, pay their own freight by purchasing private flood
insurance.
Since Congress established the NFIP, we have engaged in subsidizing
our fellow Americans who do live in flood-prone areas, essentially
creating a moral hazard. And as a result, more than half of the U.S.
population now lives in coastal watershed counties or flood plain
areas.
My constituents in Michigan, that's the reason I offered this
amendment, Mr. Chairman, are paying very, very high flood insurance
premiums; and yet we rarely receive claims. I mentioned this during
general debate, but I'll mention it again: since 1978, Michigan
residents have actually received about $44 million in claims from the
flood insurance program. However, this year alone our premiums in the
State are going to be almost $20 million, which means that in 2 years
of premiums we have covered all of our losses since 1978, in other
words, paid over $200 million in premiums, yet we've sent more than
$150 million to other States since '78. And I would guess that all of
the Great Lakes States, all of the States that are in the Great Lakes
basin would have similar experiences.
So my constituents and the residents of my State, I think, are
unfairly carrying a very high burden, given their relatively low risk.
I think it's a very vivid demonstration when you see that the average
premium for flood insurance in Michigan is $764 and yet in Louisiana
it's $647.
I think, Mr. Chairman, again, we need to have a national catastrophic
fund. We are very sensitive and very sympathetic to folks that live in
States that flood, that are flood-prone, that have hurricanes, et
cetera. But I don't think it is fair for property owners in areas that
don't have this high risk to keep paying so much money for other areas.
I think we should try to share the burden among the entire States.
I would also ask that the GAO would look at regionalization of the
National Flood Insurance Program as a means to correct this balance.
Currently, FEMA has 10 separate regions, and I believe that if you did
this amongst those regions, perhaps that would be a good way to
reorganize the flood insurance program. And so each region would then,
ideally, have actuarially sound premiums that are reflective of the
risk of that region. And I think, under that plan, States like Michigan
again would not be forced to subsidize other parts of the Nation that
have substantially higher risk than we do.
And in lieu of that, the last part of the study for the GAO would
look at the impacts of communities to actually opt out of this program.
Mr. Chairman, several years ago I actually wrote a letter to our
Governor asking her to consider having Michigan, our entire State, opt
out of this program because we are so unfairly disadvantaged. And
although that has not happened yet, I'm going to continue to press that
because I do think if we self-insured and got out of this program, it
would be much, much, much better for the State of Michigan to do so.
So, again, my amendment asks the GAO to look at I think several
commonsense ways to fix a very severely flawed program. And I would ask
that my colleagues consider my amendment and support its adoption as
well.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition,
although I'm not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized
for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentlewoman's amendment. I
understand that the gentlewoman has some concerns with the flood
insurance program. I understand that she does believe that homeowners
in her district are subsidizing the cost of flood insurance for
homeowners along the coast.
While I disagree with her premise, I see no harm in having the GAO
perform the study described in her amendment to look into the role of
the private insurance market in providing flood insurance, the impact
on the program if communities drop out, and the feasibility of
regionalizing the program.
However, I would like to note that flood insurance is just that,
insurance. It insures against an event that may or may not happen in
the future. We have taken several steps in this bill to address the
``sticker shock'' that homeowners are encountering as a result of the
mandatory purchase requirement resulting from the new maps.
However, if the maps are accurate, and if there is a flood risk,
public policy should dictate that homeowners have coverage for that
risk because if they don't, the Federal Government will have to pick up
the tab.
Therefore, I disagree with the problem the gentlewoman has with the
program. But I see no harm in her amendment, and so I would support
that amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I would certainly just say that I am very
appreciative of the gentlewoman's acceptance of my amendment. I do
think it will help the Nation lead us forward
[[Page H5649]]
on a path to fairness and equity in this issue of flood insurance.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1250
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Boswell
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 111-537.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 14, line 11, insert ``appropriate evacuation routes
under the evacuation plan referred to in subparagraph (A),''
after ``risks,''.
Page 32, line 15, strike ``properties; and'' and insert
``properties;''.
Page 32, line 17, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 32, after line 17 insert the following:
``(6) notify such owners of where to obtain information
regarding how to obtain such coverage, including a telephone
number, mailing address, and Internet site of the Director
where such information is available.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the chairman of the
committee and my good friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) and Ranking Member Bachus for their leadership on this issue, as
well as Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member Capito.
Unfortunately, the Iowans I represent know all too well how flooding
can ravage a farm, a neighborhood, a city. Much of the State is still
recovering from the devastating floods of 2008, as high rivers and
creeks are threatening their homes and businesses yet again.
Neighborhoods are sandbagging, and some residents have left their
homes. For Iowa, flooding is a real and a tangible threat.
Just last weekend, as I arrived back in my district, in my capital
city, I met the mayor, I met the city manager, I met the public works
director, and we went to the levees, and we really, really were worried
whether we were going to make it through the night. So we understand it
very well.
The bill before us is a good bill. I intend to support it. However, I
rise today to offer a straightforward amendment that will strengthen
this legislation for Iowans and the residents of other States that are
often affected by flooding. I certainly understand, after being there
and seeing the aftermath, the threat and the concerns that Congressman
Taylor and his constituents had when they faced Katrina. Where to go,
how to get there.
Under section 6 of this bill, State and local governments must
provide flood risk and crisis information to residents in order to be
eligible for a 5-year delay in the effective date of the mandatory
purchase requirement of new flood hazard areas. This amendment would
require that these entities also provide appropriate evacuation routes.
Floodwaters rise quickly, and when people are forced to evacuate, we
must make sure that residents have the information they need to do so
in a way that is safe.
Additionally, my amendment would help residents and property owners
to obtain flood insurance by including information about flood coverage
in the outreach activities listed under section 1326. This amendment is
about providing our constituents with the best possible information to
keep their families and their property safe.
I ask my colleagues to support this important amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment,
although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would just like to speak very briefly in support of
the gentleman's amendment. We have all had in our States issues with
knowing the correct way to leave and evacuate certain areas. I sort of
was hoping that this area of information was already covered. So I want
to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward, and I would
ask that we support the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOSWELL. I thank the gentlelady for her support, and the
chairwoman. I thank you very much, and I encourage passage.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hill
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 111-537.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 39, line 6, strike ``and''.
Page 39, line 10, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 39, after line 10, insert the following:
``(E) identify ways to assist communities in efforts to
fund the accreditation of flood protection systems.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Hill) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, Indiana has been hit with a number of severe
storms over the last few years. Residents in my district of southern
Indiana have been hit especially hard, and many of our local
communities continue to be devastated by flooding.
While natural disasters cannot be avoided, the government's efforts
in responding, preparing, and dealing with these situations can
certainly improve. The amendment I offer here today would call for a
very small change, but one that I believe will help provide lasting
benefits for American cities and towns in the overall flood insurance
program.
The underlying bill establishes an Office of Flood Insurance Advocate
within FEMA. This office is tasked with helping people in the program
resolve problems with FEMA flood insurance and identifying potential
changes to help fix these problems. My amendment would add another
function to this office, and call on it to identify ways to assist
communities in their efforts to fund the accreditation of flood
protection systems.
I have heard from several of my local communities that are having
problems obtaining funding to meet requirements to get their flood
protection systems accredited. If a levee shows adequate protection,
then FEMA will place it in a moderate risk zone, and property owners
are not required to carry flood insurance, referred to as an accredited
levee. Decertified, or uncertified levees, however, will not be
accredited. Therefore, the areas behind these levees will be placed in
high-risk areas, and flood insurance will be required for property
owners.
While FEMA does not design, construct, fund, or approve levee systems
or floodwall systems, in 2007 FEMA issued new guidelines that
communities must meet. Unfortunately, private companies charge upwards
of $500,000 to certify levees for communities, and the Corps of
Engineers will only perform them for those who obtain a Federal match.
This clearly leaves out many smaller communities who are in the most
cash-strapped areas. If these communities do not meet FEMA guidelines
and due dates, then they will be deemed a high-risk area, and this will
dramatically increase the cost of their flood insurance.
My amendment would ensure this office looks into this issue and helps
find ways to assist communities in their efforts to comply with these
new guidelines. I have two cities, Tell City and Cannelton, that face
the possibility of being placed in a high-risk flood zone because they
are having trouble obtaining certifications. If we help these
communities complete their certifications, then we are helping them
provide the checks and inspections that are needed to ensure our levees
are safe. And if we have safer levees and flood protections in place,
then not only will more Americans be protected from devastating natural
disasters, but
[[Page H5650]]
this will prevent the flood insurance program and the Federal
Government from taking on the high cost that would result if the levee
or flood protection measure failed to do the job.
While I support updating this important program, I believe any new
office should be focused on finding ways to reduce the cost burden for
communities that are struggling during this difficult economy. My
amendment would ensure that this new office focuses on communities who
bear both the burden of natural disasters and the costs in preventing
them.
I urge my colleagues to pass this commonsense amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment,
although I am not necessarily opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to address the gentleman's amendment really
in the broader context of the Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate.
This is creating it within this bill, and I think in my opening
statements I addressed this issue. It's creating a new office. And at a
time when we have rising debts and deficits, we are creating another
bureaucracy, another obligation on the Federal taxpayer where I think
that we could work within existing regulatory and administrative
offices to try to accomplish the same thing.
We had a discussion yesterday in the Rules Committee where the
chairwoman of our subcommittee talked about the need for advocacy. And
I don't oppose the need for helping people wind through the intricacies
of FEMA, trying to make appeals, trying to find out when and how
they're going to be paid or what their alternate living arrangements
might be and all the things that an advocate can do in terms of winding
through a large bureaucracy like FEMA. But FEMA has assured us that
they have already a functioning appeals process, and on top of an
Inspector General and continual GAO oversight of the NFIP program.
So I think that the advocacy office itself is representing some
duplicative and unnecessary bureaucracy and spending. So while I don't
oppose the gentleman's amendment, if the advocacy office goes through,
it's not really the substance of your amendment, it's really more the
basis of the flood advocate itself, Office of the Flood Advocate
itself.
I yield back balance of my time.
Mr. HILL. I would like to thank the gentlelady and the chairwoman for
the opportunity to offer this amendment. It's not a big change, but
it's a change I think will help local communities in my district.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Loebsack
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 111-537.
Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 41, after line 8, insert the following new section:
SEC. 23. APPEALS.
(a) Television and Radio Announcement.--Section 1363 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting after
``determinations'' by inserting the following: ``by notifying
a local television and radio station,''; and
(2) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``and shall
notify a local television and radio station at least once
during the same 10-day period''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to any flood elevation determination
for any area in a community that has not, as of the date of
the enactment of this Act, been issued a Letter of Final
Determination for such determination under the flood
insurance map modernization process.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to thank Congresswoman Waters for bringing this bill to the
floor today. It will help address concerns all of us have likely heard
from our constituents about the flood insurance program and flood map
modernization efforts. In Iowa, flood insurance is an issue we are all
too familiar with.
{time} 1300
Two years ago this issue was brought to our attention with terrible
effects. Iowa was devastated by the floods of 2008, which left 85 of
our 99 counties Presidentially declared disaster areas and caused
billions of dollars in damage.
The National Flood Insurance Program was and remains an important
program and has helped many homeowners recovering from the floods.
Unfortunately, due to a lack of notification during the process of
updating the flood insurance rate maps to digital maps, many homeowners
continue to be surprised when they find out that their homes may be
newly placed in a special flood hazard area and they will be required
to purchase flood insurance. Many homeowners don't even know that new
proposed flood elevations have been made and a flood rate map update
is, in fact, taking place.
My amendment is simple. It will help to ensure communities and
homeowners that might be affected by new maps are made aware of the
process taking place from the beginning. Currently, FEMA is only
required to publish notice of new flood elevations in a local
newspaper. For one community in my district, this translated to roughly
a 2-inch by 2-inch paragraph in the legal notice section of the
newspaper.
My amendment will require FEMA to notify not only the local paper,
but also a local television and radio station of the proposed flood
elevations. It will also require FEMA to notify a local television
station and radio station in communities that are still in the middle
of the flood map modernization process so they are fully informed of
the process taking place.
This amendment will ensure the homeowners have the information they
need to make informed decisions and to participate in the process while
also ensuring media outlets for disseminating information, important
information, so the public is made aware as well. The more homeowners
that are aware of new flood elevations, I think, the more participation
there is in the process.
It would also serve the purpose of making more people aware of the
National Flood Insurance Program itself and in general, hopefully
increasing voluntary participation rates as well.
I think we can agree that simply notifying a local television and
radio station in addition to the local newspaper is a commonsense
change and will help get the word out about flood map changes.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment on behalf of
homeowners in all of our districts.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Mc Mahon
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 111-537.
Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 32, line 15, strike ``and''.
Page 32, line 17, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 32, after line 17, insert the following:
``(6) educate local real estate agents in communities
participating in the national flood insurance program
regarding the program and the availablility of coverage under
the program for owners and renters of properties in such
communities, and establish coordination and liasons with such
real estate agents to facilitate purchase of coverage under
this Act and increase awareness of flood risk reduction.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. McMahon) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
[[Page H5651]]
Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank Chairman Frank and
Chairwoman Waters and the ranking member as well for their work to
reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program for 5 years.
The Flood Insurance Program is a good example of government providing
a basic need for millions of Americans--insurance against catastrophic
flooding at a reasonable price. The program is only as strong as the
reserve fund created by selling insurance to people in certified flood
risk areas and pooling those premiums to cover any losses. That is why
this bill includes money to educate local authorities about flood
insurance.
Many people don't know that an area requires flood insurance or that
the NFIP program exists until it is very late in the process. Others
hear the words ``flood insurance'' and think it is costly or will
affect the value of their home. Sometimes people can't close on a House
or refinance without having insurance in place. And sometimes people
who have been living in a neighborhood all their life only find out
that NFIP is needed when they try to move or sell their house.
The uncertainty of the program is something I have heard quite often
from my constituents. Representing parts of the city of New York in
Staten Island and Brooklyn, an urban area, people are quite often
shocked to hear that they live in a floodplain, and quite often they
find out too late, and that's why this program is so important.
My amendment will allow NFIP, in their education and partnership
efforts, to also include local real estate agents in their outreach on
the NFIP program and its costs and benefits. No one knows
neighborhoods, markets, price points, and options better than a local
Realtor.
This amendment works within the bill's existing outreach program and
does not increase the cost of the program in any way.
NFIP should work with the Realtors to increase their knowledge of the
NFIP program, educate them when areas are added to the floodplain area,
and keep local agents up to date on the program itself.
The real estate market and the job of a Realtor are very dynamic.
Things change all the time, and NFIP should communicate directly to
them on how they can help their clients take advantage of this program.
And this dovetails very nicely into the way FEMA already does
communicate with Realtors on other issues.
And finally, in closing, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to
support this long-term extension. The fact that the program expired in
September of 2008 and this Congress continues to do short-term
extensions isn't helpful to a fragile real estate market or to the
long-term viability of this program. For the millions of current and
future American homeowners who take advantage of NFIP, we need to
extend this program for 5 years.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition,
although I'm not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to thank the gentleman for his amendment.
I raise questions about this amendment for the same reason that I
raised questions about the previous amendment, and that is, you know,
we are at a point here in our economy in this time where we have high
unemployment. We have our deficit that has just passed over the
trillion dollar mark for the second year in a row. We have increasingly
excruciating debt that we're going to be passing on to our children and
grandchildren, and yet we're still going to be creating a grant program
in this bill that's going to cost the taxpayers $250 million--
significant dollars at a time when people are losing their jobs or
cutting back or making decisions in their own lives about the ways to
afford the things that they not just want but they absolutely must have
and need. And while, you know, further education and outreach is always
a good thing, I think now would be a good time for us to make a
statement in this bill by saying, not now, not this time, not this $250
million.
I have a question, too, in terms of the gentleman's amendment, not
being a real estate agent myself. I'm not sure that in the real estate
agent--in the training to become a real estate agent and the things--I
know you have to be licensed and you have to take continuing ed and you
have to keep up on all different kinds of financing and property
evaluations and all the things. It's kind of a surprise to me that real
estate agents don't already know the extent or how to deal with the
Flood Insurance Program, particularly if there are regions of the
country that are prone to this type of damage and these type of floods.
But I don't know if the gentleman has an answer for that.
Are you aware of whether real estate agents now, across the country,
are exposed to this kind of information? I mean, why wouldn't they
already have this?
I yield to the gentleman if you have an answer to the question. I
don't know the answer to that.
Mr. McMAHON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
And while real estate agents do go through rigorous training, as the
gentlelady knows, the boundaries and lines of floodplains change
through time as topographical maps are changed, as physical conditions
change in certain areas. Certainly along the coast or in the harbor
where my district exists, water levels change, as well, and
requirements change. So it's the changing nature of the program that we
seek to have that information provided as requirements change, as
mapping lines change and the like.
Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you for that clarification.
Reclaiming my time, I would just additionally say that I would think,
through the continuing education of the real estate schools and the
licensing boards throughout the different States who have these issues,
that this would already be something that's covered.
Again, I will go back to my original premise, $250 million in 5 years
at a time of record debt and deficit and high unemployment, to me, is
an improper expenditure at this time.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1310
Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thank the gentlelady from West Virginia for her questions and
comments and would certainly add that the costs of this program and
certainly the Federal deficit and debt itself are of deep concern to me
and the people who sent me here a little over 18 months ago to
represent them.
My amendment raises no costs whatsoever. It simply says there's an
option that if the NFIP program does share information with local
community leaders and local entities that they include the local real
estate community as well so that they can better provide that
information to the people they represent, and I think it's a way to
certainly instill confidence in the real estate markets that do exist
in floodplain areas. So I think it's a good, commonsense solution and
proposal and doesn't cost the taxpayer any money.
I certainly would comment that I share, as I said, the gentlelady's
concern about the growing debts and deficits and am certainly glad that
her side of the aisle has now joined in this fight with our side of the
aisle, for certainly when they were in the majority in the House and
had the presidency, there didn't seem to be such a great concern, but
certainly we are glad that it is a concern they share with our side of
the aisle at this time, and hopefully we can join together in a
bipartisan fashion, something that hasn't been done before, to deal
with this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York.
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Murphy of New York
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 111-537.
Mr. MURPHY of New York. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H5652]]
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 31. ETHICS COMPLIANCE.
All funds authorized under this Act or any amendment made
by this Act shall be expended in a manner that is consistent
with the manual on Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees
of the Executive Branch.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1517, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. MURPHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, as a small businessman, I'm
deeply concerned with our Nation's fiscal mismanagement. In fact, we've
now learned that in fiscal year 2009, Federal agencies were estimated
to have made nearly $98 billion in improper payments. You don't have to
be a Democrat or a Republican to know that this is just unacceptable.
It's just common sense.
My simple amendment to this bill reiterates that all the funds
authorized in this act must be spent in compliance with the manual on
Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the executive branch.
As Members of Congress, it's our duty to allocate taxpayer dollars in
a measured and responsible way, and we all know that Congress must do
more to rein in wasteful spending. However, it is also our
responsibility to make sure that the money we allocate is spent
appropriately by the Federal agencies.
Sadly, we're far too accustomed to reports of Federal dollars being
used inappropriately. Just recently, the Department of Homeland
Security's Office of Inspector General issued a report noting that
$247,000 in improper expenses were charged to FEMA credit cards.
These examples highlight the need for Congress to be vigilant in its
oversight of Federal agencies and to hold the agencies accountable and
to create a system in which waste, fraud and abuse are eliminated.
Yesterday, the House took an important step toward this goal when it
passed legislation to identify, reduce, and eliminate improper
payments, as well as recover lost funds that Federal agencies have
spent improperly.
In that same spirit, my amendment today is intended to reaffirm our
commitment to ensuring that Federal employees, in this case FEMA
employees, spend Federal moneys properly and on their intended purpose,
with only the best interests of the taxpayer.
I urge my fellow Members to support this amendment as well as the
underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MURPHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 111-537 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Murphy of New York.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. The
remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Flake
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 423,
noes 3, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 444]
AYES--423
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
[[Page H5653]]
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--3
Berry
Paul
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--12
Blunt
Bright
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Kagen
Kirk
Moran (VA)
Olson
Schrader
Wamp
{time} 1344
Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois, BUCHANAN, and GINGREY of Georgia changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Murphy of New York
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Murphy) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 421,
noes 0, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 445]
AYES--421
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Bachus
Bright
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Kagen
Kirk
Moran (VA)
Olson
Rush
Schrader
Serrano
Tsongas
Wamp
Waxman
Wittman
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1353
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 445, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chair, on July 15, 2010, I missed rollcall vote No.
445. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I missed rollcall vote No. 445 to require all
funds authorized under H.R. 5114 to be expended in a manner consistent
with the manual on Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Executive Branch.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' I have consistently
voted to hold Members of Congress and their staffs, Federal employees,
and other representatives of government to the highest ethical
standards.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Serrano) having assumed the chair, Mr. Cuellar, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5114) to
extend the authorization for the national flood insurance program, to
identify priorities essential to reform and ongoing stable functioning
of the program, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House
Resolution 1517, reported the bill back to the House with an amendment
adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. HENSARLING. I am, in its current form.
[[Page H5654]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hensarling moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 5114, to
the Committee on Financial Services with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Strike section 18 (relating to flood insurance outreach).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit today is a simple
one. It says today, right here, right now, this body will decline to
create yet another new government spending program, this one, a quarter
of a billion dollar new FEMA outreach program on top of the FEMA
outreach program that is already in place.
Mr. Speaker, the American people know already that the National Flood
Insurance Program is in trouble, just like almost every other federally
administered insurance program.
Social Security has a long-term deficit of $15.1 trillion. The
Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation has a debt of $22
billion. The Federal Crop Insurance Program, Medicaid, and the list
goes on and on.
The National Flood Insurance Program owes the taxpayer, owes the
Treasury already $19 billion. Why are we going to add to this burden
today, Mr. Speaker?
And, in addition, as I said earlier, this is duplicative of an
already existing program. I'm not here to say, Mr. Speaker, that
outreach is a bad idea. But I am curious what is wrong with the
Cooperating Technical Partners Program of FEMA.
{time} 1400
Mr. Speaker, even if this wasn't duplicative of an already existing
system, even if we truly needed it, the question is, can we afford it?
Is it really worth borrowing 43 cents on the dollar, mainly from the
Chinese, and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren? At
this time, Mr. Speaker, at a time when our Nation is facing a debt
crisis, the motion to recommit says no, it doesn't meet that test.
I mean, Mr. Speaker, we know already that the deficit has increased
almost tenfold in just 2 years. I mean we are looking at the largest
deficits in American history. Our Nation is literally drowning in debt.
Don't take my word for it. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor, as a number
of our Members do, to serve on the President's Fiscal Responsibility
Commission. It's led by Democrat Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff
to President Clinton, who just this week said before the National
Governors Association, ``The debt is like a cancer. It is truly going
to destroy the country from within.'' That is the Democratic head of
the President's Fiscal Responsibility Commission. He recognizes the
problem that we are facing today.
Renowned economist Robert Samuelson has said that our spending could
``trigger an economic and political death spiral.'' Former Comptroller
David Walker has said we are facing, quote, ``a fiscal cancer.''
Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a crisis in our Nation's history that
we could see coming from miles away it's this one. Why do we want to
make it worse? Right here, right now we can take one tiny step towards
ensuring we don't put more debt on our children and our grandchildren
for a program that is already in the red almost $19 billion.
I would say that there is very little that I agree with the
distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee on. But I
noticed that last night on NPR he was quoted as saying, ``We have to
reduce the deficit. I believe that we are reaching a point where the
deficit could be unsustainable. We have to make this point: We're going
to have to reduce government spending fairly significantly.'' And I
agree with Chairman Frank on that point. And I would hope that this
would be the moment where we could take that one step.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate it, and I hope he would then
join me in something really significant like getting our troops out of
Iraq for a year and a half and save about a thousand times as much as
this motion to recommit.
Mr. HENSARLING. Reclaiming my time, with the chairman being in the
majority, I am sure if he wants to do that, he has the opportunity to
do that. If the Democratic majority wants to raise taxes on those who
have less than a quarter-billion dollars in income, that is their
opportunity to do that. If they want to quit funding our troops in
harm's way, they have the opportunity to do that.
What we are saying is there is an opportunity right here, right now
not to create yet another duplicative program and add to the debt
burden. Now, I am sure we might hear that somehow this is going to
create more jobs, but I ask where are the jobs? Where has the spending
led to?
I encourage all to support the motion to recommit.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, we patiently waited over here to
hear what this motion to recommit was going to be all about. We thought
about all of the Members who have been calling us, writing us, working
with us from both sides of the aisle to please help them address the
concerns of their constituents about flood insurance. We have worked
very hard with Members from both sides of the aisle to include their
concerns in this bill.
You saw Members come to the floor with those amendments. You saw in
the manager's amendment that we had worked with so many Members not
only to include their concerns, but to answer questions and prepare
them for going back to their communities explaining how this whole
thing works.
Many of those questions that have been raised by our constituents
have been raised over a long period of time. Our offices are bombarded
with questions about the mapping. How does it work? How are they going
to get timely notification? What are the premiums all about? These
questions go on and on and on, to the point where our offices are
oftentimes overwhelmed, not able to give sufficient information, or to
assist those communities where they have banded together, despite the
fact oftentimes they have few resources to deal with these issues.
And now, in this comprehensive authorization that we are doing we
address those constituents' concerns with this outreach. I am very
surprised that the Members on the opposite side of the aisle would try
and deny to their constituents the basic kind of information and
services that we should all be responsible for. We should be able to
say to our constituents not only do you have a right to this
information, but we are going to give you some help. You don't have to
try and band together with resources that you don't have to find out
how it all works to oppose FEMA, to find out from your mortgage
servicers why you didn't get a timely notice, to find out from your
city, who was notified perhaps by FEMA, why they didn't notify the
community.
Mr. Speaker and Members, these are simply outreach activities that
must be dealt with. These are outreach activities that our constituents
deserve. To oppose assisting our constituents when they may be forced
into new mapping that's going to cost them money that they had not
anticipated, on and on and on, is just unbelievable.
So I would simply say it speaks for itself. Assistance to our
constituents asking those basic questions. I would ask for a ``no''
vote on this motion to recommit. It works against the best interests of
all of our constituents. They deserve better than this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum
[[Page H5655]]
time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 229, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 446]
AYES--191
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harman
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Titus
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--229
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Heinrich
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Bright
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Kagen
Kirk
Olson
Pomeroy
Schrader
Wamp
{time} 1426
Messrs. McDERMOTT and RUSH changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to
participate in a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives
today.
The vote was on the Motion to Recommit on the Flood Insurance Reform
Priorities Act of 2010. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''
on that question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 329,
noes 90, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 447]
AYES--329
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Giffords
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Heinrich
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
[[Page H5656]]
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--90
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Blackburn
Boehner
Broun (GA)
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Cole
Culberson
Dreier
Duncan
Flake
Fleming
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Graves (GA)
Griffith
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Pitts
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stupak
Sullivan
Tiahrt
Upton
Westmoreland
NOT VOTING--13
Bright
Cardoza
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Kagen
Kirk
Olson
Reyes
Rush
Schrader
Wamp
{time} 1435
Mr. INGLIS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 447, had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
____________________