[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 12, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4887-H4926]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM ACT OF 2011
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 340 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 1309.
{time} 1503
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 further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1309) to extend the authorization of the national flood
insurance program, to achieve reforms to improve the financial
integrity and stability of the program, and to increase the role of
private markets in the management of flood insurance risk, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Landry (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
all time for general debate had expired.
[[Page H4888]]
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 1309
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 Act of 2011''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Extensions.
Sec. 3. Mandatory purchase.
Sec. 4. Reforms of coverage terms.
Sec. 5. Reforms of premium rates.
Sec. 6. Technical Mapping Advisory Council.
Sec. 7. FEMA incorporation of new mapping protocols.
Sec. 8. Treatment of levees.
Sec. 9. Privatization initiatives.
Sec. 10. FEMA annual report on insurance program.
Sec. 11. Actuarial rates for severe repetitive loss properties refusing
mitigation or purchase offers.
Sec. 12. Mitigation assistance.
Sec. 13. Grants for direct funding of mitigation activities for
individual repetitive claims properties.
Sec. 14. Notification to homeowners regarding mandatory purchase
requirement applicability and rate phase-ins.
Sec. 15. Notification of establishment of flood elevations.
Sec. 16. Notification to tenants of availability of contents insurance.
Sec. 17. Notification to policy holders regarding direct management of
policy by FEMA.
Sec. 18. Notice of availability of flood insurance and escrow in RESPA
good faith estimate.
Sec. 19. Reimbursement for costs incurred by homeowners obtaining
letters of map amendment.
Sec. 20. Treatment of swimming pool enclosures outside of hurricane
season.
Sec. 21. CDBG eligibility for flood insurance outreach activities and
community building code administration grants.
Sec. 22. Technical corrections.
Sec. 23. Report on Write-Your-Own Program.
Sec. 24. Studies of voluntary community-based flood insurance options.
Sec. 25. Report on inclusion of building codes in floodplain management
criteria.
Sec. 26. Study on graduated risk.
Sec. 27. No cause of action.
SEC. 2. EXTENSIONS.
(a) Extension of Program.--Section 1319 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by
striking ``September 30, 2011'' and inserting ``September 30,
2016''.
(b) Extension of Financing.--Section 1309(a) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking ``September 30,
2011'' and inserting ``September 30, 2016''.
SEC. 3. MANDATORY PURCHASE.
(a) Authority To Temporarily Suspend Mandatory Purchase
Requirement.--
(1) 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) Authority To Temporarily Suspend Mandatory Purchase
Requirement.--
``(1) Finding by administrator that area is an eligible
area.--For any area, upon a request submitted to the
Administrator by a local government authority having
jurisdiction over any portion of the area, the Administrator
shall make a finding of whether the area is an eligible area
under paragraph (3). If the Administrator finds that such
area is an eligible area, the Administrator shall, in the
discretion of the Administrator, designate a period during
which such finding shall be effective, which shall not be
longer in duration than 12 months.
``(2) Suspension of mandatory purchase requirement.--If the
Administrator makes a finding under paragraph (1) that an
area is an eligible area under paragraph (3), during the
period specified in the finding, the designation of such
eligible area as an area having special flood hazards shall
not be effective for purposes of subsection (a), (b), and (e)
of this section, and section 202(a) of this Act. Nothing in
this paragraph may be construed to prevent any lender,
servicer, regulated lending institution, Federal agency
lender, the Federal National Mortgage Association, or the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, at the discretion of
such entity, from requiring the purchase of flood insurance
coverage in connection with the making, increasing,
extending, or renewing of a loan secured by improved real
estate or a mobile home located or to be located in such
eligible area during such period or a lender or servicer from
purchasing coverage on behalf of a borrower pursuant to
subsection (e).
``(3) Eligible areas.--An eligible area under this
paragraph is an area that is designated or will, pursuant to
any issuance, revision, updating, or other change in flood
insurance maps that takes effect on or after the date of the
enactment of the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011, become
designated as an area having special flood hazards and that
meets any one of the following 3 requirements:
``(A) Areas with no history of special flood hazards.--The
area does not include any area that has ever previously been
designated as an area having special flood hazards.
``(B) Areas with flood protection systems under
improvements.--The area was intended to be protected by a
flood protection system--
``(i) that has been decertified, or is required to be
certified, as providing protection for the 100-year frequency
flood standard;
``(ii) that is being improved, constructed, or
reconstructed; and
``(iii) for which the Administrator has determined
measurable progress toward completion of such improvement,
construction, reconstruction is being made and toward
securing financial commitments sufficient to fund such
completion.
``(C) Areas for which appeal has been filed.--An area for
which a community has appealed--
``(i) designation of the area as having special flood
hazards in a timely manner under section 1363; or
``(ii) any decertification or deaccreditation of a dam,
levee, or other flood protection system or the level of
protection afforded by a dam, levee, or system.
``(4) Extension of delay.--Upon a request submitted by a
local government authority having jurisdiction over any
portion of the eligible area, the Administrator may extend
the period during which a finding under paragraph (1) shall
be effective, except that--
``(A) each such extension under this paragraph shall not be
for a period exceeding 12 months; and
``(B) for any area, the cumulative number of such
extensions may not exceed 2.
``(5) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 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 (2).
``(6) Reports.--The Administrator shall, in each annual
report submitted pursuant to section 1320, include
information identifying each finding under paragraph (1) by
the Administrator during the preceding year that an area is
an area having special flood hazards, the basis for each such
finding, any extensions pursuant to paragraph (4) of the
periods of effectiveness of such findings, and the reasons
for such extensions.''.
(2) No refunds.--Nothing in this subsection or the
amendments made by this subsection 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 paragraph (1).
(b) 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) in paragraph (2), by striking ``insurance.'' and
inserting ``insurance, including premiums or fees incurred
for coverage beginning on the date on which flood insurance
coverage lapsed or did not provide a sufficient coverage
amount.'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(5) and 6), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraphs:
``(3) Termination of force-placed insurance.--Within 30
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.--For purposes of
confirming a borrower's existing flood insurance coverage, a
lender or servicer for a loan shall accept from the borrower
an insurance policy declarations page that includes the
existing flood insurance policy number and the identity of,
and contact information for, the insurance company or
agent.''.
(c) Use of Private Insurance to Satisfy Mandatory Purchase
Requirement.--Section 102(b) of the Flood Disaster Protection
Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``lending institutions not to make'' and
inserting ``lending institutions--
``(A) not to make'';
(B) in subparagraph (A), as designated by subparagraph (A)
of this paragraph, by striking ``less.'' and inserting
``less; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) to accept private flood insurance as satisfaction of
the flood insurance coverage requirement under subparagraph
(A) if the coverage provided by such private flood insurance
meets the requirements for coverage under such
subparagraph.'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``provided in
paragraph (1).'' the following new sentence: ``Each Federal
agency lender shall accept private flood insurance as
satisfaction of the flood insurance coverage requirement
under the preceding sentence if the flood insurance coverage
provided by such private flood insurance meets the
requirements for coverage under such sentence.'';
[[Page H4889]]
(3) in paragraph (3), in the matter following subparagraph
(B), by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The
Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation shall accept private flood
insurance as satisfaction of the flood insurance coverage
requirement under the preceding sentence if the flood
insurance coverage provided by such private flood insurance
meets the requirements for coverage under such sentence.'';
and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Private flood insurance defined.--In this subsection,
the term `private flood insurance' means a contract for flood
insurance coverage allowed for sale under the laws of any
State.''.
SEC. 4. REFORMS OF COVERAGE TERMS.
(a) 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 Administrator is''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Minimum Annual Deductibles.--
``(1) Subsidized rate properties.--For any structure that
is covered by flood insurance under this title, and for which
the chargeable rate for such coverage is less than the
applicable estimated risk premium rate under section
1307(a)(1) for the area (or subdivision thereof) in which
such structure is located, the minimum annual deductible for
damage to or loss of such structure shall be $2,000.
``(2) Actuarial rate properties.--For any structure that is
covered by flood insurance under this title, for which the
chargeable rate for such coverage is not less than the
applicable estimated risk premium rate under section
1307(a)(1) for the area (or subdivision thereof) in which
such structure is located, the minimum annual deductible for
damage to or loss of such structure shall be $1,000.''.
(b) Clarification of Residential and Commercial Coverage
Limits.--Section 1306(b) of the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``in the case of any residential property''
and inserting ``in the case of any residential building
designed for the occupancy of from one to four families'';
and
(B) by striking ``shall be made available to every insured
upon renewal and every applicant for insurance so as to
enable such insured or applicant to receive coverage up to a
total amount (including such limits specified in paragraph
(1)(A)(i)) of $250,000'' and inserting ``shall be made
available, with respect to any single such building, up to an
aggregate liability (including such limits specified in
paragraph (1)(A)(i)) of $250,000''; and
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking ``in the case of any nonresidential
property, including churches,'' and inserting ``in the case
of any nonresidential building, including a church,''; and
(B) by striking ``shall be made available to every insured
upon renewal and every applicant for insurance, in respect to
any single structure, up to a total amount (including such
limit specified in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1),
as applicable) of $500,000 for each structure and $500,000
for any contents related to each structure'' and inserting
``shall be made available with respect to any single such
building, up to an aggregate liability (including such limits
specified in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1), as
applicable) of $500,000, and coverage shall be made available
up to a total of $500,000 aggregate liability for contents
owned by the building owner and $500,000 aggregate liability
for each unit within the building for contents owned by the
tenant''.
(c) Indexing of 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 (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and'';
(3) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7); and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) each of the dollar amount limitations under
paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) shall be adjusted
effective on the date of the enactment of the Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 2011, such adjustments shall be calculated
using the percentage change, over the period beginning on
September 30, 1994, and ending on such date of enactment, in
such inflationary index as the Administrator shall, by
regulation, specify, and the dollar amount of such adjustment
shall be rounded to the next lower dollar; and the
Administrator shall cause to be published in the Federal
Register the adjustments under this paragraph to such dollar
amount limitations; except that in the case of coverage for a
property that is made available, pursuant to this paragraph,
in an amount that exceeds the limitation otherwise applicable
to such coverage as specified in paragraph (2), (3), (4),
(5), or (6), the total of 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).''.
(d) Optional Coverage for Loss of Use of Personal Residence
and Business Interruption.--Subsection (b) of section 1306 of
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013(b)),
as amended by the preceding provisions of this section, is
further amended by inserting after paragraph (4) the
following new paragraphs:
``(5) the Administrator may provide that, in the case of
any residential property, each renewal or new contract for
flood insurance coverage may provide not more than $5,000
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,
except that--
``(A) purchase of such coverage shall be at the option of
the insured;
``(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); and
``(C) the Administrator may make such coverage available
only if the Administrator makes a determination and causes
notice of such determination to be published in the Federal
Register that--
``(i) a competitive private insurance market for such
coverage does not exist; and
``(ii) the national flood insurance program has the
capacity to make such coverage available without borrowing
funds from the Secretary of the Treasury under section 1309
or otherwise;
``(6) the Administrator may provide that, in the case of
any commercial property or other residential property,
including multifamily rental property, 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 may be made available to every insured
upon renewal and every applicant, up to a total amount of
$20,000 per property, except that--
``(A) purchase of such coverage shall be at the option of
the insured;
``(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); and
``(C) the Administrator may make such coverage available
only if the Administrator makes a determination and causes
notice of such determination to be published in the Federal
Register that--
``(i) a competitive private insurance market for such
coverage does not exist; and
``(ii) the national flood insurance program has the
capacity to make such coverage available without borrowing
funds from the Secretary of the Treasury under section 1309
or otherwise;''.
(e) Payment of Premiums in Installments for Residential
Properties.--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 Residential
Properties.--
``(1) Authority.--In addition to any other terms and
conditions under subsection (a), such regulations shall
provide that, in the case of any residential property,
premiums for flood insurance coverage made available under
this title for such property may be paid in installments.
``(2) Limitations.--In implementing the authority under
paragraph (1), the Administrator may establish increased
chargeable premium rates and surcharges, and deny coverage
and establish such other sanctions, as the Administrator
considers necessary to ensure that insureds purchase, pay
for, and maintain coverage for the full term of a contract
for flood insurance coverage or to prevent insureds from
purchasing coverage only for periods during a year when risk
of flooding is comparatively higher or canceling coverage for
periods when such risk is comparatively lower.''.
SEC. 5. REFORMS OF PREMIUM RATES.
(a) 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''.
(b) Phase-In of Rates for Certain Properties in Newly
Mapped Areas.--
(1) In general.--Section 1308 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by inserting ``or notice'' after ``prescribe by
regulation'';
(B) in subsection (c), by inserting ``and subsection (g)''
before the first comma; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) 5-Year Phase-In of Flood Insurance Rates for Certain
Properties in Newly Mapped Areas.--
``(1) 50 percent rate for initial year.--Notwithstanding
subsection (c) or 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 12-month period that begins, except
as provided in paragraph (2), upon the date that such maps,
as issued, revised, updated, or otherwise changed, become
effective, the chargeable premium rate for flood insurance
under this title with respect to any covered property that is
located within such area shall be 50 percent of the
chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable under this
title to the property.
``(2) Applicability to preferred risk rate areas.--In the
case of any area described in paragraph (1) that consists of
or includes an area that, as of date of the effectiveness of
the flood insurance maps for such area referred to in
paragraph (1) as so issued, revised, updated, or changed, is
eligible for any reason for preferred risk rate method
premiums for flood insurance coverage and was eligible for
such premiums as of the enactment of the Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 2011, the 12-month period referred to in
paragraph (1) for such area eligible for preferred risk rate
method premiums shall
[[Page H4890]]
begin upon the expiration of the period during which such
area is eligible for such preferred risk rate method
premiums.
``(3) Phase-in of full actuarial rates.--With respect to
any area described in paragraph (1), upon the expiration of
the 12-month period under paragraph (1) or (2), as
applicable, for such area, the Administrator shall increase
the chargeable risk premium rates for flood insurance under
this title for covered properties in such area by 20 percent,
and by 20 percent upon the expiration of each successive 12-
month period thereafter until the chargeable risk premium
rates comply with subsection (c).
``(4) Covered properties.--For purposes of the subsection,
the term `covered property' means any residential property
occupied by its owner or a bona fide tenant as a primary
residence.''.
(2) Regulation or notice.--The Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency shall issue an interim final rule
or notice to implement this subsection and the amendments
made by this subsection as soon as practicable after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Phase-In of Actuarial Rates for Certain Properties.--
(1) In general.--Section 1308(c) of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015(c)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (7); and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraphs:
``(2) Commercial properties.--Any nonresidential property.
``(3) Second homes and vacation homes.--Any residential
property that is not the primary residence of any individual.
``(4) Homes sold to new owners.--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 Administrator, before December 31, 1974, or
before the effective date of the initial rate map published
by the Administrator under paragraph (2) of section 1360(a)
for the area in which such property is located, whichever is
later; and
``(B) is purchased after the effective date of this
paragraph, pursuant to section 5(c)(3)(A) of the Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 2011.
``(5) Homes damaged or improved.--Any property that, on or
after the date of the enactment of the Flood Insurance Reform
Act of 2011, has experienced or sustained--
``(A) substantial flood 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.
``(6) Homes with multiple claims.--Any severe repetitive
loss property (as such term is defined in section
1361A(b)).''.
(2) Technical amendments.--Section 1308 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015) is amended--
(A) in subsection (c)--
(i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``the limitations provided under paragraphs (1) and (2)'' and
inserting ``subsection (e)''; and
(ii) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, except'' and all
that follows through ``subsection (e)''; and
(B) in subsection (e), by striking ``paragraph (2) or (3)''
and inserting ``paragraph (7)''.
(3) Effective date and transition.--
(A) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraphs (1)
and (2) shall apply beginning upon the expiration of the 12-
month period that begins on the date of the enactment of this
Act, except as provided in subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph.
(B) Transition for properties covered by flood insurance
upon effective date.--
(i) Increase of rates over time.--In the case of any
property described in paragraph (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) of
section 1308(c) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968,
as amended by paragraph (1) of this subsection, that, as of
the effective date under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph,
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) of such
Act for the area in which the property is located, the
Administrator 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).
(ii) Amount of 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
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph 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 clause (iii)).
(iii) 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 subparagraph or to an
increase described in section 1308(e) of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 may not exceed 20 percent.
(iv) Full actuarial rates.--The provisions of paragraphs
(2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) of such section 1308(c) shall
apply to such a property upon the accomplishment of the
increase under this subparagraph and thereafter.
(d) 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--
(1) in subsection (e), by inserting ``or subsection (h)''
after ``subsection (c)'';
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Prohibition of Extension of Subsidized Rates to
Lapsed Policies.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
relating to chargeable risk premium rates for flood insurance
coverage under this title, the Administrator shall not
provide flood insurance coverage under this title for any
property for which a policy for such coverage for the
property has previously lapsed in coverage as a result of the
deliberate choice of the holder of such policy, at a rate
less than the applicable estimated risk premium rates for the
area (or subdivision thereof) in which such property is
located.''.
(e) Recognition of State and Local Funding for
Construction, Reconstruction, and Improvement of Flood
Protection Systems in Determination of Rates.--
(1) In general.--Section 1307 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014) is amended--
(A) in subsection (e)--
(i) 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
(ii) 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
(B) in subsection (f)--
(i) 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;
(ii) in the third sentence in the matter preceding
paragraph (1), by inserting ``, whether coastal or
riverine,'' after ``special flood hazard''; and
(iii) 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''.
(2) Regulations.--The Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency shall promulgate regulations to
implement this subsection and the amendments made by this
subsection as soon as practicable, but not more than 18
months after the date of the enactment of this Act. Paragraph
(3) may not be construed to annul, alter, affect, authorize
any waiver of, or establish any exception to, the requirement
under the preceding sentence.
SEC. 6. TECHNICAL MAPPING ADVISORY COUNCIL.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a council to be
known as the Technical Mapping Advisory Council (in this
section referred to as the ``Council'').
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Council shall consist of--
(A) the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (in this section referred to as the
``Administrator''), or the designee thereof;
(B) the Director of the United States Geological Survey of
the Department of the Interior, or the designee thereof;
(C) the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere, or the designee thereof;
(D) the commanding officer of the United States Army Corps
of Engineers, or the designee thereof;
(E) the chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service
of the Department of Agriculture, or the designee thereof;
(F) the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service of the Department of the Interior, or the designee
thereof;
(G) the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the
Department of Commerce, or the designee thereof; and
(H) 14 additional members to be appointed by the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who
shall be--
(i) an expert in data management;
(ii) an expert in real estate;
(iii) an expert in insurance;
(iv) a member of a recognized regional flood and storm
water management organization;
(v) a representative of a State emergency management agency
or association or organization for such agencies;
(vi) a member of a recognized professional surveying
association or organization;
(vii) a member of a recognized professional mapping
association or organization;
(viii) a member of a recognized professional engineering
association or organization;
(ix) a member of a recognized professional association or
organization representing flood hazard determination firms;
(x) a representative of State national flood insurance
coordination offices;
(xi) representatives of two local governments, at least one
of whom is a local levee flood manager or executive,
designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as
Cooperating Technical Partners; and
(xii) representatives of two State governments designated
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as Cooperating
Technical States.
(2) Qualifications.--Members of the Council shall be
appointed based on their demonstrated
[[Page H4891]]
knowledge and competence regarding surveying, cartography,
remote sensing, geographic information systems, or the
technical aspects of preparing and using flood insurance rate
maps. In appointing members under paragraph (1)(I), the
Administrator shall ensure that the membership of the Council
has a balance of Federal, State, local, and private members.
(c) Duties.--
(1) New mapping standards.--Not later than the expiration
of the 12-month period beginning upon the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Council shall develop and submit
to the Administrator and the Congress proposed new mapping
standards for 100-year flood insurance rate maps used under
the national flood insurance program under the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968. In developing such proposed standards
the Council shall--
(A) ensure that the flood insurance rate maps reflect true
risk, including graduated risk that better reflects the
financial risk to each property; such reflection of risk
should be at the smallest geographic level possible (but not
necessarily property-by-property) to ensure that communities
are mapped in a manner that takes into consideration
different risk levels within the community;
(B) ensure the most efficient generation, display, and
distribution of flood risk data, models, and maps where
practicable through dynamic digital environments using
spatial database technology and the Internet;
(C) ensure that flood insurance rate maps reflect current
hydrologic and hydraulic data, current land use, and
topography, incorporating the most current and accurate
ground and bathymetric elevation data;
(D) determine the best ways to include in such flood
insurance rate maps levees, decertified levees, and areas
located below dams, including determining a methodology for
ensuring that decertified levees and other protections are
included in flood insurance rate maps and their corresponding
flood zones reflect the level of protection conferred;
(E) consider how to incorporate restored wetlands and other
natural buffers into flood insurance rate maps, which may
include wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, erosion zones,
meander belts, endangered species habitat, barrier islands
and shoreline buffer features, riparian forests, and other
features;
(F) consider whether to use vertical positioning (as
defined by the Administrator) for flood insurance rate maps;
(G) ensure that flood insurance rate maps differentiate
between a property that is located in a flood zone and a
structure located on such property that is not at the same
risk level for flooding as such property due to the elevation
of the structure;
(H) ensure that flood insurance rate maps take into
consideration the best scientific data and potential future
conditions (including projections for sea level rise); and
(I) consider how to incorporate the new standards proposed
pursuant to this paragraph in existing mapping efforts.
(2) Ongoing duties.--The Council shall, on an ongoing
basis, review the mapping protocols developed pursuant to
paragraph (1), and make recommendations to the Administrator
when the Council determines that mapping protocols should be
altered.
(3) Meetings.--In carrying out its duties under this
section, the Council shall consult with stakeholders through
at least 4 public meetings annually, and shall seek input of
all stakeholder interests including State and local
representatives, environmental and conservation
organizations, insurance industry representatives, advocacy
groups, planning organizations, and mapping organizations.
(d) Prohibition on Compensation.--Members of the Council
shall receive no additional compensation by reason of their
service on the Council.
(e) Chairperson.--The Administrator shall serve as the
Chairperson of the Council.
(f) Staff.--
(1) FEMA.--Upon the request of the Council, the
Administrator may detail, on a nonreimbursable basis,
personnel of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to
assist the Council in carrying out its duties.
(2) Other federal agencies.--Upon request of the Council,
any other Federal agency that is a member of the Council may
detail, on a non-reimbursable basis, personnel to assist the
Council in carrying out its duties.
(g) Powers.--In carrying out this section, the Council may
hold hearings, receive evidence and assistance, provide
information, and conduct research, as the Council considers
appropriate.
(h) Termination.--The Council shall terminate upon the
expiration of the 5-year period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 7. FEMA INCORPORATION OF NEW MAPPING PROTOCOLS.
(a) New Rate Mapping Standards.--Not later than the
expiration of the 6-month period beginning upon submission by
the Technical Mapping Advisory Council under section 6 of the
proposed new mapping standards for flood insurance rate maps
used under the national flood insurance program developed by
the Council pursuant to section 6(c), the Administrator of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (in this section
referred to as the ``Administrator'') shall establish new
standards for such rate maps based on such proposed new
standards and the recommendations of the Council.
(b) Requirements.--The new standards for flood insurance
rate maps established by the Administrator pursuant to
subsection (a) shall--
(1) delineate and include in any such rate maps--
(A) all areas located within the 100-year flood plain;
(B) areas of residual risk, including areas behind levees,
dams, and other man-made structures; and
(C) areas subject to graduated and other risk levels, to
the maximum extent possible;
(2) ensure that any such rate maps--
(A) include levees, including decertified levees, and the
level of protection they confer;
(B) reflect current land use and topography and incorporate
the most current and accurate ground level data;
(C) take into consideration the impacts and use of fill and
the flood risks associated with altered hydrology;
(D) differentiate between a property that is located in a
flood zone and a structure located on such property that is
not at the same risk level for flooding as such property due
to the elevation of the structure;
(E) identify and incorporate natural features and their
associated flood protection benefits into mapping and rates;
and
(F) identify, analyze, and incorporate the impact of
significant changes to building and development throughout
any river or costal water system, including all tributaries,
which may impact flooding in areas downstream; and
(3) provide that such rate maps are developed on a
watershed basis.
(c) Report.--If, in establishing new standards for flood
insurance rate maps pursuant to subsection (a) of this
section, the Administrator does not implement all of the
recommendations of the Council made under the proposed new
mapping standards developed by the Council pursuant to
section 6(c), upon establishment of the new standards the
Administrator shall 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 specifying which such recommendations were not adopted
and explaining the reasons such recommendations were not
adopted.
(d) Implementation.--The Administrator shall, not later
than the expiration of the 6-month period beginning upon
establishment of the new standards for flood insurance rate
maps pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, commence use
of the new standards and updating of flood insurance rate
maps in accordance with the new standards. Not later than the
expiration of the 5-year period beginning upon the
establishment of such new standards, the Administrator shall
complete updating of all flood insurance rate maps in
accordance with the new standards, subject to the
availability of sufficient amounts for such activities
provided in appropriation Acts.
(e) Temporary Suspension of Mandatory Purchase Requirement
for Certain Properties.--
(1) Submission of elevation certificate.--Subject to
paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, subsections (a),
(b), and (e) of section 102 of the Flood Disaster Protection
Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a), and section 202(a) of such
Act, shall not apply to a property located in an area
designated as having a special flood hazard if the owner of
such property submits to the Administrator an elevation
certificate for such property showing that the lowest level
of the primary residence on such property is at an elevation
that is at least three feet higher than the elevation of the
100-year flood plain.
(2) Review of survey.--The Administrator shall accept as
conclusive each elevation survey submitted under paragraph
(1) unless the Administrator conducts a subsequent elevation
survey and determines that the lowest level of the primary
residence on the property in question is not at an elevation
that is at least three feet higher than the elevation of the
100-year flood plain. The Administrator shall provide any
such subsequent elevation survey to the owner of such
property.
(3) Determinations for properties on borders of special
flood hazard areas.--
(A) Expedited determination.--In the case of any survey for
a property submitted to the Administrator pursuant to
paragraph (1) showing that a portion of the property is
located within an area having special flood hazards and that
a structure located on the property is not located within
such area having special flood hazards, the Administrator
shall expeditiously process any request made by an owner of
the property for a determination pursuant to paragraph (2) or
a determination of whether the structure is located within
the area having special flood hazards.
(B) Prohibition of fee.--If the Administrator determines
pursuant to subparagraph (A) that the structure on the
property is not located within the area having special flood
hazards, the Administrator shall not charge a fee for
reviewing the flood hazard data and shall not require the
owner to provide any additional elevation data.
(C) Simplification of review process.--The Administrator
shall collaborate with private sector flood insurers to
simplify the review process for properties described in
subparagraph (A) and to ensure that the review process
provides for accurate determinations.
(4) Termination of authority.--This subsection shall cease
to apply to a property on the date on which the Administrator
updates the flood insurance rate map that applies to such
property in accordance with the requirements of subsection
(d).
SEC. 8. TREATMENT OF 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:
``(k) Treatment of Levees.--The Administrator may not issue
flood insurance maps, or make effective updated flood
insurance maps, that omit or disregard the actual protection
afforded by an existing levee, floodwall, pump or other flood
protection feature, regardless of the accreditation status of
such feature.''.
[[Page H4892]]
SEC. 9. PRIVATIZATION INITIATIVES.
(a) FEMA and GAO Reports.--Not later than the expiration of
the 18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the Comptroller General of the United
States shall each conduct a separate study to assess a broad
range of options, methods, and strategies for privatizing the
national flood insurance program and shall each 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 with recommendations for the best
manner to accomplish such privatization.
(b) Private Risk-Management Initiatives.--
(1) Authority.--The Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency may carry out such private risk-management
initiatives under the national flood insurance program as the
Administrator considers appropriate to determine the capacity
of private insurers, reinsurers, and financial markets to
assist communities, on a voluntary basis only, in managing
the full range of financial risks associated with flooding.
(2) Assessment.--Not later than the expiration of the 12-
month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Administrator shall assess the capacity of the
private reinsurance, capital, and financial markets by
seeking proposals to assume a portion of the program's
insurance risk and submit to the Congress a report describing
the response to such request for proposals and the results of
such assessment.
(3) Protocol for release of data.--The Administrator shall
develop a protocol to provide for the release of data
sufficient to conduct the assessment required under paragraph
(2).
(c) Reinsurance.--The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
is amended--
(1) in section 1331(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 4051(a)(2)), by
inserting ``, including as reinsurance of insurance coverage
provided by the flood insurance program'' before ``, on such
terms'';
(2) in section 1332(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 4052(c)(2)), by
inserting ``or reinsurance'' after ``flood insurance
coverage'';
(3) in section 1335(a) (42 U.S.C. 4055(a))--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) The Administrator is authorized to secure reinsurance
coverage of coverage provided by the flood insurance program
from private market insurance, reinsurance, and capital
market sources at rates and on terms determined by the
Administrator to be reasonable and appropriate in an amount
sufficient to maintain the ability of the program to pay
claims and that minimizes the likelihood that the program
will utilize the borrowing authority provided under section
1309.'';
(4) in section 1346(a) (12 U.S.C. 4082(a))--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``,
or for purposes of securing reinsurance of insurance coverage
provided by the program,'' before ``of any or all of'';
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``estimating'' and inserting
``Estimating''; and
(ii) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a
period;
(C) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``receiving'' and inserting ``Receiving'';
and
(ii) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a
period;
(D) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``making'' and inserting ``Making''; and
(ii) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period;
(E) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by striking ``otherwise'' and inserting ``Otherwise'';
and
(ii) by redesignating such paragraph as paragraph (5); and
(F) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Placing reinsurance coverage on insurance provided by
such program.''; and
(5) in section 1370(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 4121(a)(3)), by
inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: ``,
is subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, pursuant to section 13(a) or 15(d) of
such Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)), or is authorized by the
Administrator to assume reinsurance on risks insured by the
flood insurance program''.
(d) Assessment of Claims-Paying Ability.--
(1) Assessment.--Not later than September 30 of each year,
the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
shall conduct an assessment of the claims-paying ability of
the national flood insurance program, including the program's
utilization of private sector reinsurance and reinsurance
equivalents, with and without reliance on borrowing authority
under section 1309 of the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016). In conducting the assessment, the
Administrator shall take into consideration regional
concentrations of coverage written by the program, peak flood
zones, and relevant mitigation measures.
(2) Report.--The Administrator shall submit a report to the
Congress of the results of each such assessment, and make
such report available to the public, not later than 30 days
after completion of the assessment.
SEC. 10. FEMA ANNUAL REPORT ON INSURANCE PROGRAM.
Section 1320 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4027) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``report to the
president'' and inserting ``annual report to congress'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``biennially'';
(B) by striking ``the President for submission to''; and
(C) by inserting ``not later than June 30 of each year''
before the period at the end;
(3) in subsection (b), by striking ``biennial'' and
inserting ``annual''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Financial Status of Program.--The report under this
section for each year shall include information regarding the
financial status of the national flood insurance program
under this title, including a description of the financial
status of the National Flood Insurance Fund and current and
projected levels of claims, premium receipts, expenses, and
borrowing under the program.''.
SEC. 11. ACTUARIAL RATES FOR SEVERE REPETITIVE LOSS
PROPERTIES REFUSING MITIGATION OR PURCHASE
OFFERS.
Subsection (h) of section 1361A of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4102a(h)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``150 percent'' and
all that follows through ``paragraph (3)'' and inserting
``the applicable estimated risk premium rate for such
coverage for the area (or subdivision thereof) determined in
accordance with section 1307(a), subject to phase-in of such
rates in the same manner provided under paragraph (2) of
section 1308(g) for properties described in paragraph (1) of
such section''; and
(B) by inserting after and below subparagraph (B) the
following:
``An offer to take action under paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (c) shall be considered to be made for purposes of
this paragraph with respect to a severe repetitive loss
property regardless of the time that the offer was made and
regardless of whether the Administrator has transferred
financial assistance under this section to the State or
community making the offer for funding such action, but only
if the owner of the property is provided a reasonable period
of time, not to exceed 15 days, to respond to the offer.'';
(2) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (6) as
paragraphs (2) through (4), respectively.
SEC. 12. MITIGATION ASSISTANCE.
Subsection (e) of section 1366 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c(e)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Eligibility of demolition and rebuilding of
properties.--The Administrator shall consider as an eligible
activity the demolition and rebuilding of properties to at
least base flood levels or higher, if required by the
Administrator or if required by any State or local ordinance,
and in accordance with project implementation criteria
established by the Administrator.''.
SEC. 13. 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 subsection (a), in the the matter preceding
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,''.
SEC. 14. 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 Administrator, 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;
``(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. 15. NOTIFICATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOOD ELEVATIONS.
Section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4101), as amended by the preceding provisions of
this Act, is further amended 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 Administrator
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.''.
SEC. 16. 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:
[[Page H4893]]
``SEC. 1308A. NOTIFICATION TO TENANTS OF AVAILABILITY OF
CONTENTS INSURANCE.
``(a) In General.--The Administrator 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 Administrator where such
information is available.''.
SEC. 17. NOTIFICATION TO POLICY HOLDERS REGARDING DIRECT
MANAGEMENT OF POLICY BY FEMA.
Part C of chapter II of the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4081 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
``SEC. 1349. NOTIFICATION TO POLICY HOLDERS REGARDING DIRECT
MANAGEMENT OF POLICY BY FEMA.
``(a) Notification.--Not later than 60 days before the date
on which a transferred flood insurance policy expires, and
annually thereafter until such time as the Federal Emergency
Management Agency is no longer directly administering such
policy, the Administrator shall notify the holder of such
policy that--
``(1) the Federal Emergency Management Agency is directly
administering the policy;
``(2) such holder may purchase flood insurance that is
directly administered by an insurance company; and
``(3) purchasing flood insurance offered under the National
Flood Insurance Program that is directly administered by an
insurance company will not alter the coverage provided or the
premiums charged to such holder that otherwise would be
provided or charged if the policy was directly administered
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
``(b) Definition.--In this section, the term `transferred
flood insurance policy' means a flood insurance policy that--
``(1) was directly administered by an insurance company at
the time the policy was originally purchased by the policy
holder; and
``(2) at the time of renewal of the policy, direct
administration of the policy was or will be transferred to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency.''.
SEC. 18. 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. 19. REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS INCURRED BY HOMEOWNERS
OBTAINING LETTERS OF MAP AMENDMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 1360 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101), as amended by the
preceding provisions of this Act, is further amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(m) Reimbursement.--
``(1) Requirement upon bona fide offer.--If an owner of any
property located in an area described in section 102(i)(3) of
the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 obtains a letter of
map amendment due to a bona fide error on the part of the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
Administrator shall reimburse such owner, or such entity or
jurisdiction acting on such owner's behalf, for any
reasonable costs incurred in obtaining such letter.
``(2) Reasonable costs.--The Administrator shall, by
regulation or notice, determine a reasonable amount of costs
to be reimbursed under paragraph (1), except that such costs
shall not include legal or attorneys fees. In determining the
reasonableness of costs, the Administrator shall only
consider the actual costs to the owner of utilizing the
services of an engineer, surveyor, or similar services.''.
(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 issue the regulations or
notice required under section 1360(m)(2) of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as added by the amendment made
by subsection (a) of this section.
SEC. 20. 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.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 1325. 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.''.
SEC. 21. CDBG ELIGIBILITY FOR FLOOD INSURANCE OUTREACH
ACTIVITIES AND COMMUNITY BUILDING CODE
ADMINISTRATION GRANTS.
Section 105(a) of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (24), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (25), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(26) supplementing existing State or local funding for
administration of building code enforcement by local building
code enforcement departments, including for increasing
staffing, providing staff training, increasing staff
competence and professional qualifications, and supporting
individual certification or departmental accreditation, and
for capital expenditures specifically dedicated to the
administration of the building code enforcement department,
except that, to be eligible to use amounts as provided in
this paragraph--
``(A) a building code enforcement department shall provide
matching, non-Federal funds to be used in conjunction with
amounts used under this paragraph in an amount--
``(i) in the case of a building code enforcement department
serving an area with a population of more than 50,000, equal
to not less than 50 percent of the total amount of any funds
made available under this title that are used under this
paragraph;
``(ii) in the case of a building code enforcement
department serving an area with a population of between
20,001 and 50,000, equal to not less than 25 percent of the
total amount of any funds made available under this title
that are used under this paragraph; and
``(iii) in the case of a building code enforcement
department serving an area with a population of less than
20,000, equal to not less than 12.5 percent of the total
amount of any funds made available under this title that are
used under this paragraph;
except that the Secretary may waive the matching fund
requirements under this subparagraph, in whole or in part,
based upon the level of economic distress of the jurisdiction
in which is located the local building code enforcement
department that is using amounts for purposes under this
paragraph, and shall waive such matching fund requirements in
whole for any recipient jurisdiction that has dedicated all
building code permitting fees to the conduct of local
building code enforcement; and
``(B) any building code enforcement department using funds
made available under this title for purposes under this
paragraph shall empanel a code administration and enforcement
team consisting of at least 1 full-time building code
enforcement officer, a city planner, and a health planner or
similar officer; and
``(27) provision of assistance 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 the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), only for carrying out outreach
activities to encourage and facilitate the purchase of flood
insurance protection under such Act by owners and renters of
properties in such communities and to promote educational
activities that increase awareness of flood risk reduction;
except that--
``(A) amounts used as provided under this paragraph shall
be used only for activities designed to--
``(i) identify owners and renters of properties in
communities that participate in the national flood insurance
program, including owners of residential and commercial
properties;
``(ii) 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;
``(iii) 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;
``(iv) 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;
[[Page H4894]]
``(v) encourage such owners and renters to maintain or
acquire such coverage;
``(vi) 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
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (in
this paragraph referred to as the `Administrator') where such
information is available; and
``(vii) educate local real estate agents in communities
participating in the national flood insurance program
regarding the program and the availability of coverage under
the program for owners and renters of properties in such
communities, and establish coordination and liaisons with
such real estate agents to facilitate purchase of coverage
under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and increase
awareness of flood risk reduction;
``(B) in any fiscal year, a local governmental agency may
not use an amount under this paragraph that exceeds 3 times
the amount that the agency certifies, as the Secretary, in
consultation with the Administrator, shall require, that the
agency will contribute from non-Federal funds to be used with
such amounts used under this paragraph only for carrying out
activities described in subparagraph (A); and for purposes of
this subparagraph, 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 local governmental agency
involved, the value of the time and services contributed by
volunteers to carry out such services (at a rate determined
by the Secretary), and the value of any donated material or
building and the value of any lease on a building;
``(C) a local governmental agency that uses amounts as
provided under this paragraph 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
subparagraph (A) with respect to such populations or
constituencies; and
``(D) each local government agency that uses amounts as
provided under this paragraph shall submit a report to the
Secretary and the Administrator, not later than 12 months
after such amounts are first received, which shall include
such information as the Secretary and the Administrator
jointly consider appropriate to describe the activities
conducted using such amounts and the effect of such
activities on the retention or acquisition of flood insurance
coverage.''.
SEC. 22. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
(a) Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.--The Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4002 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears,
except in section 102(f)(3) (42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)(3)), and
inserting ``Administrator''; and
(2) in section 201(b) (42 U.S.C. 4105(b)), by striking
``Director's'' and inserting ``Administrator's''.
(b) National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.--The National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears
and inserting ``Administrator''; and
(2) in sections 1363 (42 U.S.C. 4104), by striking
``Director's'' each place such term appears and inserting
``Administrator's''.
(c) Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956.--Section 15(e) of
the Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956 (42 U.S.C. 2414(e))
is amended by striking ``Director'' each place such term
appears and inserting ``Administrator''.
SEC. 23. REPORT ON WRITE-YOUR-OWN PROGRAM.
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency shall submit to Congress a report
describing procedures and policies that the Administrator can
implement to limit the percentage of flood insurance polices
directly managed by the Agency to not more than 10 percent,
if possible, of all flood insurance policies issued in
accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program.
SEC. 24. STUDIES OF VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY-BASED FLOOD INSURANCE
OPTIONS.
(a) Studies.--The Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the Comptroller General of the United
States shall each conduct a separate study to assess options,
methods, and strategies for offering voluntary community-
based flood insurance policy options and incorporating such
options into the national flood insurance program. Such
studies shall take into consideration and analyze how the
policy options would affect communities having varying
economic bases, geographic locations, flood hazard
characteristics or classifications, and flood management
approaches.
(b) Reports.--Not later than the expiration of the 18-month
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and the Comptroller General of the United States shall each
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 on the results and
conclusions of the study such agency conducted under
subsection (a), and each such report shall include
recommendations for the best manner to incorporate voluntary
community-based flood insurance options into the national
flood insurance program and for a strategy to implement such
options that would encourage communities to undertake flood
mitigation activities.
SEC. 25. 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;
(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;
(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.
SEC. 26. STUDY ON GRADUATED RISK.
(a) Study.--The National Academy of Sciences shall conduct
a study exploring methods for understanding graduated risk
behind levees and the associated land development, insurance,
and risk communication dimensions, which shall--
(1) research, review, and recommend current best practices
for estimating direct annualized flood losses behind levees
for residential and commercial structures;
(2) rank such practices based on their best value,
balancing cost, scientific integrity, and the inherent
uncertainties associated with all aspects of the loss
estimate, including geotechnical engineering, flood frequency
estimates, economic value, and direct damages;
(3) research, review, and identify current best floodplain
management and land use practices behind levees that
effectively balance social, economic, and environmental
considerations as part of an overall flood risk management
strategy;
(4) identify examples where such practices have proven
effective and recommend methods and processes by which they
could be applied more broadly across the United States, given
the variety of different flood risks, State and local legal
frameworks, and evolving judicial opinions;
(5) research, review, and identify a variety of flood
insurance pricing options for flood hazards behind levees
which are actuarially sound and based on the flood risk data
developed using the top three best value approaches
identified pursuant to paragraph (1);
(6) evaluate and recommend methods to reduce insurance
costs through creative arrangements between insureds and
insurers while keeping a clear accounting of how much
financial risk is being borne by various parties such that
the entire risk is accounted for, including establishment of
explicit limits on disaster aid or other assistance in the
event of a flood; and
(7) taking into consideration the recommendations pursuant
to paragraphs (1) through (3), recommend approaches to
communicating the associated risks to community officials,
homeowners, and other residents.
(b) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 12-month
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,
the National Academy of Sciences shall submit a report to the
Committees on Financial Services and Science, Space, and
Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committees
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and Commerce, Science
and Transportation of the Senate on the study under
subsection (a) including the information and recommendations
required under such subsection.
SEC. 27. NO CAUSE OF ACTION.
No cause of action shall exist and no claim may be brought
against the United States for violation of any notification
requirement imposed upon the United States by this Act or any
amendment made by this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in House
Report 112-138, and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of House
Resolution 340. Each amendment printed in the report may be offered
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 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.
It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on
Financial Services or his designee to offer
[[Page H4895]]
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the report not
earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the committee or their designees,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question. The original proponent of an amendment
included in such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the
Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of the
amendments en bloc.
Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mrs. Biggert
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 340, I offer
amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc consisting of amendments numbered 1, 6, 7, 8, 9,
12, 15, 18, 21, 22, and 24 printed in House Report 112-138 offered by
Mrs. Biggert:
amendment no. 1 offered by mrs. biggert
Page 38, line 23, strike ``5-year'' and insert ``10-year''.
Page 39, line 18 strike ``survey'' and insert
``certificate''.
Page 39, line 19 strike ``survey'' and insert
``certificate''.
Page 50, line 7, strike ``1308(h)'' and insert ``1308(g)''.
Page 50, lines 20 and 21 strike ``OF ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOOD
ELEVATIONS'' and insert ``TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OF FLOOD MAP
REVISIONS AND UPDATES''.
Page 55, line 11, strike ``offer'' and insert ``error''.
Page 64, line 16, strike ``sections'' and insert
``section''.
amendment no. 6 offered by ms. matsui
Page 20, line 3, strike ``50 percent rate for initial
year'' and insert ``5-year phase-in period''.
Page 20, line 11, strike ``12-month period'' and insert
``5-year period''.
Page 20, lines 17 through 19, strike ``50 percent of the
chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable under this
title to the property'' and insert ``the rate described in
paragraph (3)''.
Page 21, line 4, strike ``12-month period'' and insert ``5-
year period''.
Page 21, strike lines 11 through 18, and insert the
following:
``the chargeable risk premium rate for flood insurance
under this title for a covered property that is located in
such area shall be--
``(A) for the first year of the 5-year period referred to
in paragraph (1), the greater of--
``(i) 20 percent of the chargeable risk premium rate
otherwise applicable under this title to the property; and
``(ii) in the case of any property that, as of the
beginning of such first year, is eligible for preferred risk
rate method premiums for flood insurance coverage, such
preferred risk rate method premium for the property;
``(B) 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;
``(C) 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;
``(D) 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
``(E) 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.''.
amendment no. 7 offered by mr. terry
Page 19, after line 8, insert the following new subsection:
(f) Effective Date of Policies Covering Properties Affected
by Floods in Progress.--Paragraph (1) of section 1306(c) of
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013(c))
is amended by adding after the period at the end the
following: ``With respect to any flood that has commenced or
is in progress before the expiration of such 30-day period,
such flood insurance coverage for a property shall take
effect upon the expiration of such 30-day period and shall
cover damage to such property occurring after the expiration
of such period that results from such flood, but only if the
property has not suffered damage or loss as a result of such
flood before the expiration of such 30-day period.''.
amendment no. 8 offered by ms. waters
Page 23, line 17, strike ``section 1361A(b)'' and insert
``section 1366(j)''.
Strike line 10 on page 47 and all that follows through page
48, line 15.
Strike line 16 on page 48 and all that follows through page
49, line 19 and insert the following new section:
SEC. 12. MITIGATION ASSISTANCE.
(a) Mitigation Assistance Grants.--Section 1366 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking the last sentence and
inserting the following: ``Such financial assistance shall be
made available--
``(1) to States and communities in the form of grants under
this section for carrying out mitigation activities;
``(2) to States and communities in the form of grants under
this section for carrying out mitigation activities that
reduce flood damage to severe repetitive loss structures; and
``(3) to property owners in the form of direct grants under
this section for carrying out mitigation activities that
reduce flood damage to individual structures for which 2 or
more claim payments for losses have been made under flood
insurance coverage under this title if the Administrator,
after consultation with the State and community, determines
that neither the State nor community in which such a
structure is located has the capacity to manage such
grants.''.
(2) by striking subsection (b);
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``flood risk'' and inserting ``multi-
hazard'';
(B) by striking ``provides protection against'' and
inserting ``examines reduction of''; and
(C) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (b);
(4) by striking subsection (d);
(5) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking the paragraph designation
and all that follows through the end of the first sentence
and inserting the following:
``(1) Requirement of consistency with approved mitigation
plan.--Amounts provided under this section may be used only
for mitigation activities that are consistent with mitigation
plans that are approved by the Administrator and identified
under subparagraph (4).'';
(B) by striking paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) and inserting
the following new paragraphs:
``(2) Requirements of technical feasibility, cost
effectiveness, and interest of nfif.--The Administrator may
approve only mitigation activities that the Administrator
determines are technically feasible and cost-effective and in
the interest of, and represent savings to, the National Flood
Insurance Fund. In making such determinations, the
Administrator shall take into consideration recognized
benefits that are difficult to quantify.
``(3) Priority for mitigation assistance.--In providing
grants under this section for mitigation activities, the
Administrator shall give priority for funding to activities
that the Administrator determines will result in the greatest
savings to the National Flood Insurance Fund, including
activities for--
``(A) severe repetitive loss structures;
``(B) repetitive loss structures; and
``(C) other subsets of structures as the Administrator may
establish.'';
(C) in paragraph (5)--
(i) by striking all of the matter that precedes
subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
``(4) Eligible activities.--Eligible activities may
include--'';
(ii) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (H);
(iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (D), (F), and (G) as
subparagraphs (F), (H), and (I);
(iv) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraphs:
``(D) demolition and rebuilding of properties to at least
base flood elevation or greater, if required by the
Administrator or if required by any State regulation or local
ordinance, and in accordance with criteria established by the
Administrator;
``(E) elevation, relocation, and floodproofing of utilities
(including equipment that serve structures);'';
(v) by inserting after subparagraph (F), as so redesignated
by clause (iii) of this subparagraph, the following new
subparagraph:
``(G) the development or update of State, local, or Indian
tribal mitigation plans which meet the planning criteria
established by the Administrator, except that the amount from
grants under this section that may be used under this
subparagraph may not exceed $50,000 for any mitigation plan
of a State or $25,000 for any mitigation plan of a local
government or Indian tribe;'';
(vi) in subparagraph (I); as so redesignated by clause
(iii) of this subparagraph, by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(vii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(J) other mitigation activities not described in
subparagraphs (A) through (H) or the regulations issued under
subparagraph (I), that are described in the mitigation plan
of a State, community, or Indian tribe; and
``(K) personnel costs for State staff that provide
technical assistance to communities to identify eligible
activities, to develop grant applications, and to implement
grants awarded under this section, not to exceed $50,000 per
State in any Federal fiscal year, so long as the State
applied for and was awarded at least $1,000,000 in grants
available under this section in the prior Federal fiscal
year; the requirements of subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2) shall
not apply to the activity under this subparagraph.''; and
(D) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (c);
(6) by striking subsections (f), (g), and (h) and inserting
the following new subsection:
``(d) Matching Requirement.--The Administrator may provide
grants for eligible mitigation activities as follows:
``(1) Severe repetitive loss structures.--In the case of
mitigation activities to severe repetitive loss structures,
in an amount up to 100 percent of all eligible costs.
[[Page H4896]]
``(2) Repetitive loss structures.--In the case of
mitigation activities to repetitive loss structures, in an
amount up to 90 percent of all eligible costs.
``(3) Other mitigation activities.-- In the case of all
other mitigation activities, in an amount up to 75 percent of
all eligible costs.'';
(7) in subsection (i)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``certified under subsection (g)'' and
inserting ``required under subsection (d)''; and
(ii) by striking ``3 times the amount'' and inserting ``the
amount''; and
(B) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (e);
(8) in subsection (j)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Riegle Community
Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994'' and
inserting ``Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011'';
(B) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (f); and
(9) by striking subsections (k) and (m) and inserting the
following new subsections:
``(g) Failure to Make Grant Award Within 5 Years.--For any
application for a grant under this section for which the
Administrator fails to make a grant award within 5 years of
the date of application, the grant application shall be
considered to be denied and any funding amounts allocated for
such grant applications shall remain in the National Flood
Mitigation Fund under section 1367 of this title and shall be
made available for grants under this section.
``(h) Limitation on Funding for Mitigation Activities for
Severe Repetitive Loss Structures.--The amount used pursuant
to section 1310(a)(8) in any fiscal year may not exceed
$40,000,000 and shall remain available until expended.
``(i) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
``(1) Community.--The term `community' means--
``(A) a political subdivision that--
``(i) has zoning and building code jurisdiction over a
particular area having special flood hazards, and
``(ii) is participating in the national flood insurance
program; or
``(B) a political subdivision of a State, or other
authority, that is designated by political subdivisions, all
of which meet the requirements of subparagraph (A), to
administer grants for mitigation activities for such
political subdivisions.
``(2) Repetitive loss structure.--The term `repetitive loss
structure' has the meaning given such term in section 1370.
``(3) Severe repetitive loss structure.--The term `severe
repetitive loss structure' means a structure that--
``(A) is covered under a contract for flood insurance made
available under this title; and
``(B) has incurred flood-related damage--
``(i) for which 4 or more separate claims payments have
been made under flood insurance coverage under this title,
with the amount of each such claim exceeding $15,000, and
with the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding
$60,000; or
``(ii) for which at least 2 separate claims payments have
been made under such coverage, with the cumulative amount of
such claims exceeding the value of the insured structure.''.
(b) Elimination of Grants Program for Repetitive Insurance
Claims Properties.--Chapter I of the National Flood Insurance
Act of 1968 is amended by striking section 1323 (42 U.S.C.
4030).
(c) Elimination of Pilot Program for Mitigation of Severe
Repetitive Loss Properties.--Chapter III of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is amended by striking section
1361A (42 U.S.C. 4102a).
(d) National Flood Insurance Fund.--Section 1310(a) of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4017(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking the semicolon and
inserting a period; and
(3) by striking paragraphs (8) and (9).
(e) National Flood Mitigation Fund.--Section 1367 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104d) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(1) in each fiscal year, from the National Flood
Insurance Fund in amounts not exceeding $90,000,000 to remain
available until expended, of which--
``(A) not more than $40,000,000 shall be available pursuant
to subsection (a) of this section only for assistance
described in section 1366(a)(1);
``(B) not more than $40,000,000 shall be available pursuant
to subsection (a) of this section only for assistance
described in section 1366(a)(2); and
``(C) not more than $10,000,000 shall be available pursuant
to subsection (a) of this section only for assistance
described in section 1366(a)(3).''.
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``section 1366(i)'' and
inserting ``section 1366(e)'';
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``sections 1366 and
1323'' and inserting ``section 1366'';
(3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(f) and (g), respectively; and
(4) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsections:
``(d) Prohibition on Offsetting Collections.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, amounts
made available pursuant to this section shall not be subject
to offsetting collections through premium rates for flood
insurance coverage under this title.
``(e) Continued Availability and Reallocation.--Any amounts
made available pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of
subsection (b)(1) that are not used in any fiscal year shall
continue to be available for the purposes specified in such
subparagraph of subsection (b)(1) pursuant to which such
amounts were made available, unless the Administrator
determines that reallocation of such unused amounts to meet
demonstrated need for other mitigation activities under
section 1366 is in the best interest of the National Flood
Insurance Fund.''.
(f) Increased Cost of Compliance Coverage.--Section
1304(b)(4) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4011(b)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as
subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), respectively.
amendment no. 9 offered by mr. palazzo
Page 32, line 6, before the period insert the following:
``, and includes an adequate number of representatives from
the States with coastline on the Gulf of Mexico and other
States containing areas identified by the Administrator of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency as at high-risk for
flooding or special flood hazard areas''.
amendment no. 12 offered by mr. burton of indiana
Page 50, line 20, insert ``TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS'' after
``NOTIFICATION''.
Page 51, after line 11, insert the following new section:
SEC. 16. NOTIFICATION AND APPEAL OF MAP CHANGES; NOTIFICATION
TO COMMUNITIES OF ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOOD
ELEVATIONS.
Section 1363 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4104) is amended by striking the section
designation and all that follows through the end of
subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``Sec. 1363. (a) In establishing projected flood elevations
for land use purposes with respect to any community pursuant
to section 1361, the Director shall first propose such
determinations--
``(1) by providing the chief executive officer of each
community affected by the proposed elevations, by certified
mail, with a return receipt requested, notice of the
elevations, including a copy of the maps for the elevations
for such community and a statement explaining the process
under this section to appeal for changes in such elevations;
``(2) by causing notice of such elevations to be published
in the Federal Register, which notice shall include
information sufficient to identify the elevation
determinations and the communities affected, information
explaining how to obtain copies of the elevations, and a
statement explaining the process under this section to appeal
for changes in the elevations;
``(3) by publishing in a prominent local newspaper the
elevations, a description of the appeals process for flood
determinations, and the mailing address and telephone number
of a person the owner may contact for more information or to
initiate an appeal; and
``(4) by providing written notification, by first class
mail, to each owner of real property affected by the proposed
elevations of--
``(A) the status of such property, both prior to and after
the effective date of the proposed determination, with
respect to flood zone and flood insurance requirements under
this Act and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973;
``(B) the process under this section to appeal a flood
elevation determination; and
``(C) the mailing address and phone number of a person the
owner may contact for more information or to initiate an
appeal.''.
amendment no. 15 offered by mr. cuellar
Page 56, after line 9, insert the following new section:
SEC. 20. ENHANCED COMMUNICATION WITH CERTAIN COMMUNITIES
DURING MAP UPDATING PROCESS.
Section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4101), as amended by the preceding provisions of
this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(n) Enhanced Communication With Certain Communities
During Map Updating Process.--In updating flood insurance
maps under this section, the Administrator shall communicate
with communities located in areas where flood insurance rate
maps have not been updated in 20 years or more and the
appropriate State emergency agencies to resolve outstanding
issues, provide technical assistance, and disseminate all
necessary information to reduce the prevalence of outdated
maps in flood-prone areas.''.
amendment no. 18 offered by mr. palazzo
Page 57, after line 2, insert the following new section:
SEC. 21. INFORMATION REGARDING MULTIPLE PERILS CLAIMS.
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 subsection:
``(d) Information Regarding Multiple Perils Claims.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), if an insured
having flood insurance coverage
[[Page H4897]]
under a policy issued under the program under this title by
the Administrator or a company, insurer, or entity offering
flood insurance coverage under such program (in this
subsection referred to as a `participating company') has wind
or other homeowners coverage from any company, insurer, or
other entity covering property covered by such flood
insurance, in the case of damage to such property that may
have been caused by flood or by wind, the Administrator and
the participating company, upon the request of the insured,
shall provide to the insured, within 30 days of such
request--
``(A) a copy of the estimate of structure damage;
``(B) proofs of loss;
``(C) any expert or engineering reports or documents
commissioned by or relied upon by the Administrator or
participating company in determining whether the damage was
caused by flood or any other peril; and
``(D) the Administrator's or the participating company's
final determination on the claim.
``(2) Timing.--Paragraph (1) shall apply only with respect
to a request described in such paragraph made by an insured
after the Administrator or the participating company, or
both, as applicable, have issued a final decision on the
flood claim involved and resolution of all appeals with
respect to such claim.''.
amendment no. 21 offered by mr. luetkemeyer
Page 70, after line 5, insert the following new section:
SEC. 27. REPORT ON FLOOD-IN-PROGRESS DETERMINATION.
The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency shall review the processes and procedures for
determining that a flood event has commenced or is in
progress for purposes of flood insurance coverage made
available under the national flood insurance program under
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and for providing
public notification that such an event has commenced or is in
progress. In such review, the Administrator shall take into
consideration the effects and implications that weather
conditions, such as rainfall, snowfall, projected snowmelt,
existing water levels, and other conditions have on the
determination that a flood event has commenced or is in
progress. Not later than the expiration of the 6-month period
beginning upon the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Administrator shall submit a report to the Congress setting
forth the results and conclusions of the review undertaken
pursuant to this section and any actions undertaken or
proposed actions to be taken to provide for a more precise
and technical determination that a flooding event has
commenced or is in progress.
amendment no. 22 offered by mr. canseco
On page 70, after line 5, insert the following new section:
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)).
amendment no. 24 offered by mr. walz of minnesota
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 28. AUTHORITY FOR THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO PROVIDE
SPECIALIZED OR TECHNICAL SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, upon the request of a State or local government, the
Secretary of the Army may evaluate a levee system that was
designed or constructed by the Secretary for the purposes of
the National Flood Insurance Program established under
chapter 1 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4011 et seq.).
(b) Requirements.--A levee system evaluation under
subsection (a) shall--
(1) comply with applicable regulations related to areas
protected by a levee system;
(2) be carried out in accordance with such procedures as
the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, may establish; and
(3) be carried out only if the State or local government
agrees to reimburse the Secretary for all cost associated
with the performance of the activities.
Amendment No. 8, as Modified
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment
No. 8 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 23, line 17, strike ``section 1361A(b)'' and insert
``section 1366(j)''.
Strike line 10 on page 47 and all that follows through page
48, line 15.
Strike line 16 on page 48 and all that follows through page
49, line 19 and insert the following new section:
SEC. 12. MITIGATION ASSISTANCE.
(a) Mitigation Assistance Grants.--Section 1366 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking the last sentence and
inserting the following: ``Such financial assistance shall be
made available--
``(1) to States and communities in the form of grants under
this section for carrying out mitigation activities;
``(2) to States and communities in the form of grants under
this section for carrying out mitigation activities that
reduce flood damage to severe repetitive loss structures; and
``(3) to property owners in the form of direct grants under
this section for carrying out mitigation activities that
reduce flood damage to individual structures for which 2 or
more claim payments for losses have been made under flood
insurance coverage under this title if the Administrator,
after consultation with the State and community, determines
that neither the State nor community in which such a
structure is located has the capacity to manage such
grants.''.
(2) by striking subsection (b);
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``flood risk'' and inserting ``multi-
hazard'';
(B) by striking ``provides protection against'' and
inserting ``examines reduction of''; and
(C) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (b);
(4) by striking subsection (d);
(5) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking the paragraph designation
and all that follows through the end of the first sentence
and inserting the following:
``(1) Requirement of consistency with approved mitigation
plan.--Amounts provided under this section may be used only
for mitigation activities that are consistent with mitigation
plans that are approved by the Administrator and identified
under subparagraph (4).'';
(B) by striking paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) and inserting
the following new paragraphs:
``(2) Requirements of technical feasibility, cost
effectiveness, and interest of nfif.--The Administrator may
approve only mitigation activities that the Administrator
determines are technically feasible and cost-effective and in
the interest of, and represent savings to, the National Flood
Insurance Fund. In making such determinations, the
Administrator shall take into consideration recognized
benefits that are difficult to quantify.
``(3) Priority for mitigation assistance.--In providing
grants under this section for mitigation activities, the
Administrator shall give priority for funding to activities
that the Administrator determines will result in the greatest
savings to the National Flood Insurance Fund, including
activities for--
``(A) severe repetitive loss structures;
``(B) repetitive loss structures; and
``(C) other subsets of structures as the Administrator may
establish.'';
(C) in paragraph (5)--
(i) by striking all of the matter that precedes
subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
``(4) Eligible activities.--Eligible activities may
include--'';
(ii) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (H);
(iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (D), (F), and (G) as
subparagraphs (E), (G), and (H);
(iv) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) elevation, relocation, and floodproofing of utilities
(including equipment that serve structures);'';
(v) by inserting after subparagraph (E), as so redesignated
by clause (iii) of this subparagraph, the following new
subparagraph:
``(F) the development or update of State, local, or Indian
tribal mitigation plans which meet the planning criteria
established by the Administrator, except that the amount from
grants under this section that may be used under this
subparagraph may not exceed $50,000 for any mitigation plan
of a State or $25,000 for any mitigation plan of a local
government or Indian tribe;'';
(vi) in subparagraph (H); as so redesignated by clause
(iii) of this subparagraph, by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(vii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(I) other mitigation activities not described in
subparagraphs (A) through (G) or the regulations issued under
subparagraph (H), that are described in the mitigation plan
of a State, community, or Indian tribe; and
``(J) personnel costs for State staff that provide
technical assistance to communities to identify eligible
activities, to develop grant applications, and to implement
grants awarded under this section, not to exceed $50,000 per
State in any Federal fiscal year, so long as the State
applied for and was awarded at least $1,000,000 in grants
available under this section in the prior Federal fiscal
year; the requirements of subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2) shall
not apply to the activity under this subparagraph.'';
(D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Eligibility of demolition and rebuilding of
properties.--The Administrator shall consider as an eligible
activity the demolition and rebuilding of properties to at
least base flood elevation or greater, if required by the
Administrator or if required by any State regulation or local
ordinance, and in accordance with criteria established by the
Administrator.''; and
[[Page H4898]]
(E) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (c);
(6) by striking subsections (f), (g), and (h) and inserting
the following new subsection:
``(d) Matching Requirement.--The Administrator may provide
grants for eligible mitigation activities as follows:
``(1) Severe repetitive loss structures.--In the case of
mitigation activities to severe repetitive loss structures,
in an amount up to 100 percent of all eligible costs.
``(2) Repetitive loss structures.--In the case of
mitigation activities to repetitive loss structures, in an
amount up to 90 percent of all eligible costs.
``(3) Other mitigation activities.-- In the case of all
other mitigation activities, in an amount up to 75 percent of
all eligible costs.'';
(7) in subsection (i)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``certified under subsection (g)'' and
inserting ``required under subsection (d)''; and
(ii) by striking ``3 times the amount'' and inserting ``the
amount''; and
(B) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (e);
(8) in subsection (j)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Riegle Community
Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994'' and
inserting ``Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011'';
(B) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (f); and
(9) by striking subsections (k) and (m) and inserting the
following new subsections:
``(g) Failure to Make Grant Award Within 5 Years.--For any
application for a grant under this section for which the
Administrator fails to make a grant award within 5 years of
the date of application, the grant application shall be
considered to be denied and any funding amounts allocated for
such grant applications shall remain in the National Flood
Mitigation Fund under section 1367 of this title and shall be
made available for grants under this section.
``(h) Limitation on Funding for Mitigation Activities for
Severe Repetitive Loss Structures.--The amount used pursuant
to section 1310(a)(8) in any fiscal year may not exceed
$40,000,000 and shall remain available until expended.
``(i) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
``(1) Community.--The term `community' means--
``(A) a political subdivision that--
``(i) has zoning and building code jurisdiction over a
particular area having special flood hazards, and
``(ii) is participating in the national flood insurance
program; or
``(B) a political subdivision of a State, or other
authority, that is designated by political subdivisions, all
of which meet the requirements of subparagraph (A), to
administer grants for mitigation activities for such
political subdivisions.
``(2) Repetitive loss structure.--The term `repetitive loss
structure' has the meaning given such term in section 1370.
``(3) Severe repetitive loss structure.--The term `severe
repetitive loss structure' means a structure that--
``(A) is covered under a contract for flood insurance made
available under this title; and
``(B) has incurred flood-related damage--
``(i) for which 4 or more separate claims payments have
been made under flood insurance coverage under this title,
with the amount of each such claim exceeding $15,000, and
with the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding
$60,000; or
``(ii) for which at least 2 separate claims payments have
been made under such coverage, with the cumulative amount of
such claims exceeding the value of the insured structure.''.
(b) Elimination of Grants Program for Repetitive Insurance
Claims Properties.--Chapter I of the National Flood Insurance
Act of 1968 is amended by striking section 1323 (42 U.S.C.
4030).
(c) Elimination of Pilot Program for Mitigation of Severe
Repetitive Loss Properties.--Chapter III of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is amended by striking section
1361A (42 U.S.C. 4102a).
(d) National Flood Insurance Fund.--Section 1310(a) of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4017(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking the semicolon and
inserting a period; and
(3) by striking paragraphs (8) and (9).
(e) National Flood Mitigation Fund.--Section 1367 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104d) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(1) in each fiscal year, from the National Flood
Insurance Fund in amounts not exceeding $90,000,000 to remain
available until expended, of which--
``(A) not more than $40,000,000 shall be available pursuant
to subsection (a) of this section only for assistance
described in section 1366(a)(1);
``(B) not more than $40,000,000 shall be available pursuant
to subsection (a) of this section only for assistance
described in section 1366(a)(2); and
``(C) not more than $10,000,000 shall be available pursuant
to subsection (a) of this section only for assistance
described in section 1366(a)(3).''.
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``section 1366(i)'' and
inserting ``section 1366(e)'';
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``sections 1366 and
1323'' and inserting ``section 1366'';
(3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(f) and (g), respectively; and
(4) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsections:
``(d) Prohibition on Offsetting Collections.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, amounts
made available pursuant to this section shall not be subject
to offsetting collections through premium rates for flood
insurance coverage under this title.
``(e) Continued Availability and Reallocation.--Any amounts
made available pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of
subsection (b)(1) that are not used in any fiscal year shall
continue to be available for the purposes specified in such
subparagraph of subsection (b)(1) pursuant to which such
amounts were made available, unless the Administrator
determines that reallocation of such unused amounts to meet
demonstrated need for other mitigation activities under
section 1366 is in the best interest of the National Flood
Insurance Fund.''.
(f) Increased Cost of Compliance Coverage.--Section
1304(b)(4) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4011(b)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as
subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), respectively.
Mrs. BIGGERT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading of the modification.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 340, the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Capuano) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan package of
amendments that we are accepting. I urge my colleagues to support the
amendments en bloc.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairwoman Biggert and Ranking Member
Waters for their leadership and their support for my amendment to phase
in higher flood insurance rates when preferred risk policies are no
longer available in a community.
I represent the city of Sacramento, which is home to both the
American and Sacramento rivers. After New Orleans, we are the most at-
risk river city in our Nation.
Since Hurricane Katrina, more than 25,000 homeowners in my district
have been remapped, and for them flood insurance is now mandatory.
Their flood insurance costs increased from the PRP rate of $350 to
over $1,350 overnight.
{time} 1510
The sticker shock to a homeowner, whether it be a senior citizen on a
fixed income or a family struggling to make ends meet, is unreasonable.
My amendment would simply raise the cost of flood insurance from
remapped areas from the PRP rate to the full price rate over a period
of 5 years. Specifically, my amendment would start the phase-in for
homeowners at their current PRP rate. Each year after that, the price
of flood insurance would rise by 20 percent until it reaches its full
price in year 5.
My amendment will save the average policyholder in a remapped area
about $843 over 5 years while not impacting the solvency of the NFIP. I
believe this to be a fair and equitable way forward, especially in
these trying economic times.
Again, I thank Chairwoman Biggert and Ranking Member Waters for their
leadership. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
amendment.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, this en bloc amendment is perfectly fine
with us, and I urge its adoption.
I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).
[[Page H4899]]
Mr. PALAZZO. I would like to thank Chairwoman Biggert for yielding
and for her leadership on this issue.
I rise today in support of the reauthorization of the National Flood
Insurance Reform Act. As a representative of the Katrina-devastated
Mississippi gulf coast, I understand both the importance of the
National Flood Insurance Program but also the need for its reform.
I have introduced two amendments to the bill which will be a part of
the en bloc amendment. The first calls for the newly created Technical
Mapping Advisory Council to include members from coastal or other high-
risk flood areas. This assures that the advisory council has members
that are not just technical experts but have experienced firsthand the
hardship and heartbreak catastrophic flooding and damage causes
families and communities.
My other amendment allows any claimant to obtain from the
administrator any engineering reports or other documents relied on in
determining whether the damage was caused by flood or any other peril.
When the FEMA administrator or participating company have the task of
determining whether a home's damage was caused by wind or by water, the
policyholder would now have the right to request those documents relied
upon in making that determination.
It is my belief that transparency in government is important,
especially for policyholders. For those who may have lost their
property, they have the right to know the details in the determination
of their claim.
I urge your support of both of my amendments as well as the full
passage of H.R. 1309.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of Representatives
Terry and Berg's amendment to H.R. 1309.
As you may know, the Missouri River Basin is in the midst of record
flooding. In order to determine a trigger date for a flood-in-progress,
FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program sent an examiner to Garrison
Dam in North Dakota at the end of May on a fact-finding mission. After
looking at the dam and both sides of the river, the adjuster determined
a flood was in progress and declared June 1st as the trigger date for
the entire Missouri River Basin.
The flooding along the Missouri River stretches more than one
thousand miles and is affecting multiple states. Very few homes in
South Dakota were underwater on June 1st, yet this trigger date is used
to determine if flood insurance policies are valid, regardless of
location and when flooding actually began.
Not all my constituents along the Missouri River have flood
insurance. Some, however, had the foresight to purchase a policy prior
to being underwater, and, more importantly, prior to FEMA's declaration
that June 1st was the universal flood-in-progress date. Flood insurance
requires a 30-day wait period before the policy becomes effective.
Individuals who purchased flood insurance on May 1st will be covered
for their losses in this flood, but those who waited until May 2nd are
out of luck. This amendment rectifies this problem. It would allow for
reasonable flexibility for policy holders when a universal trigger date
is used for such a vast multi-state event.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I urge support for the amendments en bloc.
I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc, as
modified, offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
The amendments en bloc, as modified, were agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Schock
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 112-138.
Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Chairman, as the designee for Mr. Bachus, I offer an
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, strike the dash in line 3 and all that follows
through line 10 and insert ``designation of the area as
having special flood hazards in a timely manner under section
1363.''.
Page 7, after line 21 insert the following:
``(5) Additional extension for communities making more than
adequate progress on flood protection system.--
``(A) Extension.--
``(i) Authority.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
in the case of an eligible area for which the Administrator
has, pursuant to paragraph (4), extended the period of
effectiveness of the finding under paragraph (1) for the
area, upon a request submitted by a local government
authority having jurisdiction over any portion of the
eligible area, if the Administrator finds that more than
adequate progress has been made on the construction of a
flood protection system for such area, as determined in
accordance with the last sentence of section 1307(e) of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014(e)), the
Administrator may, in the discretion of the Administrator,
further extend the period during which the finding under
paragraph (1) shall be effective for such area for an
additional 12 months.
``(ii) Limit.--For any eligible area, the cumulative number
of extensions under this subparagraph may not exceed 2.
``(B) Exclusion for new mortgages.--
``(i) Exclusion.--Any extension under subparagraph (A) of
this paragraph of a finding under paragraph (1) shall not be
effective with respect to any excluded property after the
origination, increase, extension, or renewal of the loan
referred to in clause (ii)(II) for the property.
``(ii) Excluded properties.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `excluded property' means any improved
real estate or mobile home--
``(I) that is located in an eligible area; and
``(II) for which, during the period that any extension
under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph of a finding under
paragraph (1) is otherwise in effect for the eligible area in
which such property is located--
``(aa) a loan that is secured by the property is
originated; or
``(bb) any existing loan that is secured by the property is
increased, extended, or renewed.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 340, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Schock) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of amendment No.
2, drafted by the chairman and my friend, Mr. Bachus, to help solve a
problem that is prevalent in my district as well as many rural
districts across the heartland.
As you know, this flood insurance issue affects every town, but
especially those along the riverbanks. And FEMA's new requirements that
require many of these small towns to make necessary improvements in
their upgrades of their levees and dams require significant investment,
investment that America's small businesses, family farms, and private
properties will have to come up with the revenue to pay for.
This amendment in no way seeks to get anyone off the hook but,
rather, to give them the necessary time given the large investments
that many of these small towns will have to make, given the economic
times that we are in right now, and recognizing that many of these
small towns will require more than the 3 years as is allowed in the
underlying bill to make the necessary improvements.
It does require, however, in years 4 and 5, which this amendment
allows for an extension of the years 4 and 5, to allow to make the
improvements. But those communities have to show stated improvement or
at least progress toward the final necessary improvements in years 4
and 5 in order for them to get the necessary extension.
So I think it makes sense. It's a pretty commonsense amendment.
And I just want to say thank you personally to Chairman Bachus for
his work with other members of my delegation in Illinois and, I know,
those along the Mississippi and other waterways whose towns are feeling
the pain of many of these new unfunded mandates put forward by FEMA.
With that, I would urge passage of amendment No. 2.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition,
though I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CAPUANO. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. COSTELLO. Let me thank my friend Mr. Capuano for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to first thank the chair of the
subcommittee, the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), and also the
ranking member, Maxine Waters, as well as Chairman Bachus and Ranking
Member Frank of the full committee, and also my friend Mr. Schock and
Mr. Shimkus from Illinois. We all worked on this amendment together.
It's a good amendment.
[[Page H4900]]
As I think Mr. Schock just explained, the Bachus amendment gives the
administrator the authority to allow for a possible fourth and fifth
suspension of the mandatory purchase for certain communities that are
making adequate progress in construction of the flood protection
system.
It's a commonsense amendment. It's a bipartisan agreement. I urge its
adoption, and I not only support the amendment but the underlying bill
as well.
Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
author of the amendment, the chairman of the committee, Spencer Bachus.
Mr. BACHUS. I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois.
I believe this is a noncontroversial amendment. It will encourage
local governments to undertake repairs and remedial efforts. And I
believe it is a fair, equitable change in the bill to reward local and
State governments for their efforts.
With that, I would recommend passage of the amendment.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Speier
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 112-138.
Ms. SPEIER. 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 11, after line 22, insert the following new
subsection:
(d) Penalties for Requiring Purchase of Coverage Exceeding
Minimum Mandatory Purchase Requirement.--Paragraph (2) of
section 102(f) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
(42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking ``or'' at the
end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) 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.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 340, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Speier) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
{time} 1520
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present this amendment.
This actually was adopted by a voice vote in the Financial Services
Committee in 2010; and my good friend and colleague, Congresswoman
Biggert, may recall it. It was something that came up in my district
where an elderly woman, living on Social Security, had a mortgage
balance on her home of $13,000; but because she was being included in a
newly mapped flood zone, her bank required her to purchase the full
$250,000 in flood insurance at a cost of more than $2,400 per year.
I would venture to say that we don't see ourselves as being in the
insurance business by choice. We are in the flood insurance business
out of necessity, and it would seem to me that it doesn't make a lot of
sense to impose an obligation on homeowners to purchase insurance that
exceeds the actual cost of their mortgage, especially when we note that
the average flood damage claims are anywhere from $25,000 to $35,000.
So to require someone who has a $13,000 loan balance to purchase flood
insurance for $250,000 and pay a fee, a yearly premium of $2,400, is
just, I think, unacceptable; and I would think my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle would like to do something for those people who have
been responsible, pay down their mortgages, and have small balances.
This particular amendment makes it a violation for a lender, whose
only interest in the property is the amount of the outstanding mortgage
indebtedness, to use the National Flood Insurance Program to require a
homeowner to purchase more than the legally required amount of flood
insurance, an amount equal to the outstanding principal balance.
Nothing, however, would prohibit a homeowner who wished to purchase
more coverage from doing so, and nothing would preclude a mortgage
lender from including such a requirement in the mortgage contract up
front, as long as it was fully disclosed. In both cases, the homeowner
would be able to make a choice, and this would be full disclosure as
well.
In California, where we have mandatory auto insurance, once a car
owner has discharged their debt on the car, they are no longer
obligated to carry coverage for the damage to their own car, only the
liability insurance if they crash into someone else's car. This
amendment is very consistent with giving people a choice as well.
Again, I offer this amendment and ask for its support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This amendment would impose penalties against lenders who require
borrowers to maintain flood insurance in an amount greater than the
outstanding principal balance of the loan.
Limiting the amount of coverage to the unpaid principal balance
leaves consumers at risk of having to incur the costs of repair on
their own and, additionally, is not reflective of the current state of
industry practices. In fact, with the exception of VA loans, limiting
insurance to the unpaid principal balance is not recommended under
existing law.
Consumers, not lenders, will bear the financial brunt of a disaster.
Limiting flood insurance to the unpaid principal balance may protect
the lender's financial interest in the property; however, it doesn't
protect the consumer's equity and investment in the property.
NFIP establishes the minimum amount of coverage required at the
lesser of the outstanding balance of the loan or the maximum available
NFIP coverage, which today is $250,000 for residential and $500,000 for
commercial properties.
The standard NFIP dwelling flood policy requires that one to two
family owner-occupied dwellings be insured for the replacement value in
order for losses to be paid for the cost to repair or replace the
property. If these properties are not insured for at least 80 percent
of the replacement value at the time of loss, the policyholder cannot
obtain the full benefits of the policy and may not receive sufficient
funds to repair or replace the property damaged by flood.
Guidelines issued by Federal regulators encourage and authorize
lenders to require flood insurance at replacement cost, not to exceed
NFIP maximum available coverage. The guidelines also urge lenders to
follow the same rules in calculating flood coverage as they do in
calculating hazard coverage, where standard industry practice is to
require coverage at replacement cost.
In the case of condominiums, the guidelines issued by Federal
regulators require lenders to ensure that flood protection has been
obtained for the replacement value of the property improvements, not to
exceed the NFIP maximum limits.
I would request a ``no'' vote on the Speier amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Flake
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 112-138.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 H4901]]
Page 14, line 24, strike the second semicolon and insert
``; and''.
Strike paragraph (3) of section 4(c) (page 15, lines 1 and
2).
Page 15, line 5, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(6)''.
Page 15, line 6, strike ``(2), (3), (4), (5), and (6)'' and
insert ``(2), (3), and (4)''.
Strike subsection (d) of section 4 (page 16, line 1 and all
that follows through page 18, line 10).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 340, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair.
This amendment would strike additional flood-related coverage
provided in the underlying bill for business interruption and cost-of-
living expenses. Specifically, this amendment would prohibit FEMA from
offering individuals up to $5,000 for living expenses and up to $20,000
for interruption of business expenses.
I understand that the committee worked to ensure that the inclusion
of this additional coverage would be provided at fully actuarial rates,
but let me remind this body that Congress does not have a great track
record when it comes to pricing risks. One has to look no further than
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to see an example of that, or just look at
this program, itself.
The National Flood Insurance Program is about $18 billion in the red.
Let me say that again. We have a Federal flood insurance program that
currently owes the Treasury Department nearly $18 billion, so we
shouldn't take at face value the notion that any new coverage that's
offered is priced at fully actuarial rates.
This expansion of coverage will only increase taxpayer liability,
which is the last thing that this Congress ought to do with a program
so severely in debt and with a country so severely in debt. Instead, we
should be passing legislation to narrow the scope of the NFIP, not to
expand it.
Simply put, any reform to the NFIP should be moving toward
privatization, and I am sure this belief is shared by a number of my
colleagues. Voting against this amendment is a vote to expand the
current National Flood Insurance Program. Again, a vote against this
amendment is a vote to expand the current flood insurance program, a
program that is currently $18 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury.
My understanding is that private market participants are hesitant to
offer this type of coverage because it is not profitable for them to do
so. I'm not sure I've ever seen an instance where government
involvement in the market incentivized the private sector to compete.
In fact, according to testimony from Taxpayers for Common Sense:
``We have learned from Federal flood insurance itself that the best
way to stifle a private market is to have the Federal Government
provide the same product.'' That simply makes sense.
When you have a Federal Government borrowing 41 cents on the dollar,
the last thing we need to do is expand an insurance program that is
already $18 billion in the red. Again, voting for this amendment isn't
to cut this program--I wish it were--but it is simply to not allow the
program to expand further.
{time} 1530
FEMA estimated that had this same policy been enacted in 2005 before
Katrina and Rita hit, combined losses from additional expenses and
business interruption would have been about $600 million in net losses.
If you consider the increase in policies since 2005, they estimated if
we had another 2005-like year, this additional coverage would result in
$850 million in net losses just for 2011. We can't afford to do that,
Mr. Chairman.
If there is no private market for this type of coverage, we ought to
understand why there is no private market, and having government enter
the marketplace will only ensure there is no private market for it. We
shouldn't be comforted by the notion that we will hear, I am sure, that
the premiums will be priced at fully actuarial rates. That's saying
that there's no private market out there, government has to be
involved, but we have priced it as if the private sector were involved.
Anybody who believes that, I have a bridge somewhere to sell you.
Government entrance into this type of marketplace is simply not right.
We shouldn't be doing it. And to my colleagues who think that we have a
debt problem today, think what problem we will have if we have another
year like 2005.
According to FEMA's only projections, it could result in $850 million
in net losses. So I would urge adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the full
committee.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I don't think anyone in this Congress is
more sincere on cutting government spending than Mr. Flake. I believe
he comes here with pure motivation. I would simply say this to him and
my colleagues: this is an issue that we carefully considered. It was
first proposed as a result of Katrina and the losses there. As he said
correctly, this program is $16 billion in the red. After Katrina, the
Federal Government through FEMA, SBA and others, paid out several
billion dollars not on the flood insurance program but paid out an
estimated $6 billion or $7 billion to businesses because of their
losses from business interruption and temporary shelter and living
expenses.
In 2006, really as a result of that, the subcommittee chairman,
Richard Baker, held hearings and determined that business interruption
and cost-of-living coverage should be included. It has passed the
House, but we have actually since then never passed a flood insurance
reform bill.
As all of us know, and I think all of us agree, the legislation
before us today has already been scored as a $4.2 billion savings. The
reason that it saves money, the reason that it takes a program that is
costing taxpayers money every day is because it requires a risk-based
premium. Now, beyond that, it also requires reinsurance if the risk-
based premium proves insufficient. So it has a cushion.
It also says that if private insurers will offer this plan, then the
government will not. It makes a finding that a competitive private
market for such coverage does not exist. That was actually based on
2006 and again last year. It certifies that the National Flood
Insurance Program will offer such coverage with the prohibition that it
is supplemented by taxpayer money from the Treasury. This was a concern
that many of us, including Mr. Flake, you know, had, that the taxpayer
would end up subsidizing this.
This legislation with this provision actually scores as a $4.2
billion savings over the next 10 years. Actually, I think it could be
greater than that because, as Mr. Flake said, we don't know what is
going to happen next year or the year after that. We do know this: we
know when we have one of these, and in fact this year is a great
example, when we have four $1 billion disasters, what did this Congress
do? It appropriated disaster assistance. And that included
reimbursement for living expenses and business interruption. Not only
that, but the SBA, the Agricultural Department and I can't imagine how
many others that we don't know about, FEMA, as a realistic matter, they
are handing out checks every day when we have these disasters. Local
and State governments are doing the same.
Why not, instead of this being handed out, why not have the people
who own the businesses, who are living there, why not offer them
coverage and let them pay the premium and let them share the loss?
There are many places in the West where a flood, it would be almost
impossible. There are many places in this country where a flood is
simply not a problem. Why should those people be required to pay
taxpayer money for what has become basically the Federal Government
coming in and reimbursing everyone that doesn't have insurance? That is
a question that we have asked.
We have just had the largest outbreak of tornadoes and death in the
United States in Alabama. I have heard people say we have a situation
where
[[Page H4902]]
there is no insurance and the Federal Government comes in and says, if
you have insurance, you have got it covered; and if you don't, we'll
make it up. I don't like that idea. I think it encourages people not to
have coverage.
This offers them coverage. The next step is telling them no to these
others program; you should have had insurance.
Mr. CAPUANO. 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 noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 Ms. Ros-Lehtinen
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 112-138.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. 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 19, strike lines 10 to 13.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 340, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the chairman.
My amendment is quite simple. It removes the 100 percent increase and
possible flood insurance rate increases from the underlying bill.
Currently, rate increases are capped at 10 percent a year; yet this
bill would double that to 20 percent per year.
Homeowners in this down-turned economy can little afford to have this
looming possibility. One in four Floridians is covered under the
National Flood Insurance Program, and they collectively pay nearly $900
million in premiums per year. Since 1978, Florida policyholders have
paid $14.1 billion in premiums and have received only $3.6 billion in
payments. That is 3.9 times more in premiums than they received in
claims.
Our residents, usually in high-risk flood areas, pay
disproportionately more in premiums than they will likely ever see in
payments on claims. Despite this fact, Floridians were near the cap of
a 10 percent increase in the premium rates from the years 2009 and
2010, while the average national increase during the same time was 8
percent.
{time} 1540
Despite these problems, the residents in my area say they need this
program, but they need this cap where it is. People outside of at-risk
areas file over 20 percent of NFIP claims and receive one-third of
disaster assistance for flooding. Floridians, my constituents, know
that the doubling of the amount that FEMA can charge for their flood
insurance is aimed at them.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which is one that will
prevent unnecessary and unprecedented rate hikes for hardworking
Americans on their flood insurance bills.
I yield the balance of my time to my good friend from Florida (Ms.
Wilson).
(Ms. WILSON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. WILSON of Florida. I rise today in support of this bipartisan
amendment that strikes a blow for fairness for those consumers who need
flood insurance. I rise along with my colleagues from Florida:
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, David Rivera, Ruben Hinojosa, and
Rush Holt.
I am a proud Floridian by birth. I make Florida my home. Most of my
family and friends live in the great State of Florida. On top of our
sunshine, Florida has a regular hurricane season and torrential
rainfalls. The majority of the people who live in Florida live in this
reality for the majority of their lives. However, flooding does not
only affect the State of Florida, so I want to ensure that taxpayers
who live in flood zones do not pay too much for their vitally needed
flood insurance. This amendment is very simple:
It prevents flood insurance rates from potentially going up 100
percent. The current cap on flood insurance rate increases in a given
year is 10 percent. My amendment would keep it that way. This
commonsense, bipartisan amendment is fiscally responsible. It protects
consumers, and it ensures that the National Flood Insurance Program
will remain sound.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my bipartisan amendment that
strikes a blow for fairness for those consumers who need flood
insurance. Along with my colleagues Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, David
Rivera, Ruben Hinojosa, and Rush Holt, I want to ensure that taxpayers
who live in flood zones do not pay too much for their vitally needed
flood insurance. My amendment is very simple. It prevents flood
insurance rates from going up 100%. The current cap on flood insurance
rates is ten percent. My amendment would keep it that way.
I am a proud Floridian by birth. I make Florida my home. Most of my
family and friends live in the great State of Florida. On top of our
sunshine, Florida has a regular hurricane season and torrential
rainfalls. The majority of the people who live in Florida live with
this reality for the majority of their lives. However, flooding does
not only affect the State of Florida. Flooding is our Nation's most
common disaster. While flooding affects every State, most private
insurance companies do not offer their own flood insurance. Plus,
standard homeowner insurance policies do not cover flooding.
In 1968, Congress started the National Flood Insurance Program, or
the NFIP. This allows homebuyers to purchase flood insurance for their
homes. In Florida, you cannot get a mortgage on your property if you do
not have a flood insurance policy on your home. Ninety percent of all
flood insurance is done through the NFIP. There are more than 20,000
NFIP communities throughout our nation and all of them are not in
Florida.
Since 1978, Florida policyholders have paid 14.1 billion dollars in
premiums and have had 231,595 individual losses and received ONLY $3.6
billion in payments--3.9 times more in premiums than they receive in
claims. Yet Floridians had a 9.6% increase in premium rates from 2009
to 2010. Nationally, from 2009 to 2010, premiums increased an average
of 8%.
The NFIP today covers approximately 5.6 billion households and
businesses across the country for a total of $1.25 trillion in
exposure. Forty percent of those policies are held in Florida, and one
in four Floridians is covered under NFIP. Floridians collectively pay
nearly $900 million in premiums per year.
The near $19 billion in debts held by the NFIP are mostly as a result
of the 2005 hurricane season (Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma) and
the 2008 Midwest floods. While the average flood insurance policy is
about $600 per year, residents of high-risk flood areas pay
disproportionately more in premiums. However, these residents do not
take near the same proportion in payments on claims. Furthermore,
individuals outside of high-risk areas file over 20% of NFIP claims and
receive one-third of disaster assistance for flooding.
The NFIP paid $709 million in flood insurance claims to homeowners,
business owners, and renters in 2010. In fact, in 2010, New Jersey had
the highest number of claims, and Tennessee had the highest payments on
claims--not Florida. As a matter of fact, Florida was not in the top 10
in either category of claims or payments.
I thank the Chair for the time. My commonsense amendment is fiscally
responsible, protects consumers, and ensures that the NFIP will remain
sound.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen's amendment, while well
intentioned, would prevent the National Flood Insurance Program from
moving toward a more actuarially sound basis for calculating premiums
in as quick a manner as possible.
The underlying bill provides that FEMA, at the discretion of the
administrator, can increase the chargeable premiums for flood
policyholders by up to 20 percent once every 12 months until the
premium being paid properly reflects the risk associated with the
property.
The amendment is intended to save policyholders from the ``sticker
shock'' premium increases potentially pose, but the underlying bill
addresses this concern by allowing for a gradual phase-in of the
actuarial rates instead of an abrupt adjustment.
One of the core goals of this bill is to move the NFIP towards a more
actuarially sound, properly functioning
[[Page H4903]]
program, and any amendment to slow down that effort must be opposed.
The amendment would strike part of section 5 that would increase
annual limits on premium rates. It increases from 10 to 20 percent. The
sponsors of the amendment have stated that their objective is to
prevent a 100 percent increase in possible premium hikes, but what it's
doing is really going to delay our being able to have a more
actuarially sound basis for calculating the premiums in as quick a
manner as possible.
Section 5 really addresses this concern by phasing in all of the non
pre-FIRM properties to full actuarial rates over time to eliminate the
subsidy and to allow the premiums paid for policies to reflect the risk
covered by those policies. So I would oppose this amendment.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment
to maintain the 10 percent statutory NFIP premium increases.
While it is important to keep NFIP authorized and to begin solving
its funding problems, we must make sure we are improving participation
in the program and keeping premiums affordable. Low participation in
NFIP in high-risk areas has been one of the program's most persistent
challenges.
That is why I joined my colleagues in sponsoring this amendment.
Doubling the maximum premium rate increase from 10 to 20 percent would
hurt existing policyholders nationwide and in my Central New Jersey
district.
If homeowners get hit with annual premium increases in excess of 10
percent, I am concerned that that they will decide flood insurance is
something they can do without. And when a catastrophic event occurs,
taxpayers will pick up the tab with disaster aid.
I have heard from homeowners, flood plain managers, insurers, and
realtors in my congressional district about the importance of passing
an extension of NFIP. Although I am pleased that we are considering the
underlying bill, we should be encouraging more homeowners to obtain
flood insurance, not placing an extra burden on policyholders who are
doing the right thing protecting their homes from flood.
I ask my colleagues to join me supporting this amendment.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Walberg
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 112-138.
Mr. WALBERG. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 36, after line 3, insert the following new subsection:
(i) Moratorium on Flood Map Changes.--
(1) Moratorium.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) and
notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, or the Flood Disaster Protection
Act of 1973, during the period beginning upon the date of the
enactment of this Act and ending upon the submission by the
Council to the Administrator and the Congress of the proposed
new mapping standards required under subsection (c)(1), the
Administrator may not make effective any new or updated rate
maps for flood insurance coverage under the national flood
insurance program that were not in effect for such program as
of such date of enactment, or otherwise revise, update, or
change the flood insurance rate maps in effect for such
program as of such date.
(2) Letters of map change.--During the period described in
paragraph (1), the Administrator may revise, update, and
change the flood insurance rate maps in effect for the
national flood insurance program only pursuant to a letter of
map change (including a letter of map amendment, letter of
map revision, and letter of map revision based on fill).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 340, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today
addresses the most pressing concern my constituents have with the
National Flood Insurance Program, and that problem is inaccurate flood
maps.
I certainly understand that the NFIP is on shaky financial ground,
and I commend Chairman Bachus and Congresswoman Biggert and the
Financial Services Committee for their work in crafting this bill; but
as we vote today to put the NFIP on a path to solvency, we must not let
this opportunity to strengthen the program pass us by.
Since I returned to Congress in January, my office has been barraged
with letters and phone calls expressing concerns about the new and
revised flood insurance rate maps that FEMA is rolling out in my
district. These maps determine whether property owners will be required
to purchase flood insurance, and evidence shows that the current
mapping methods are oftentimes inaccurate, onerous or punitive; and
while this insurance represents an essential lifeline to some property
owners who face a real risk of flood damage, it is a costly,
unnecessary mandate on those who face no actual threat of being
flooded.
I am encouraged that the underlying bill, H.R. 1309, establishes a
Technical Mapping Advisory Council to review the current mapping
standards and that it proposes revised standards to be implemented by
the FEMA administrator. Within 12 months of organization, the TMAC is
required to report to Congress and the administrator on how to improve
mapping methodology. H.R. 1309 clearly instructs the TMAC on their
task, and that is to ensure that the flood insurance rate maps reflect
true risk and that the most current and accurate data is used.
I look forward to receiving this report from TMAC and to the
administrator's implementation of the new mapping standards; but in my
view, this review is a tacit admission that the current practices are
not working and that they represent a poorly implemented government
mandate that cannot continue. The maps FEMA has been rolling out across
the country are not based on the best information available, and this
needs to stop.
My amendment improves on the work of the TMAC, simply requiring that,
while the TMAC studies the best possible mapping methods, none of our
constituents will be at risk of inclusion in a new map that uses the
faulty, questionable methods currently in place. Simply put, this
amendment would implement a moratorium on the issuance of new flood
maps until the TMAC has done its due diligence and has issued its
report on new mapping standards.
I am glad to have the support of Chairman Bachus, and I ask that you
support me in voting for this commonsense amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. CAPUANO. While I understand the gentleman's concern about the
accuracy of the FEMA maps, this bill does contain a 3-year delay of
mandatory purchase and a 5-year phase-in thereafter. That's 8 years. We
already have mechanisms in this bill that would insulate homeowners
from the sticker shock of mandatory purchase while still alerting them
to the fact that they actually live in a flood zone.
I am very concerned that, in the absence of any maps, we place our
homeowners and communities in the dark about the risks they may be
facing. This is why the bill does not delay the maps, themselves, but
only the mandatory purchase requirement. So, while I understand the
gentleman's concerns, I must oppose his amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1550
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Cardoza
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 112-138.
Mr. CARDOZA. 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 36, line 23, after the semicolon insert ``and''.
Page 37, strike lines 1 through 3.
Page 37, line 4, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(B)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 340, the gentleman
[[Page H4904]]
from California (Mr. Cardoza) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would remove
onerous requirements on properties that already have existing flood
protection and would prevent unnecessary economic harm to communities
already struggling to recover.
My amendment strikes the language in the legislation requiring FEMA
to include on its flood maps areas of residual risk. I'm offering this
amendment because large areas across the country, such as large parts
of the Central Valley and Los Angeles and Orange Counties, are already
protected by existing levees and have no history of flooding, but would
find themselves in newly designated ``residual risk'' floodplains under
H.R. 1309. Such a policy would essentially map the entire area in the
new residual risk flood zone as though the levee that had been
protecting the community for years had never existed. This would have a
significant economic impact, and in many cases more than double the
insurance premiums of those regions throughout the country.
In the area I represent of Stockton, California, and other affected
areas of the San Joaquin Valley, this bill would place in the
floodplain an additional 280,000 people who currently have flood
protection provided by significant levees.
In 1995, annual premium payments were estimated at $30 million. The
CBO estimates that rates will more than double under this bill,
totaling an estimated $68 million in annual premiums from the greater
Stockton area alone. Floodplain building restrictions for these
protected areas would have an even greater impact on the cost of
construction. These building restrictions would substantially increase
the cost of home construction and severely impact housing affordability
at a time when the housing market is already on life support in my
area.
For my district and many other districts across the country, entire
communities would be mapped into the floodplain. Mapping areas that
have existing flood protection for residual risk effectively amounts to
double taxation of these regions, where citizens are paying taxes to
the local flood control agencies and then having to pay additional
flood insurance as well as a result of being mapped into these areas.
This mapping requirement would also remove an important incentive for
State and local governments to invest in flood control projects. If
communities will still have to buy flood insurance after they improve
and protect their communities, then why would they devote precious
resources to these expensive projects? The cost benefits just simply
wouldn't exist.
Mr. Chairman, at this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to my
colleague from California (Mr. McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by Mr. Cardoza.
He and I are fortunate to represent San Joaquin County in California,
which is home to many, many miles of levees and waterways. His
amendment is especially important to our constituents.
While the ``residual risk'' section of H.R. 1309 may be well
intended, I believe it should be removed. We all believe that
homeowners living in high-risk areas for flooding should have an
insurance policy, but this language is overly broad and will hurt my
constituents.
I've consulted closely with flood control officials from my district
who share this concern and have expressed strong support for this
amendment.
Our country is experiencing tough economic times, and we should take
great care to protect homeowners from unnecessary burdens. Our
homeowners are losing their homes; let's not give them an extra burden
that will send many of them into the street.
I am proud to rise in support of this amendment offered by my
colleague, Mr. Cardoza, which will significantly improve the bill we
are considering today.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this
commonsense amendment and prevent undue economic harm to our
communities.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Under H.R. 1309, FEMA is required to update its flood
maps according to the Technical Mapping Advisory Council's
recommendations within 6 months or report to Congress why it has
rejected them. As part of the new standard for the flood insurance rate
maps, FEMA must include in any rate map areas of residual risk,
including areas behind levees, dams and other manmade structures. I'm
afraid that the Cardoza amendment would fail to provide homeowners with
a real assessment of their risks, thereby impairing their ability to
prepare for such natural disasters.
And to address concerns about the mapping process, H.R. 1309
reinstates the Technical Mapping Advisory Council to bring in the
expertise and perspectives of other stakeholders in FEMA's process for
setting new mapping standards. The amendment I think would weaken these
new mapping standards that are designed to give homeowners and the NFIP
an accurate portrait of flood risk, and I would oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CARDOZA. 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 California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. McGovern
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in House Report 112-138.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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 55, line 4, before ``OBTAINING'' insert ``AND
COMMUNITIES''.
Page 55, line 5, before the period insert ``OR REVISION''.
Page 55, line 14, after ``1973'' insert ``, or a community
in which such a property is located,''.
Page 55, line 15, before ``due'' insert ``, or a letter of
map revision,''.
Page 55, line 19, after ``behalf,'' insert ``or such
community, as applicable,''.
Page 56, line 2, after ``owner'' insert ``or community, as
applicable,''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 340, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief.
My amendment is simple. If FEMA makes a mistake in designing a flood
map, communities can be reimbursed for the cost of mounting a
successful challenge. If FEMA makes a mistake in mapping a flood area,
then they should pay for it. Doing so will result in significant
savings for cities and towns and homeowners. And to me, this is
something that should be noncontroversial and hopefully wins bipartisan
support.
Mr. Chair, I was pleased that the Rules Committee made in order my
amendment to H.R. 1309.
My amendment is simple: if FEMA makes a mistake in designing a flood
map, communities can be reimbursed the costs of mounting a successful
challenge.
Currently, communities that dispute FEMA's flood elevations can hire
a private engineering firm to get a ``second opinion'' flood map.
While this may sound like an attractive option, it puts small
communities in a very difficult financial position. Hiring a private
engineering firm is expensive and cost-prohibitive for many small
communities.
On the one hand, if the community decides that it's too expensive to
get a second opinion, homeowners are forced to pay higher, or in some
cases, needless flood insurance premiums.
On the other hand, if the community does mount a successful challenge
to the original FEMA map, homeowners are spared from having to pay the
higher flood insurance premiums. But, the town must still pay the costs
associated with obtaining that second map.
[[Page H4905]]
I've heard of many small communities that are forced into this tough
situation, including the Town of Holliston in my district. There is
substantial evidence to support the case that the FEMA flood map is
inaccurate, but town officials are struggling to find a way to pay the
estimated $30,000 it would cost to conduct a second engineering study.
I feel for these town officials. They want to do the right thing and
help their residents, but these small towns are already cash-strapped
and cutting funding left and right for essential services like
teachers, cops and firefighters. There simply is no money for a
legitimate but expensive second opinion map.
If FEMA makes a mistake in mapping a flood area, they should pay for
it. Doing so would relieve towns like Holliston from the enormous
burden of fixing a mistake they did not make and saving residents
hundreds of dollars in unnecessary flood insurance premiums.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Brady of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in House Report 112-138.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. 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 56, after line 9, insert the following new section:
SEC. 20. NOTIFICATION TO RESIDENTS NEWLY INCLUDED IN FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS.
Section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4101), as amended by the preceding provisions of
this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(n) Notification to Residents Newly Included in Flood
Hazard Area.--In revising or updating any areas having
special flood hazards, the Administrator shall provide to
each owner of a property to be newly included in such a
special flood hazard area, at the time of issuance of such
proposed revised or updated flood insurance maps, a copy of
the proposed revised or updated flood insurance maps together
with information regarding the appeals process under section
1363 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
4104).''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 340, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Brady) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment might well be
described as the ``Homeowner's Right to Know.''
The original bill, H.R. 1309, contains several very positive
notification requirements to help ensure that our constituents are more
aware of the National Flood Insurance Program, the flood mapping
process, and how they can protect their property from the risk of
flood. However, one critical area in which the underlying bill needs to
require adequate notification is when a homeowner is being newly added
into a revised or updated flood map.
{time} 1600
My amendment would require the FEMA Administrator to provide a copy
of a flood insurance risk map to property owners who are newly added to
such a map along with information regarding the appeals process at the
time the map is issued. The purpose is simple: One, bring more
transparency to the flood mapping process; and, two, protect
homeowners' rights by ensuring they have adequate notice their property
is being added to the floodplain while ensuring that they have the
information about the appeals process.
Too often, homeowners aren't even aware that FEMA is making changes
to the flood maps in their communities until after a map is finalized
and they receive a notice from their mortgage lender that they are now
required to purchase flood insurance. Perhaps just as often, properties
are not only unknowingly added to the floodplain, but they are added
based on inconsistent or inaccurate data used by FEMA to create the
maps. As a result, many homeowners are forced into buying flood
insurance for the first time and mandated to do so when, in fact, their
flood risk hasn't changed.
Constituents in my own district have experienced these issues
firsthand. One county in my district has been going through the
remapping process for the past couple of years. Last year, FEMA
introduced a draft map that would have added literally thousands of
homes into the floodplain. In one portion of the county, I would
estimate that nearly 10 percent of the total number of homes would be
added by FEMA's draft map, yet few people were even aware. I know they
weren't aware because I had conversations with insurance agents who
write flood policies in the community, and they weren't aware. I have
had major developers who are building in that area talk to me about
other related issues but didn't know about the new draft map. To make
matters worse, we believe the map was technically inaccurate. FEMA was
using incongruent data. As a result, new floodplains were proposed
when, in fact, flood risk could not increase.
In a second community, the outcry was so great that FEMA had to come
back for a public town hall meeting to discuss the mapping process
after the map went into effect. Local residents started getting
notifications from their lenders that they needed to purchase flood
insurance, and they simply didn't know why. My office received calls
from residents in one portion of that community where the homes have
been confirmed as nearly 8 feet above the highest recorded level of
flooding in that area ever, but they were now in the floodplain. No one
had bothered to tell them.
My amendment would ensure that in all these scenarios the homeowner
would simply be notified that their home was potentially being added to
a floodplain and tell them about their right to appeal. Homeowners
deserve to be informed when the government is making decisions that
impact their property. This simple amendment will ensure that they do.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the amendment is
perfectly fine, and we hope that it will be adopted.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Sherman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in House Report 112-138.
Mr. SHERMAN. 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 57, after line 2, insert the following new section:
SEC. 21. FEMA AUTHORITY TO REJECT TRANSFER OF POLICIES.
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 subsection:
``(d) FEMA Authority to Reject Transfer of Policies.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Administrator may, at the discretion of the Administrator,
refuse to accept the transfer of the administration of
policies for coverage under the flood insurance program under
this title that are written and administered by any insurance
company or other insurer, or any insurance agent or
broker.''.
Strike line 23 on page 64 and all that follows through page
65, line 5, and insert the following new section:
SEC. 24. REQUIRING COMPETITION FOR NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
PROGRAM POLICIES.
(a) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 90-day
period beginning upon the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
in consultation with insurance companies, insurance agents
and other organizations with which the Administrator has
contracted, shall submit to the Congress a report describing
procedures and policies that the Administrator shall
implement to limit the percentage of policies for flood
insurance coverage under the national flood insurance program
that are directly managed by the Agency to not more than 10
percent of the aggregate number of flood insurance policies
in force under such program.
(b) Implementation.--Upon submission of the report under
subsection (a) to the Congress, the Administrator shall
implement the policies and procedures described in the
report. The Administrator shall, not later than the
expiration of the 12-month period beginning upon submission
of such report, reduce the number of policies for flood
insurance coverage that are directly managed by
[[Page H4906]]
the Agency, or by the Agency's direct servicing contractor
that is not an insurer, to not more than 10 percent of the
aggregate number of flood insurance policies in force as of
the expiration of such 12-month period.
(c) Continuation of Current Agent Relationships.--In
carrying out subsection (b), the Administrator shall ensure
that--
(1) agents selling or servicing policies described in such
subsection are not prevented from continuing to sell or
service such policies; and
(2) insurance companies are not prevented from waiving any
limitation such companies could otherwise enforce to limit
any such activity.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 340, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Sherman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. SHERMAN. I rise to offer an amendment that is coauthored by
Chairman Bachus and by my friend Gregory Meeks from New York. It is a
bipartisan and, I hope, noncontroversial amendment.
This flood insurance program is usually a partnership between private
companies and the Federal Government. The Write Your Own Program
involves the companies servicing the policies. And one major company
that used to write policies in this area decided to pull out of the
program and turned over 800,000 policies to the Federal Government. The
whole idea behind the program is that the Federal Government will
administer as few of these insurance policies as possible.
The purpose of this amendment is to require that the vast majority of
these policies be made available to be handled by private insurance
companies. It is simply a privatization amendment. This includes
language in the amendment designed to protect the agents of State Farm,
which is the company that is no longer in this business, ensuring that
they will be able to continue servicing the policies that shift from
the Federal Government to private insurance companies. This is an
effort to ensure that these policies are taken off the taxpayers' books
without interfering in the relationship between consumers and their
insurance agents.
I would hope that this would be a noncontroversial amendment. As I
said, it is supported by the chairman of the committee and is offered
on his behalf as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BACHUS. I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not
opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Alabama is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment. As many of
us on the Financial Services Committee know, the flood insurance
program is a public-private partnership where private insurance
companies write the coverage and service the policies, with the
government setting the coverage and the requirements.
Recently, State Farm Insurance decided that they no longer wanted to
participate in the program, and they transferred--I guess that's a nice
word. An unflattering term which is more accurate would be they dumped
800,000 policies back on the Federal Government. This was after they
collected premiums and their agents sold the coverage.
This amendment would make changes to that, where if an insurance
company wants to participate in the plan, they can; if they want to
profit from the plan, they can. But they don't have the unilateral
right to dump those policies back on the government agencies.
Prior to that, there were about 150 policies that the government was
administering directly.
What this amendment would do is called a depopulation amendment. It
directs FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program to take those
policies and distribute them among insurance companies who are willing
to service those contracts. And I'm happy to report to the Congress and
the Members that many mainline insurance companies have agreed to take
up these policies.
Out of respect for State Farm agents, many of whom I think were
displeased and surprised by their parent company abandoning these
policies, it would give them the right to also service those policies.
However, there may be some legal problems with that, but we at least
don't rule that out.
The depopulation of these policies--and by that, the return to what
the program was set up to function like, and that was with private
servicers and agents. Handling the policies would be done over a 1-year
time frame.
I actually believe that we should have actually depopulated more than
we did, but we did this as an accommodation to FEMA and to some of the
State Farm agents. I think this is a noncontroversial amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the
amendment offered by Mr. Sherman and would like to make a few points.
First, I would like to point out that I fully understand and support
the goal of encouraging private sector involvement in offering flood
insurance and exploring ways to diminish unnecessary reliance on
government programs.
However, I am not convinced that this amendment gets us any closer to
achieve this goal. In fact, this Amendment may actually put Congress in
the position of picking winners and losers in the market place,
interfering with private contracts, and creating millions of dollars in
new federal spending.
I would like to make the following points:
Regardless of whether a flood insurance policy is provided through
NFIP Direct or through a WYO insurer, the federal government is
responsible for all losses covered under the policy. Regardless of
whether a policy is issued by NFIP Direct of a WYO insurer, a private
company will handle all aspects of policy issuance and claims
administration and these services will be paid for through the federal
government.
FEMA has informed Congress that private contractors handling NFIP
Direct policies can manage the recently transferred policies for $50
million less each year than WYO carriers. This is a savings of $250
million for the life of the bill.
Redistribution of these policies destroys consumer choice and
dictates to consumers the company and agent they are required to use
for flood insurance while taking property from the agents who produce
the business. This redistribution affects flood insurance policy
holders and insurance agents in every Congressional District across the
country.
The only thing this amendment accomplishes is the forcible transfer
of polices from one group to another, with absolutely no cost savings
and no improvement in customer service.
There are many questions to answer, and I believe the Committee took
the right step in requesting a study before acting on the issue.
Unfortunately, we seem to be acting today before we have these answers.
I would like to submit the following statements: (1) A summary of the
issue provided to the Senate Banking Committee in connection with their
hearings on NFIP authorization; and (2) A letter from FEMA to House
Financial Services and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
Chairman Neugebauer answering questions about the redistribution
amendment and highlighting the increased cost to taxpayers of this
amendment.
State Farm Insurance--June 30, 2011
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm) Views on Efforts to
Redistribute NFIP Direct Policies to Write Your Own Insurers
State Farm supports reauthorizing the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) and would like to take this
opportunity to clear up any confusion surrounding State
Farm's and its agents' participation in the NFIP and the
operational differences between flood insurance policies
distributed through the Write Your Own (WYO) program and NFIP
Direct.
I. The Proposed Redistribution of NFIP Policies Will Not
Decrease the Federal Government's Risk
Unfortunately, under the guise of NFIP ``reform,'' the
attributes of the WYO and NFIP Direct distribution channels
have been mischaracterized in order to pursue an ill-advised
scheme to enlist the federal government's powers to take
insurance business marketed, solicited, and sold by one group
of private insurance agents and redistribute those policies
to other agents and companies who had no role in generating
these policies in the first instance. There are proprietary
rights of insurance agents at stake in this matter.
Characterized as NFIP ``depopulation,'' this scheme hijacks
familiar terminology relating to programs used in several
states that transfer insurance policies out of state-run
insurance pools into the private sector. However, unlike
``depopulation'' at the state level, where the entire risk of
a policy is shifted to the private insurer, the scheme as
advocated for NFIP merely redistributes customers, policies,
and revenues associated with administering those policies
from private businesses connected with NFIP Direct to
selected WYO insurers. No changes are made in the risk
bearing of companies in the
[[Page H4907]]
WYO distribution channel. The federal government retains 100%
responsibility for paying all covered flood losses.
Far from being an effort towards privatization reform, the
true nature of WYO participation is captured best in the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filing of a firm that is
the largest WYO insurer--Fidelity National Financial, Inc. As
described in the firm's most recent Form 10-K for calendar
year 2010:
``We earn fees under [the NFIP] program for settling flood
claims and administering the program. We serve as
administrator and processor in our flood insurance business,
and bear none of the underwriting or claims risk. The U.S.
federal government is guarantor of flood insurance coverage
written under the NFIP and bears the underwriting risk.
Revenues from our flood insurance business are impacted by
the volume and magnitude of claims processed as well as the
volume and rates for policies written. For example, when a
large number of claims are processed as a result of a natural
disaster, such as a hurricane, we experience an increase in
the fees that we receive for settling the claims.''
The suggestion that this confiscatory redistribution scheme
would shrink the public sector while growing the private
sector is wrong. It also completely ignores the fact that,
just like the WYO program, NFIP Direct fully utilizes the
private sector in handling flood insurance policies.
To be clear:
(1) Regardless of whether a flood insurance policy is
provided through NFIP Direct or through a WYO insurer, the
policy provides federal insurance coverage and the federal
government is responsible for all losses covered under the
policy;
(2) NFIP redistribution is a confiscatory scheme that does
not diminish federal obligations on a flood insurance policy
placed with a WYO insurer;
(3) Whether a policy is issued by NFIP Direct or a WYO
insurer, a private company will handle all aspects of policy
issuance and claims administration and these services will be
paid for through the federal government;
(4) Since NFIP costs are funded entirely with federal
monies and FEMA utilizes private parties for handling
policies under both the WYO program and NFIP Direct, there
are no demonstrated federal savings from redistributing
federal flood insurance policies from NFIP Direct to WYO
insurers;
(5) Redistribution of NFIP Direct policies to WYO insurers
does nothing to increase consumer participation rates which
are critical to program solvency; redistribution actually
creates disincentives for more than 17,000 agents to increase
such participation rates; and
(6) Redistribution destroys consumer choice and dictates to
consumers the company and/or agent they are required to use
for flood insurance while taking property from the agents who
produced the business.
Following is more detailed background information.
II. Background on NFIP
a. The WYO Program and State Farm's Participation
The NFIP program has been in place since 1968. The NFIP's
WYO program began in 1983 through statute and federal rule as
a financial arrangement between participating property and
casualty insurers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). The WYO program permits participating property and
casualty insurers to sell and service the NFIP's standard
flood insurance policies in their own names. Although
participating insurance companies receive an expense
allowance for policies written and claims processed, the
federal government retains full responsibility for
underwriting losses and all premiums paid by purchasers of
flood insurance go into the US. Treasury. Currently, about 88
insurance companies participate in the WYO arrangement with
FEMA; this is a decrease from previous years.
Insurers participate in the program through a WYO
Arrangement. FEMA publishes the WYO Arrangement, which is a
federal rule, in the Federal Register before the end
of August every year. Each WYO insurer considers annually
whether or not to sign the WYO arrangement.
State Farm began its WYO participation in 1985. Following
its entry in the program, each year State Farm carefully
evaluated its continuing participation in the WYO
Arrangement. In recent years, NFIP has presented a more
challenging landscape of changing requirements and directives
which requires the expenditure of resources with varying
degrees of notice and clarity of instruction. In addition,
the WYO program's continuing existence became more uncertain
with each gap in authorizations and there were numerous
occasions when the program was allowed to lapse. These
situations complicated our ability to serve our customers'
needs. Subsequently, State Farm made a very difficult
business decision to no longer participate in the WYO
Arrangement.
b. Transition to NFIP Direct and Meeting Customer Needs:
Based on existing regulations, State Farm's orderly
transfer plan was structured in a way that permitted State
Farm agents to continue servicing their customers' needs
through NFIP Direct, regardless of whether State Farm itself
participated as a WYO insurer. For example, under the
Arrangement, a WYO company has the option to sell its book of
business to another WYO insurer (subject to FEMA approval) or
to transfer policies to the NFIP Direct program. State Farm
exercised the option to transfer the policies to the NFIP
Direct Program, which avoided the potential for substantial
customer confusion and disrupting the relationship customers
have with their State Farm agent. More specifically, in
utilizing NFIP Direct, the State Farm agent remains the agent
of record on transferred policies. This means that State
Farm's decision to discontinue participation in the WYO
Arrangement did nothing to undermine our exclusive
independent contractor agents' ability to continue servicing
the needs of their flood insurance customers who maintained
or sought federal flood insurance protection in the future.
From a consumer perspective, this seamless transition of the
policies was effortless; renewal of flood insurance coverage
did not require any additional steps by policyholders. The
customer placed their coverage as they did previously--
through their State Farm agent, an individual who was a
familiar face to the customer and had an existing
understanding of the customer's property and needs.
State Farm did not receive any compensation for its orderly
transfer of policies to NFIP Direct. Of approximately 800,000
policies, State Farm has transferred to date over 550,000
policies. Each State Farm WYO policyholder has already
received a notice regarding the transfer plan. Each
policyholder has also received or will receive a second
notice prior to the policy transfer.
c. The Critical Role of State Farm Agents
Perhaps more important to the functioning of NFIP, active
agent participation in the marketing and selling flood
insurance is a significant issue of concern to FEMA. It is
widely recognized that one major shortcoming of the NFIP is
that the purchase of flood insurance is often limited to only
those who need coverage or are mandated to purchase coverage
in connection with the purchase of a home. This limited
demand impedes the ability of the NFIP to broaden its
insurance base to satisfy a fundamental tenet of insurance
underwriting--spreading the risk of loss among a larger and
more diverse pool of policyholders who are unlikely to
experience losses at the same time. Consequently, an agent
workforce actively engaged in marketing and soliciting NFIP
policies is a critical component of making the program more
actuarially sound.
Indeed, FEMA recognized that having State Farm agents
actively market and sell NFIP Direct policies is a major
benefit to the program. However, if the federal government
were to redistribute policies brought into NFIP by an agent
to another company or agent (which includes commissions), the
incentive for agents to originate policies in NFIP Direct
would be removed without any commensurate benefit, which
would undermine the entire program. Equally pernicious, it
would be tantamount to a government taking of business
property from individual businessmen and businesswomen solely
for the benefit of another private party.
III. Proposed Redistribution Scheme Offers No Cost Advantage:
Private Parties Handle the Servicing of all NFIP Policies
Regardless of Who Distributes Them
Contrary to the assertions made by supporters of NFIP
``depopulation,'' the confiscatory redistribution of NFIP
Direct policies to WYO insurers will not create smaller
government, increase the role of the private sector, or
diminish the government's risk of loss on flood insurance
policies. All NFIP policies have an agent of record that
handles the sales and some aspects of servicing. These agents
may or may not be associated with a WYO company, but they are
paid a commission through NFIP, regardless of whether they
are affiliated with a WYO company or not. A similar pattern
is followed for claims handling where private sector parties
service all NFIP claims regardless of how they are
distributed.
Claims handling for NFIP Direct policies is done by a
private contractor, Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC),
through a competitively bid contract. Furthermore, as
described in its own marketing materials, CSC provides
identical services to several WYO carriers, including some of
the largest. As a result, there is a strong probability that
the so-called ``reforms'' achieved through confiscatory
redistribution would do nothing more than transfer the
handling of flood insurance policies from CSC under its NFIP
Direct hat to CSC wearing its WYO hat. Significantly, the
proponents of confiscatory redistribution have not produced
any evidence suggesting that their servicing will save the
NFIP money. Indeed, the only difference for policies so
redistributed would be that insurance agents--primarily small
businesspeople who sold the flood policy in the first
instance, would see their book of business confiscated by the
federal government and simply handed over to another company.
This is not reform and is not about ``making the government
smaller.''
IV. Proposed Redistribution Scheme Destroys Consumer Choice
Another insidious result of NFIP confiscatory
redistribution is the elimination of consumer choice and
engaging the federal government to forcibly require consumers
to accept companies and/or agents with whom they have no
prior relationship, or, even worse, whom they have
affirmatively rejected in the past. Far from creating a
seamless transition for consumers, redistribution
[[Page H4908]]
generates several problems. For example, if a consumer has
chosen to work with an agent and has been with an agent for
many years, should the federal government overrule the
consumer's choice through redistribution? What if a policy
has been redistributed to a company with whom the consumer
does not want to do business? Does the consumer have any
control? Does the federal government really want to be
involved in this type of decision?
V. Conclusion
``Depopulation'' of NFIP is a myth. Current efforts along
these lines are nothing more than a scheme to use the federal
government's authority to redistribute existing policies from
one group of private insurance agents and give that business
to other private entities. This confiscatory redistribution
scheme makes no changes in the federal government's risk
exposure under NFIP, fails to increase participation rates in
purchasing flood insurance, provides no demonstrated savings
to the federal government, and destroys consumer choice. Such
measures should be opposed.
____
U.S. Department of
Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, June 27, 2011.
Hon. Randy Neugebauer,
Chairman, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee,
Financial Services Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Neugebauer: Thank you for your letter of May
23, 2011, in which you requested clarification of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) position on a proposed
``depopulation amendment'' to H.R. 1309. As a preliminary
matter, please accept my assurances that FEMA is committed to
administering the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in
a manner that provides affordable insurance combined with a
floodplain management program designed to reduce the nation's
risk from flood. Since 1983, FEMA has taken advantage of the
expertise of the private insurance industry through the Write
Your Own (WYO) program, and we remain convinced that a
public-private partnership provides the appropriate vehicle
for administering the NFIP.
Below are FEMA's responses to your questions.
1. Please explain in detail how the NFIP plans to expand
its ability to administer the additional 800,000 policies
which State Farm is ceding to the NFIP program, when it is
currently handling approximately 120,000 policies under the
NFIP Direct program? What is the anticipated additional
annual expense to the program to administer this vastly
expanded book of business?
The NFIP Direct program is administered by a contractor
acting as FEMA's servicing agent. That contractor, Computer
Sciences Corporation (CSC), has increased its capacity to
process the transferred policies by hiring additional staff.
State Farm will transfer the policies to NFIP Direct on a
monthly basis as they expire. The transition is already
underway, with all policies anticipated to be transferred by
September 30, 2011.
We estimate that the transfer will reduce NFIP expenses by
about $50 million a year for FY 2012 and subsequent years.
During FY 2011 while the policies transition from State Farm
to NFIP Direct, the savings will be slightly less. NFIP
policyholders and the National Flood Insurance Fund will
share the $50 million in savings. Thirty million dollars of
the savings comes from our full-risk policyholders, and the
NFIP will pass the savings back to them through slightly
lower premiums. We estimate that the average savings per
policy will be about $7, which will be a 1.5% premium
reduction. Twenty million dollars of this savings comes from
our subsidized policyholders. By retaining that savings
within the NFIP, we can slightly reduce the average amount of
the subsidy and there will be more funds available either to
pay claims or to reduce the current borrowing.
2. Does FEMA or the NFIP support, oppose, or take a neutral
position with respect to an amendment to HR. 1309, which
would have required the NFIP to make the right to service
these policies available to other WYO companies, their
agents, or to independent agents in a timely, orderly and
reasonable manner?
Without seeing the specific language of the amendment, FEMA
would oppose such an amendment unless it allowed, but did not
require, the individuals who hold the State Farm policies to
move to other companies. Requiring the policies to be
transferred to other WYO companies, their agents, or
independent agents could harm agents who work with State Farm
because State Farm prohibits its agents from working with any
other insurance companies, so its agents would have to choose
between continuing to work with State Farm or continuing to
work with the individuals who hold the State Farm flood
insurance policies. FEMA does plan to notify policyholders of
their right to voluntarily move from the NFIP Direct program
to other companies or agents at the time of policy renewal.
We estimate that providing such notifications will cost NFIP
over $900,000 annually.
3. What, if any, contractual obligations prevent FEMA or
the NFIP from making available to the remaining WYO companies
the right to service flood insurance policies no longer being
serviced by State Farm? If such contracts or agreements
exist, please provide a copy to my staff in electronic
format.
State Farm policyholders may move from the NFIP Direct
program to a WYO company, and FEMA plans to notify
policyholders of that fact at the time of their policy
renewals.
Without seeing specific legislative language, FEMA cannot
fully assess the nature of the contractual obligations that
may be impacted by an amendment. However, to require FEMA to
transfer the policies to a WYO company could impact existing
contractual obligations.
FEMA has a contractual agreement with the Computer Science
Corporation (CSC) to act as its NFIP Direct servicing agent.
As the NFIP Direct servicing agent, CSC services flood
insurance policies sold directly by FEMA, collects premiums,
adjusts and settles claims, and disseminates insurance
information to the public, lenders, and agents. Prior to
State Farm's decision to terminate its participation in the
WYO Program, CSC acted as NFIP Direct servicing agent for
approximately 150,000 policies. In March 2011, FEMA
competitively awarded a contract to CSC to handle
approximately 900,000 State Farm policies that will move to
NFIP Direct upon policy renewal. The contract is valid for
five years. Because of the increased volume of business now
handled by NFIP Direct, FEMA negotiated a 40% per policy
discount on the amount charged for each policy handled by CSC
through NFIP Direct, which is a significant cost savings to
NFIP. Pursuant to the newly-awarded contract, CSC has stepped
up its operations, including hiring new employees to assist
in servicing the 900,000 new NFIP Direct policies.
Additionally, as explained below, the State Farm insurance
agents have contractual obligations that make it difficult to
implement a broad-based transfer of policies.
4. Does NFIP currently possess the legal authority to offer
the right to service these policies to the remaining WYO
companies, their agents, or independent agents? If so, have
there been any efforts on the part of the NFIP to make these
rights available to these companies or agents? If the NFIP
does in fact have such authority, and if there have been no
such efforts to utilize that authority to return these rights
to the private market, why has NFIP not made these rights
available to the remaining WYO companies or agents? Does NFIP
intend to make these rights available to the private market?
Once a policy has been transferred to NFIP Direct, FEMA has
the authority to allow the policy to be written by
participating WYO companies, and typically, policies tend to
migrate to WYO companies as those companies compete for the
business. FEMA is committed to notifying the insureds in NFIP
Direct of the option to take their business elsewhere and has
formulated a proposal to provide notice upon policy renewal.
Without seeing the specific language of the amendment, FEMA
cannot fully assess the legal implications of such an
amendment. However, there are impediments to requiring FEMA
to offer the opportunity to service NFIP Direct policies to
WYO companies, their agents, or independent agents,
particularly with respect to policies that were written by
State Farm insurance agents.
When the State Farm policies transfer to NFIP Direct at the
time the policies are renewed, State Farm agents will be the
agents of record for the policies. While State Farm allows
its agents to work with NFIP Direct to provide policyholders
with flood insurance, the company prohibits its agents from
working with any other private insurance companies.
Therefore, State Farm agents would have to choose between
continuing to work with State Farm or continuing to work with
the approximately 900,000 policyholders who have other lines
of insurance with the agents. Moreover, mandating that all,
or a certain subset, of NFIP Direct policies be transferred
to WYO carriers would harm the agents of record on those
policies if those agents are not affiliated with the
particular WYO carrier that receives those policies.
Requiring FEMA to offer the opportunity to service NFIP
Direct policies to WYO companies, their agents, or
independent agents could also create a disincentive to policy
renewal and negatively affect the number of policies in force
because of the additional steps that would be required to
obtain a new carrier and transfer the policy to the new
carrier. This may require a policyholder to obtain more than
one agent to handle all of their insurance needs.
Additionally, such a provision could limit individual
citizens' right to choose their insurance agent because some
policyholders may not be able to work with their current
agents if those agents are not affiliated with the particular
WYO carriers that received the policyholder's business from
the NFIP Direct.
Although the NFIP has not transferred NFIP Direct policies
to the WYO insurers, their agents, or independent insurance
agents for the reasons provided above, the NFIP intends to
advise NFIP Direct policyholders of the option to move their
policies to another WYO carrier or to continue with NFIP
Direct at the time their policies are renewed. This
notification will inform policyholders that they have a
choice about who handles their business, while allowing the
policyholders' current agents the opportunity to compete to
retain that business.
I trust that this information is helpful. If you have
further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to
contact the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Legislative
Affairs at Division.
Sincerely,
Edward L. Connor,
Deputy Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration Insurance.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H4909]]
Mr. SHERMAN. I move the adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1610
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Loebsack
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17
printed in House Report 112-138.
Mr. LOEBSACK. 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 57, after line 2, insert the following new section:
SEC. 21. 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) Extension of Appeals Period.--Subsection (b) of section
1363 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
4104(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(b) The Director'' and inserting ``(b)(1)
The Administrator''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) The Administrator shall grant an extension of the 90-
day period for appeals referred to in paragraph (1) for 90
additional days if an affected community certifies to the
Administrator, after the expiration of at least 60 days of
such period, that the community--
``(A) believes there are property owners or lessees in the
community who are unaware of such period for appeals; and
``(B) will utilize the extension under this paragraph to
notify property owners or lessees who are affected by the
proposed flood elevation determinations of the period for
appeals and the opportunity to appeal the determinations
proposed by the Administrator.''.
(c) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) 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 340, 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 Biggert for bringing this bill to the
floor. I look forward to supporting this important legislation that
will address many of the issues I have been experiencing in my
district, and ones that I know are occurring all across the country.
In Iowa, we are all too familiar with the flood insurance program
because of the devastating floods of 2008, and again on the Missouri
River in western Iowa this summer. We also have many communities
throughout the State going through the mapping process. Unfortunately,
due to a lack of adequate notification during the process of flood
mapping, many homeowners continue to be surprised when they find out
that their homes are newly placed in a floodplain and they will be
required to purchase flood insurance.
My amendment will help ensure communities and property owners that
are 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 literally to a paragraph in the legal notice
section. My amendment will require FEMA to notify not only the local
paper, but also a local television and radio station, because I think
it's time we update this law to be more reflective of all the media our
constituents use daily.
Ensuring communities have the information needed at the beginning is
one step. The next is ensuring that there is appropriate time and
ability for communities and property owners to appeal the drafts.
Currently, there is a 90-day appeal period for property owners to
dispute FEMA's draft maps. Many property owners don't find out this
process is taking place until after the map is finalized, meaning the
90-day appeal period has long passed, and they no longer have the
ability to ensure their houses are not included in the final map in
error.
My amendment ensures that communities and property owners have an
additional 90 days to appeal the draft maps if they weren't aware of
the original appeal period and believe there are property owners that
haven't been made aware of the appeals process already.
I think we can all agree that every property owner who might be
affected by flood maps should have an opportunity to fully participate
in the established process, and that we should strive to have the most
accurate maps possible. My amendment will ensure that homeowners have
the information they need to make informed decisions and preparations
at the beginning of the process and fully participate in the existing
appeals process.
The more homeowners that are aware of flood maps, the more
participation there is in the process, in the program; and the more
accurate our maps will be. Greater map accuracy will give us better
awareness of the flood risks in our communities and allow homeowners
and community leaders alike to take steps to mitigate and prepare for
that risk.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment on behalf of property
owners in all of our districts.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I support the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Illinois is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
I think that proper and effective notification by FEMA allows the
protection provided by the NFIP to reach out to those who need it. And
the amendment also includes provisions designed to benefit communities
that believe that they have been incorrectly mapped in the flood
program, further enhancing the validity of the maps by providing an
appeal for newly mapped areas. I support it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOEBSACK. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment. Again, I thank Mrs. Biggert for her support of this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. I would like to commend Mr. Loebsack for his amendment. I
also would like to say that because it does require or ask that TV and
radio be utilized to get the word out, the next amendment by the lady
from Michigan actually would--and I have taken no position on her
amendment--but it actually asks that national flood insurance not incur
advertising expenses. And I think there is some good points to that,
some bad points. But as this amendment proves, the local stations
themselves and the local media can get these things out. So that might
be a point in favor of her first amendment.
I am very opposed to her second amendment. I don't want the Members
to confuse support, or at least non-opposition to her first amendment,
as support for her second. But I commend the gentleman, and I think
it's a good sense amendment and would urge strong support to the
Loebsack amendment.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. I thank the distinguished sponsor and would
preface my comments by saying I am strongly in support of Congresswoman
Biggert's superb piece of legislation.
However, I rise today in opposition to this amendment offered by
Representative Sherman. I would like to point out first that I fully
understand and support the goal of encouraging private sector
involvement and exploring ways to diminish unnecessary reliance on
government programs. However, I am not convinced, in fact I am
unconvinced, this amendment gets us any
[[Page H4910]]
closer to achieving that goal. In fact, this amendment may put Congress
in the position of choosing winners and losers in the marketplace,
interfering with private contracts, and creating millions of dollars in
new Federal spending.
I would like to make the following points: regardless of whether a
flood insurance policy is provided through NFIP Direct or WIO, the
Federal Government's responsible for all the losses incurred under the
policy. FEMA has informed Congress that private contractors handling
NFIP Direct policies can manage the recently transferred policies for
$50 million less, which is a saving of $250 million over the life of
the bill. I don't have to tell any individuals in today's world what
that means.
Redistribution of these policies destroys, in my judgment, consumer
choice, dictates to consumers the company and agent they are required
to use for flood insurance, while taking property from the agents who
produce the business. This redistribution affects flood insurance
policyholders and insurance agents in every district in the country.
Really, the only thing this amendment does is the forcible transfer
of policies from one group to the other with not only no cost savings,
with significant costs to the Federal Government. A lot of questions to
answer.
I believe the committee and Representative Biggert took the right
approach in requesting a study before acting on the issue.
Unfortunately, today, we seem to be acting contrary-wise before we have
these answers. With all due respect again to the sponsor of the
amendment, and certainly in concert with the sponsor of the bill, I
urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. I think the gentleman from Illinois was arguing on the
last amendment, not this amendment. If the Members will take everything
he said, transfer it to the amendment before, it would be appropriate.
But I disagree with his argument.
Mrs. BIGGERT. 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.
{time} 1620
Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Westmoreland
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19
printed in House Report 112-138.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. 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 57, after line 2, insert the following new section:
SEC. 21. RESERVE FUND.
(a) Establishment.--Chapter I of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 is amended by inserting after section
1310 (42 U.S.C. 4017) the following new section:
``SEC. 1310A. RESERVE FUND.
``(a) Establishment of Reserve Fund.--In carrying out the
flood insurance program authorized by this title, the
Administrator shall establish in the Treasury of the United
States a National Flood Insurance Reserve Fund (in this
section referred to as the `Reserve Fund') which shall--
``(1) be an account separate from any other accounts or
funds available to the Administrator; and
``(2) be available for meeting the expected future
obligations of the flood insurance program.
``(b) Reserve Ratio.--Subject to the phase-in requirements
under subsection (d), the Reserve Fund shall maintain a
balance equal to--
``(1) 1 percent of the sum of the total potential loss
exposure of all outstanding flood insurance policies in force
in the prior fiscal year; or
``(2) such higher percentage as the Administrator
determines to be appropriate, taking into consideration any
circumstance that may raise a significant risk of substantial
future losses to the Reserve Fund.
``(c) Maintenance of Reserve Ratio.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall have the
authority to establish, increase, or decrease the amount of
aggregate annual insurance premiums to be collected for any
fiscal year necessary--
``(A) to maintain the reserve ratio required under
subsection (b); and
``(B) to achieve such reserve ratio, if the actual balance
of such reserve is below the amount required under subsection
(b).
``(2) Considerations.--In exercising the authority under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consider--
``(A) the expected operating expenses of the Reserve Fund;
``(B) the insurance loss expenditures under the flood
insurance program;
``(C) any investment income generated under the flood
insurance program; and
``(D) any other factor that the Administrator determines
appropriate.
``(3) Limitations.--In exercising the authority under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall be subject to all
other provisions of this Act, including any provisions
relating to chargeable premium rates and annual increases of
such rates.
``(d) Phase-in Requirements.--The phase-in requirements
under this subsection are as follows:
``(1) In general.--Beginning in fiscal year 2012 and not
ending until the fiscal year in which the ratio required
under subsection (b) is achieved, in each such fiscal year
the Administrator shall place in the Reserve Fund an amount
equal to not less than 7.5 percent of the reserve ratio
required under subsection (b).
``(2) Amount satisfied.--As soon as the ratio required
under subsection (b) is achieved, and except as provided in
paragraph (3), the Administrator shall not be required to set
aside any amounts for the Reserve Fund.
``(3) Exception.--If at any time after the ratio required
under subsection (b) is achieved, the Reserve Fund falls
below the required ratio under subsection (b), the
Administrator shall place in the Reserve Fund for that fiscal
year an amount equal to not less than 7.5 percent of the
reserve ratio required under subsection (b).
``(e) Limitation on Reserve Ratio.--In any given fiscal
year, if the Administrator determines that the reserve ratio
required under subsection (b) cannot be achieved, the
Administrator shall submit a report to the Congress that--
``(1) describes and details the specific concerns of the
Administrator regarding such consequences;
``(2) demonstrates how such consequences would harm the
long-term financial soundness of the flood insurance program;
and
``(3) indicates the maximum attainable reserve ratio for
that particular fiscal year.
``(f) Availability of Amounts.--The reserve ratio
requirements under subsection (b) and the phase-in
requirements under subsection (d) shall be subject to the
availability of amounts in the National Flood Insurance Fund
for transfer under section 1310(a)(10), as provided in
section 1310(f).''.
(b) Funding.--Subsection (a) of section 1310 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4017(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (8), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) for transfers to the National Flood Insurance
Reserve Fund under section 1310A, in accordance with such
section.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 340, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank Chairwoman Biggert for her hard
work on this bill and the ranking member, Mr. Gutierrez, and the
gentlewoman from California, who is the overseer of this program.
This amendment is a forward thinking amendment to put the flood
insurance program on sound footing. Consider this amendment the
national flood insurance emergency fund. Currently premiums come in,
payments go out, but nothing is reserved for the events that no one can
predict.
Claims are paid with existing premiums and everyone crosses their
fingers that nothing really bad happens.
If incoming premiums are not enough, then the National Flood
Insurance Program has no other option than to ask for a bailout.
In fact, the NFIP program has carried debt in 18 of the past 30
years. Most interesting of all is that not all of these years saw
catastrophic flooding. FEMA just didn't do a good job managing premiums
and claims. It's clear that in good years and in bad the flood
insurance program does not have a good grasp on how much they will pay
out in claims.
However, when catastrophic flooding does happen, the NFIP program is
even less prepared for the claims. The year of 2005 was one of those
years that nobody could predict. Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma
together cost $17 billion in losses for the National Flood Insurance
Program. Six years later, including principal and interest, the NFIP
debt is now $18 billion.
Every year it seems like flooding impacts a wide swath of the United
[[Page H4911]]
States, and 2011 has been no different. No one can predict the weather.
What NFIP needs is the ability to save up to help smooth out those
unpredictable years. If the program could stash money away in good
times, it would have money to pay for the years when the estimates were
incorrect.
My amendment does just that. It establishes a reserve fund in NFIP.
This is just common sense, so much so, NFIP is one of the few Federal
funds that does not have a reserve fund. FHA has a 2 percent reserve
requirement. The FDIC deposit insurance fund is required to have a 1.35
percent reserve ratio.
Now I want to take a moment to address some of the possible concerns
with the amendment.
First, this amendment does not expand the NFIP to other catastrophic
events, like earthquakes or tornados. This fund and the bill remains
specific to flooding.
Second, the administrator gets the funds from the existing premiums.
The administrator and this amendment are bound to adhere to the
parameters established in the underlying bill on premium rates and
annual increases.
Third, this amendment does not take away from debt repayment. Any
premium collected would be spent to cover losses because the program is
running up the deficit. This takes precedent.
At some point in the future, the program might be able to collect
enough to cover all costs and set aside a reserve. But given the
magnitude of the current debt, this is not likely to occur in the
short-term.
Finally, this amendment does not stand in the way of reinsurance
opportunity for the flood program. I support reinsurance for the flood
program and firmly believe that both reinsurance and a reserve fund can
coexist.
In fact, many private insurers reserve for losses and purchase
reinsurance. Private insurers will use reserve funds as a deductible
for reinsurance coverage.
However, I fundamentally believe that as long as taxpayers are
involved, it's an ultimate backstop. This program needs a reserve. It
is not responsible to tell taxpayers no more bailouts but offer no
solution to the ongoing bailout of NFIP.
If there is no reserve fund, there will be more bailouts. It is just
a matter of when.
Adopting this amendment would address a fundamental deficiency in the
program that is ripe for bailouts. I urge adoption of the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
In drafting this bill, the chairwoman and I sought to strike the
right balance between protecting homeowners and strengthening the flood
insurance program. I believe that the bill before us today does just
that.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that the gentleman's amendment
strikes the same balance. Specifically, by creating a reserve fund, the
gentleman's amendment would allow the NFIP to increase insurance
premiums on homeowners.
So regardless of their flood risk, homeowners will have to pay more
in order to fund a reserve fund that will never have enough money to
pay out claims for catastrophic events. This isn't fair to our
taxpayers, Mr. Chairman, and, in fact, would stall the already slow
recovery of the housing market.
I understand the problem that the gentleman is attempting to solve.
We all know that the flood insurance program is over $17 billion in
debt due to claims resulting from Hurricane Katrina.
However, I think we have to be clear that Hurricane Katrina was a
catastrophic, once in a lifetime event. Prior to Katrina, the flood
insurance program operated completely in the black.
In addition, I believe that the bill contains many provisions that
would allow the flood insurance program to reform its premium structure
so that it can collect the premiums it needs to pay out claims. For
example, the bill ends subsidies for 350,000 pre-FIRM properties,
including second homes, commercial properties, homes with new owners,
homes substantially damaged or improved, and homes with repetitive
claims.
By making these properties pay actuarial rates that reflect their
full risk, the bill would make these properties pay their fair share,
thereby increasing the amount of funding to the flood insurance fund.
Mr. Chairman, while I believe that the gentleman's amendment is very
well intended, I believe that it is unnecessary given the strong
reforms in this bill and the potential problems it may cause for
homeowners, particularly those that have been phased into actuarial
rates.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the amendment and I
would urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentlewoman's opinion,
and I know that she is very familiar with this program, but I don't
think a reserve fund would cost anybody any additional money. It does
not go up on premiums. The premium amount stays the same.
This is a rainy day thing, excuse the pun, a fund that would be
there. It would not even be started until this current $18 billion in
debt is paid off. But we are fooling ourselves if we think that we can
predict the weather, if we think we know when Katrina or Rita or Wilma
is going to come.
This fund would only be established after the debt is repaid, and so
it's a very commonsense measure to have this reserve fund, as many
other government agencies do.
With that, I would ask for a ``yes'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
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 Georgia will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Michigan
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20
printed in House Report 112-138.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 64, after line 22, insert the following new section:
SEC. 23. TERMINATION OF BROADCAST PERSONIFIED FLOOD INSURANCE
COMMERCIALS.
(a) Prohibition.-- The Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency may not, after the date of the
enactment of this Act, obligate any amounts for purchasing
time or space for any advertisement or commercial for flood
insurance coverage under the national flood insurance program
under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
4001 et seq.). This subsection may not be construed to
prohibit obligation of amounts for dissemination of
information regarding such program to holders of flood
insurance policies under such program.
(b) Reduction of National Flood Insurance Fund Debt.--Any
amounts made available to the Administrator and allocated for
advertising or commercials described in subsection (a) that
remain unobligated on the date of the enactment of this Act
shall be used only for reducing the debt of the National
Flood Insurance Fund incurred pursuant to the authority under
section 1309 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4016).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 340, 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, today I am offering an
amendment that would end TV and radio ads that I believe to be a total
waste of taxpayers' dollars. Over the past 2 years FEMA has actually
spent over half a million dollars on the production of what they called
``Home Personified flood insurance commercials.'' These slick
commercials sort of depict actors with roofs hovering over their heads
talking about the need to
[[Page H4912]]
obtain flood insurance, and about the fact that one in four homes are
in a high-risk flood zone, and they pitch to contact FEMA for a free
brochure about the program.
{time} 1630
These commercials between April of 2010 and April of 2011 cost over
$7 million in airtime to broadcast all across the 50 States, and they
are slated to be aired for an additional year at least. Seven million
dollars spent on promoting the National Flood Insurance Program, which
is a federally mandated flood program, which has been mentioned all
across the day here, is already almost $18 billion in debt. I would
say, why not spend that $7 million to pay back the American taxpayers?
Or better yet, to begin paying off the program's $18 billion in debt?
Mr. Chairman, last year in the election in the fall, the American
people sent a very clear message to Washington. And I don't think the
message to Congress here was urging us to spend millions of dollars of
taxpayers' money on TV commercials asking them to put money into a
failing, bloated, and completely unnecessary government program. No,
they were demanding that we get a grip on government spending, on out-
of-control government spending, and they were asking us to end programs
where the government is trying to fill a role best done by the private
sector.
Shortly, Mr. Chairman, all of us in this House, in the Congress, in
both Chambers, are going to be asked to raise the national debt limit
because we have not been able to get our fiscal house in order. And
this week, here we are being asked to renew a Federal program that is
over $17 billion in debt currently, all of which falls on the backs of
the American taxpayers, and we need to raise the debt ceiling of the
flood insurance program, as well, to almost $25 billion. Who cares? I
guess it's just taxpayers' money.
If we want to stop adding to our national debt, we should not
continue the Federal flood insurance program--and I'm going to be
offering an amendment to that in a moment--nor should we continue to
spend millions each year on TV commercials for a program that
constituents in many, many States, most of the States across the
Nation, are wondering about, at a minimum, and many of them are
outraged. I certainly hear from my constituents back in Michigan who
are looking for some relief. These hard-pressed taxpayers from my State
are asking for less spending, for less government, for lower taxes and
less government intrusion into their lives. They're certainly not
asking us for wasteful government programs to be shoved down their
throats on television with television ads.
My amendment today, Mr. Chairman, to end unnecessary spending on TV
commercials for the National Flood Insurance Program will be a
downpayment on the relief that we owe to the American taxpayers who are
concerned about these commercials that seem to be on repeat all across
the airwaves in all of the States across our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my colleagues support this amendment
today and vote in favor of saving money, taxpayers' money, for the
American taxpayers.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
The gentlewoman's amendment would prohibit FEMA from spending any
funds on television or radio commercials to promote the purchase of
flood insurance.
Floods are the most common natural disaster in the United States.
Unfortunately, even areas that aren't in floodplains experience floods
sometimes. When that happens, the Federal Government provides aid to
those homeowners and communities, and it is the taxpayer who pays for
that aid.
Under the National Flood Insurance Program, insurance premiums pay
for the cost of flood damage. Therefore, if homeowners outside
floodplains buy flood insurance, taxpayers won't be on the hook if
their properties flood. However, in order to have these homeowners buy
flood insurance, they have to learn about the program and its benefits
to them. This is where radio and television advertising are helpful--
essential, that is. The ads reach a wide audience and present clear
facts about the availability and affordability of flood insurance.
To take away FEMA's ability to let the people know what's available
to them would actually place the millions of Americans who choose and
are not required to purchase flood insurance at risk. Given these times
of record deficits, this is simply irresponsible. That is why I urge a
``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would simply observe that,
for the most part, the reason that folks, property owners, get national
flood insurance is because the Federal Government holds a gun to their
heads and says that you cannot get a federally backed mortgage unless
you buy Federal national flood insurance through the National Flood
Insurance Program. So I don't think we have to spend millions and
millions of dollars to convince them to do something that, in my mind,
I question whether it is even constitutional that we are forcing people
to do this kind of a thing; but I certainly don't think we need to
spend millions of dollars to notify them of something that we are
mandating for them.
Certainly if you live in a flood-prone area, you probably know it.
And with everything going on in the Nation, I just can't believe we're
wasting money like this. And I would certainly urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, when the gentlelady
offered her views during the general discussion, she certainly does not
join with her colleagues who have joined with us in a bipartisan way to
produce a bill that is in the best interests of all of the citizens of
this country. As a matter of fact, I have referred to her views on this
issue as rather radical. I think that for us to have an insurance
program that allows participation by the average citizen so that they
can be in a position to make themselves whole after a disaster, to
basically repair their homes, to replace their furnishings, and to
basically have a way of continuing a decent quality of life is not too
much to ask of your government.
So I would oppose this amendment and consider this amendment also
just as radical. To say that you have a program but you can't tell
anybody about it simply does not make good sense.
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 question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. 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 gentlewoman from Michigan
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Scott
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23
printed in House Report 112-138.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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 70, after line 5, insert the following new section:
SEC. 27. STUDY OF ALL-PERIL INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study to determine various means and methods
by which a market could be established, and the effectiveness
and feasibility of each such means and method, for providing
all-peril insurance coverage for residential properties. Such
study shall analyze and determine, for only residential
properties with mortgages insured under the FHA mortgage
insurance programs of the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development, and for all residential properties--
(1) whether a viable insurance market could be established,
including by establishment of a Federal program for
reinsurance for such all-peril insurance coverage and by
other means and methods;
[[Page H4913]]
(2) the effects of each such means and method of
establishing such a market in facilitating and encouraging
the private insurance market to develop and offer all-peril
insurance products for residential properties;
(3) the cost of such all-peril insurance coverage for
various types of residential properties; and
(4) the effects that requiring such insurance coverage
would have on prices for existing housing and for housing
constructed in the future.
(b) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 12-month
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Comptroller General shall submit to the Congress a report
describing the study conducted pursuant to subsection (a) and
the analysis conducted under such study, and setting forth
the results and determinations of the study.
(c) All-peril Insurance.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``all-peril insurance'' means, with respect a
residential property, insurance coverage meeting the
following requirements:
(1) Substantial deductible.--The coverage is made available
subject to a substantial deductible in relation to the amount
of coverage provided.
(2) Covered losses.--The coverage covers only damage and
losses to the property that--
(A) render the property uninhabitable or substantially
impair the habitability of the property; and
(B) result from any of the following hazards--
(i) movement of the earth, including earthquakes,
shockwaves, sinkholes, landslides, and mudflows;
(ii) water damage, including floods, sewer back-ups, and
water seepage through the foundation;
(iii) war, including undeclared war and civil war;
(iv) nuclear hazards, including explosion of nuclear
devices and nuclear reactor accidents;
(v) governmental action, including the destruction,
confiscation, or seizure of covered property by any
governmental or public authority; or
(vi) bad repair or workmanship on a property, use of faulty
construction materials in a property, or defective
maintenance to a property.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 340, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today to propose what I believe
would be a proactive solution for homeowners when they face unforeseen
disasters. My amendment will simply ask the GAO to report to Congress
the means and effects of facilitating a market for all-peril insurance
policies. This amendment comes directly from an issue faced by many of
my constituents and in nearly 4,000 households around the country--
problems associated with the unforeseen disaster caused by the use of
toxic Chinese drywall.
Over the last 5 years, nearly 4,000 homes in over 40 States have been
discovered to contain toxic Chinese drywall. This drywall has been
tested by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and has been found to
be responsible for hazardous chemicals oozing into these homes.
Americans living in these homes have experienced everything from cold
and flu-like symptoms to migraine headaches, chronic nosebleeds,
gastrointestinal problems, and other debilitating symptoms.
Homeowners with homes tainted with toxic drywall have had the
expectation that the costs associated with remediating their home would
be covered by their homeowner's insurance policy. But virtually all of
their policies exclude from coverage many of the different classes of
damages. In the case of Chinese drywall, a standard homeowner's policy
does not cover ``losses to property resulting from faulty zoning, bad
repair or workmanship, faulty construction materials, or defective
maintenance.'' And so these families are stuck with paying mortgages
and have homes that are essentially uninhabitable.
This problem is not limited to just Chinese drywall. In the aftermath
of hurricanes, many homeowners discover that they are not covered for
water damage and frequently have to argue whether or not their home was
destroyed by water or by wind. Sinkholes, which are normally associated
with areas with histories of mining or seismic activity are springing
up outside of these typical areas, and homeowners are learning the hard
way that they are not covered by damages caused by them.
I believe that homeowners need all-peril insurance, insurance that
covers homeowners from catastrophic losses regardless of cause,
provided, of course, that the homeowners did not cause the loss
themselves.
{time} 1640
All-peril plans would be supplemental insurance policies that would
cover losses resulting from any of the causes currently excluded from
the standard homeowners policy. These policies could be limited to
catastrophic losses and provide for substantial deductibles and
possibly only cover losses that rendered a property uninhabitable.
With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would direct the GAO to
fully study the implications of an all-peril policy. Why can't a policy
be bought now? Is there no interest in it? Could the Federal Government
successfully market the plans with the private sector? I feel that
answers to these questions are needed.
What we do know is that when circumstances beyond a homeowner's
control make a home uninhabitable, the last thing they want to do is
look through a policy and find that their completely destroyed home
isn't protected by the insurance policy that they bought. It is for
this reason that I offer the amendment, Mr. Chairman, for a GAO study
and ask that the amendment be adopted.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This amendment, which would direct the GAO to conduct a study on all-
peril insurance policies for residential properties, to me really
expands beyond the scope of this bill.
Fundamental reform of the National Flood Insurance Program should be
the priority of this Congress, including the removal of subsidies over
time to improve the long-term solvency of the program. In contrast, the
Scott amendment would dramatically increase the scope at a time when
government insurance programs, such as the NFIP, are essentially
insolvent and remain grossly underfunded.
If the gentleman would like to have an all-peril study, he has the
option to write a letter to the GAO and request such a study, and that
will be done, but to tie it into the flood insurance makes it seem like
we're going to expand the flood insurance when we're really trying to
decrease the expansion and really to bring in the private sector to do
this. I really think that this is way beyond what we should be doing.
His amendment would pave the way to expand the Federal Government's
role in the private insurance market by creating a massive new program
to offer government-provided coverage backed by taxpayer dollars
against property losses. If the gentleman is really interested in the
drywall particularly, this is something that he can ask for a study on
that, and it really should not be within the scope of this bill.
I would urge opposition to this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this study would not affect the
underlying provisions of the bill. The priorities of the bill remain
the priorities of the bill. This would just affect the situation where
people find their homes uninhabitable and are looking for help.
This does not have to be a government program. The GAO could
recommend that it could be a private program and possibly get out of
the flood insurance business altogether if it covered all perils.
I would hope that we would at least study the issue to see if it is
feasible. Anybody who has talked to people with Chinese drywall and
find that their house is uninhabitable, they're paying their mortgage,
they don't have anywhere to go, they can't afford another mortgage, and
their insurance policy that they paid premiums for every
[[Page H4914]]
month, month after month after month, doesn't cover anything. I think
if you're buying insurance, it ought to insure you for unforeseen
circumstances, and that is what this study would provide.
I hope you would adopt the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield back the balance of my time and request a
``no'' vote.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. BIGGERT. 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 Virginia
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Michigan
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25
printed in House Report 112-138.
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:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Flood Insurance
Program Termination Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Termination of Authority To Provide Coverage.--
Effective January 1, 2012, the Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (in this section referred to as
the ``Administrator'') shall not provide any new flood
insurance coverage, or renew any coverage provided before
such date, under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4001 et seq.).
(b) Treatment of Existing Coverage.--Subsection (a) shall
not--
(1) affect any flood insurance coverage provided under such
Act under a contract or agreement entered into before the
date specified in such subsection and, notwithstanding the
repeals under section 3, such provisions as in effect
immediately before such repeal shall continue to apply with
respect to flood insurance coverage in force after such
repeal; or
(2) require the termination of any contract or other
agreement for flood insurance coverage entered into before
such date.
(c) Wind-Up.--After the date specified in subsection (a),
the Administrator shall take such actions as may be necessary
steps to wind up the affairs of the National Flood Insurance
Program.
(d) Treatment of Funds.--Amounts in the National Flood
Insurance Fund established under section 1310 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4017) shall be
available to the Administrator for performing the functions
of the Administrator with respect to flood insurance coverage
remaining in force after the date specified in subsection
(a). Upon the expiration of the contracts and agreements for
such coverage, any unexpended balances in such Fund shall be
deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
(e) Savings Provisions.--
(1) Treatment of prior determinations.--The repeals made by
section 3 of the provisions of law specified in such section
shall not affect any order, determination, regulation, or
contract that has been issued, made, or allowed to become
effective under such provisions before the effective date of
the repeal. All such orders, determinations, regulations, and
contracts shall continue in effect until modified,
superseded, terminated, set aside, or revoked in accordance
with law by the President, the Administrator, or other
authorized official, a court of competent jurisdiction, or by
operation of law.
(2) Pending proceedings.--
(A) Effect on pending proceedings.--The repeals made by
section 3 shall not affect any proceedings relating to the
National Flood Insurance Program, including notices of
proposed rulemaking, pending on the effective date of the
repeals, before the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
except that no assistance or flood insurance coverage may be
provided pursuant to any application pending on such
effective date. Such proceedings, to the extent that they
relate to functions performed by the Administrator after such
repeal, shall be continued. Orders shall be issued in such
proceedings, appeals shall be taken therefrom, and payments
shall be made pursuant to such orders, as if this Act had not
been enacted; and orders issued in any such proceedings shall
continue in effect until modified, terminated, superseded, or
revoked by the Administrator, by a court of competent
jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
(B) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection may be
construed to prohibit the discontinuance or modification of
any proceeding described in subparagraph (A) under the same
terms and conditions and to the same extent that such
proceeding could have been discontinued or modified if this
section had not been enacted.
(3) Actions.--This section shall not affect suits commenced
before the effective date of the repeals made by section 3,
and in all such suits, proceedings shall be had, appeals
taken, and judgments rendered in the same manner and effect
as if this section had not been enacted.
(4) Liabilities incurred.--No suit, action, or other
proceeding commenced by or against an individual in the
official capacity of such individual as an officer of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency having any responsibility
for the National Flood Insurance Program shall abate by
reason of the enactment of this section. No cause of action
relating to such Program, by or against the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, or by or against any officer thereof in
the official capacity of such officer having any
responsibility for such program, shall abate by reason of the
enactment of this section.
SEC. 3. REPEALS AND CONTINUATION OF FEMA MAPPING
RESPONSIBILITIES.
(a) National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.--The National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is amended--
(1) by striking section 1302 (42 U.S.C. 4001);
(2) by striking chapters I and II (42 U.S.C. 4011 et seq.);
(3) in section 1360 (42 U.S.C. 4101)--
(A) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``until the date
specified in section 1319'';
(B) by striking subsection (d);
(C) in subsection (g)--
(i) by striking ``To promote compliance with the
requirements of this title, the'' and inserting ``The'';
(ii) by striking ``directly responsible for coordinating
the national flood insurance program'';
(iii) in the last sentence, by striking ``National Flood
Insurance Fund, pursuant to section 1310(b)(6)'' and
inserting the following: ``General Fund of the Treasury and
shall be used only for reducing the budget deficit of the
Federal Government''; and
(D) in subsection (i)--
(i) by striking ``free of charge'' and inserting ``at
cost'';
(ii) by striking ``and States and communities participating
in the national flood insurance program pursuant to section
1310 and at cost to all other'' and inserting ``, States and
communities, and other interested''; and
(iii) in the he last sentence, by striking ``National Flood
Insurance Fund, pursuant to section 1310(b)(6)'' and
inserting the following: ``General Fund of the Treasury and
shall be used only for reducing the budget deficit of the
Federal Government'';
(4) by striking sections 1361A (42 U.S.C. 4102a);
(5) in section 1363(e) (42 U.S.C. 4104(e)), by striking the
third and fifth sentences; and
(6) in section 1364 (42 U.S.C. 4104a)--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by striking ``or the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973'' each place such term
appears; and
(ii) in paragraph (3)--
(I) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting the
following:
``(B) a statement that flood insurance coverage may be
available in the private market or through a State-sponsored
program; and''; and
(II) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C);
(B) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
(7) in section 1365 (42 U.S.C. 4104b)--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``and in which flood
insurance under this title is available''; and
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) by striking paragraph (1); and
(ii) in paragraph (2)--
(I) in the first sentence, by striking ``the community
identification number and community participation status (for
purposes of the national flood insurance program) of the
community in which the improved real estate or such property
is located,''; and
(II) in the third sentence, by striking ``because the
building or mobile home is not located in a community that is
participating in the national flood insurance program or'';
(8) by striking sections 1366 and 1367 (42 U.S.C. 4104c,
4104d);
(9) in section 1370 (42 U.S.C. 4121)--
(A) by striking paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (7), (14), and
(15);
(B) in paragraph (12)(B), by striking the semicolon at the
end and inserting ``; and'';
(C) in paragraph (13), by striking the semicolon at the end
and inserting a period; and
(D) by redesignating paragraphs (6), (8), (9), (10), (11),
(12), and (13), as so amended, as paragraphs (3), (4), (5),
(6), (7), (8), and (9), respectively;
(10) by striking sections 1371 through 1375 (42 U.S.C.
4122-26);
(11) in section 1376 (42 U.S.C. 4127)--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``to carry out this
title'' and all that follows through the end of paragraph (3)
and inserting ``to carry out the mapping, studies,
investigations, and other responsibilities of the Director
under this title''; and
(B) by striking subsection (c); and
(12) by striking section 1377 (42 U.S.C. 4001 note).
(b) Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.--The Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 is amended--
[[Page H4915]]
(1) by striking section 2 (42 U.S.C. 4002);
(2) by striking section 102 (42 U.S.C. 4012a);
(3) in section 201 (42 U.S.C. 4105)--
(A) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(a) As information becomes available to the Director
concerning the existence of flood hazards, the Director shall
publish information in accordance with section 1360(a)(1) of
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and shall notify the
chief executive officer of each known flood-prone community
of its tentative identification as a community containing one
or more areas having special flood hazards.'';
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``shall either (1)
promptly make proper application to participate in the
national flood insurance program or (2)'' and inserting
``may'';
(C) by striking subsections (c) and (d);
(D) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (c); and
(4) by striking section 202 (42 U.S.C. 4106).
(c) Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act
of 2004.--Title II of the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 4011 note).
(d) National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994.--The
National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 is amended by
striking sections 561 (42 U.S.C. 4011 note), 562 (42 U.S.C.
4102 note), 578 (42 U.S.C. 4014 note), 579(b), and 582 (42
U.S.C. 5154a).
(e) Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956.--Section 15 of the
Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956 (42 U.S.C. 2414) is
amended by striking subsection (e).
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2012.
SEC. 4. INTERSTATE COMPACTS FOR FLOOD INSURANCE COVERAGE.
(a) Congressional Consent.--The consent of the Congress is
hereby given to any two or more States to enter into
agreement or compacts, not in conflict with any law of the
United States, for making available to interested persons
insurance coverage against loss resulting from physical
damage to or loss of real property or personal property
related thereto arising from any flood occurring in the
United States.
(b) Rights Reserved.--The right to alter, amend, or repeal
this section, or consent granted by this section, is
expressly reserved to the Congress.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 340, 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. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would begin by asking a very fundamental question: Why in the world
is the Federal Government in the flood insurance business? Really, I do
not understand it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised to learn that the Federal
Government is not a very good insurance agent, that they run a terrible
insurance program, as evidenced by the $18 billion in debt that the
NFIP, the National Flood Insurance Program, has racked up over the
years and will probably never repay. I don't think they'll ever repay
it. If you don't believe me, you can consider the testimony that the
administrator of FEMA made before the Financial Services Committee. In
congressional testimony, he said the program will likely always be in
debt, massive debt.
Congress set up the NFIP to ostensibly be an insurance company, but
it is not held to the same standards as private insurance companies.
Instead of holding cash reserves, the NFIP has a bottomless pit of
money that it shamelessly taps into. That money pit is also known as
the U.S. Treasury, or the American taxpayers. If the NFIP were a
private insurance company, it would have gone bankrupt years ago, or it
would have been in need of a Federal bailout. In other words, when this
government-authorized Ponzi scheme runs out of money, it simply gets
more by dipping into the pockets of taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I would
say that this is a program that would make Bernie Madoff blush.
The American people are fed up with bailouts, and this bill is just
that: another bailout for another broken program. If we want to stop
adding to our national debt, we should not continue the Federal flood
insurance program.
My home State of Michigan is just one of a majority of States that is
actually disadvantaged by this Ponzi scheme. The State House of
Representatives has recently passed a resolution condemning the NFIP as
fundamentally flawed and unfair, and I would expect the State Senate to
follow suit shortly. So there is an entire State. I don't think that's
radical.
My amendment would actually end the program at the end of this year
and allow States to work together to form a regional coalition to shape
insurance policies that meet the needs of their particular State. There
is no way that a one-size-fits-all insurance program that dramatically
subsidizes rates in some of the most flood-prone areas of our Nation
while at the same time forcing those in less flood-prone areas to pay
much higher rates can be sustained. States like mine will simply become
fed up and opt out, which is what's going to happen, so that they can
better protect their citizens. Then, of course, it would force this
program even deeper into debt. It is time to end this program now.
My amendment would also, and perhaps more importantly, allow the
private market to get into the flood insurance business without the
Federal Government's unfair competition of politically based premiums,
which would allow premiums to be set based on actual risk.
If you want to get a handle on out-of-control Federal spending and
start eliminating government programs that do nothing except enforce
bad policy and recklessly spend the taxpayers' money, I would ask my
colleagues to support my amendment.
A Resolution To Memorialize the Congress of the United States To Make
Significant Reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program
Whereas, Under the National Flood Insurance Program, most
property owners must purchase flood insurance if their
property is located within a mapped floodplain; and
Whereas, The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has
recently revised existing floodplain maps in Michigan that,
in many cases, have increased the amount of land within the
floodplain without adequate explanation of perceived
additional flood risk. Flood insurance for buildings within
redrawn areas is a significant added expense. These revisions
amount to a penalty that will be felt far into the future,
especially as the market value of impacted properties suffers
needlessly; and
Whereas, The revised maps exacerbate disparities between
the premiums paid by Michigan residents relative to claims
received. Michigan residents have paid nearly five times as
much in flood insurance premiums than they have received back
in claims over the last 30 years. The remaining funds from
these premiums goes to subsidize flood insurance claims in
higher risk areas of the country; and
Whereas, The National Flood Insurance Program is operated
without transparency to the public in rate-setting methods.
Rebuilding within a floodplain has continued in higher risk
areas of the country where multiple recent flood events have
occurred, contributing to the $20 billion in debt of the
National Flood Insurance Program. Rebuilding in very high
risk areas would be avoided if flood insurance was set at
actuarially sound rates; and
Whereas, The National Flood Insurance Program is
fundamentally flawed and unfair. Year after year, the program
takes money from property owners in most states and uses that
money to rebuild in only a few states. Congresswoman Candice
Miller has introduced legislation (H.R. 435) to eliminate the
National Flood Insurance Program in 2013 and to authorize
states to work together to provide flood insurance as they
deem appropriate; and
Whereas, Congresswoman Judy Biggert has introduced
legislation, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011 (H.R.
1309), to begin the process of modernizing and reforming the
National Flood Insurance Program; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we
memorialize the Congress of the United States to make
significant reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program;
and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to
the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, and the members of
the Michigan congressional delegation.
Adopted by the House of Representatives, June 21, 2011.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.
The gentlewoman's amendment would terminate entirely the flood
insurance program, which provides much needed insurance for 5.5 million
homeowners. The flood insurance program was created in 1968 after
record flooding led the private insurance industry to stop writing
flood policies. The private sector didn't want to write these policies
because floods are very common and very expensive. However, the Federal
Government didn't want to
[[Page H4916]]
simply write a blank check for homeowners every time it flooded. This
is why the flood insurance program was created.
{time} 1650
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
Illinois, Chairwoman Biggert, who has worked so hard on this
legislation.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Illinois
will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I know we have had quite a bit of discussion about this already, but
maybe we will bring this to a close with this amendment, for a while
anyway.
Let me just say that the underlying bill really doesn't ask for
additional borrowing authority. In fact, the reforms in the underlying
bill will accelerate the ability of NFIP to pay down its debt. This
bill is a revenue raiser and will bring in $4.2 billion to the program.
We have addressed the fact that there have been some problems with
NFIP. I think there was some mismanagement, and there was a need for
reform. That is why we have spent so much time on this bill to talk to
all of the different groups, to talk to all of the Members who have had
concerns.
I have got here a list. According to a broad coalition of industry
experts and trade associations who all support this, more than 5.6
million policyholders depend on the NFIP as their only source of
protection against economic devastation from a flood. In fact, I could
read all of those who asked for a ``no'' vote on this amendment. We
have the American Insurance Association, American Land Title
Association, Building Owners and Management Association, CCIM
Institute, Chamber SWLA, Council of Insurer Agents and Brokers, The
Financial Services Roundtable, Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers
of America, Institute of Real Estate Management, International Council
of Shopping Centers, Manufactured Housing Institute, Mortgage Bankers
Association, National Association of Home Builders, National
Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, National Association of
REALTORS, National Ready Mix Concrete Association, Society of
Industrial and Office Realtors, Property and Casualty Insurance
Association of America, The Risk and Insurance Management Society, and
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
You know, if 5.6 million property owners can't rely on this, what is
going to happen? What is going to happen is we wouldn't have flood
insurance. And on May 13, the Financial Services Committee favorably
reported the Flood Insurance Reform Act by a unanimous vote of 54-0.
Anybody who doesn't think that is something on how much time we put
into this and how much people care about it, 54-0 in this Congress, I
don't think that has happened for a bill that is this important for a
long, long time. It really reflects the hard work and the bipartisan
support of the Financial Services Committee.
Again, it has a series of reforms that are going to make this a much
better program. It improves the financial stability of the NFIP. It
reduces the burden on taxpayers. It restores integrity to the FEMA
mapping system and explores ways to increase private market
participation. It helps to bring certainty to the housing market. I
would oppose this amendment strongly.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).
Mr. HIGGINS. I thank my friend and colleague from Michigan for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to terminate
the National Flood Insurance Program. The National Flood Insurance
Program is, both in its design and execution, the worst Federal program
I have encountered in my time in Congress.
This program levies a mandatory flood tax on homeowners who are at
virtually no risk of flooding and see absolutely no benefit from the
program. In western New York, the requirement to purchase flood
insurance has increased mortgage costs and created economic dead zones
in once-vibrant neighborhoods.
This amendment will finally end this unfair burden on homeowners in
communities like Buffalo and Lackawanna, New York, who neither want nor
need to purchase flood insurance. I urge my colleagues to support it as
well. I thank the gentlelady from Michigan.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would simply reiterate that
I don't think this is something that the Federal Government should be
involved in. If you are truly a friend of the taxpayers, and believe
me, I appreciate the bipartisanship and the hard work about reforming
this program. I understand the need to reform programs, but I also
understand the need to get a handle on the Federal debt and deficit;
and one way to do that is to eliminate unnecessary programs, not just
nibble around the edges, which is what I think we are doing here today.
I certainly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
If this bill were not to pass and if this amendment were to be agreed
to, it would be devastating to at least 20,000 communities if there was
no flood insurance. Congress would inevitably have to bail out flood
disaster victims, as it did prior to 1968; and it would cost so much
more money. And the President would have to sign on to any devastation
that might be made, as is what happened in Louisiana after Katrina. I
oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill.
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 question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. 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 gentlewoman from Michigan
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 112-138 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Speier of California.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Cardoza of California.
Amendment No. 19 by Mr. Westmoreland of Georgia.
Amendment No. 20 by Mrs. Miller of Michigan.
Amendment No. 23 by Mr. Scott of Virginia.
Amendment No. 25 by Mrs. Miller of Michigan.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Speier
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier) 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 195,
noes 230, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 554]
AYES--195
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bono Mack
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Burgess
Butterfield
Camp
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
[[Page H4917]]
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kingston
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--230
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Canseco
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Ribble
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Cantor
Deutch
Giffords
Hinchey
Hoyer
Pelosi
{time} 1731
Messrs. WESTMORELAND, RIBBLE, BLUMENAUER, GARY G. MILLER of
California, HALL, and AKIN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. POSEY, UPTON, SHERMAN, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. PAUL, Mrs. BONO
MACK, Messrs. BARTLETT, WALDEN, BURGESS, HOLDEN, KINGSTON, and HARRIS
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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 noes 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 is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 118,
noes 305, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 555]
AYES--118
Adams
Akin
Amash
Bachmann
Benishek
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Culberson
DesJarlais
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Eshoo
Flake
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffith (VA)
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lankford
Latta
Long
Lummis
Mack
Marchant
Marino
McCaul
McClintock
McDermott
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Quayle
Quigley
Reed
Ribble
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Sensenbrenner
Stark
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thornberry
Tipton
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Young (IN)
NOES--305
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Butterfield
Calvert
Canseco
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleming
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gonzalez
Gosar
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Huizenga (MI)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nunes
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
[[Page H4918]]
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stivers
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Cantor
Deutch
Giffords
Gohmert
Hinchey
Hoyer
McHenry
Pelosi
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1736
Ms. ESHOO changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Cardoza
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cardoza) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes 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 is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 261,
noes 163, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 556]
AYES--261
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleming
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Gardner
Gerlach
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Heinrich
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Landry
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Peters
Peterson
Platts
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stutzman
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--163
Bachus
Barletta
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Canseco
Capito
Carney
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Ellmers
Eshoo
Farenthold
Flake
Fleischmann
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Grimm
Guinta
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hayworth
Hensarling
Himes
Hirono
Holt
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latta
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McKinley
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Olson
Palazzo
Pence
Perlmutter
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Reed
Renacci
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Tonko
Turner
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Watt
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woodall
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--7
Cantor
Deutch
Giffords
Hinchey
Hoyer
Johnson (GA)
Pelosi
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1740
Mr. MULVANEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. DUNCAN of South Carolina and WESTMORELAND 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. 19 Offered by Mr. Westmoreland
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Westmoreland) 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 is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241,
noes 183, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 557]
AYES--241
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
[[Page H4919]]
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--183
Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
Cantor
Deutch
Giffords
Hinchey
Hoyer
Payne
Pelosi
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1744
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Michigan
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. Miller) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes 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 is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186,
noes 238, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 558]
AYES--186
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Altmire
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Culberson
Dent
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reichert
Ribble
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (NE)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--238
Ackerman
Alexander
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hensarling
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
[[Page H4920]]
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
West
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Cantor
Deutch
Ellison
Giffords
Hinchey
Hoyer
Pelosi
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1749
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Scott) 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 is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192,
noes 230, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 559]
AYES--192
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Landry
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Stark
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--230
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--9
Cantor
Deutch
Giffords
Hinchey
Hoyer
Meeks
Payne
Pelosi
Rogers (KY)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1752
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Michigan
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. Miller) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes 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 is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 38,
noes 384, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 560]
AYES--38
Amash
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Chaffetz
DesJarlais
Duncan (TN)
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Goodlatte
Graves (GA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Holden
Huelskamp
Labrador
Lamborn
Mack
McClintock
McHenry
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Myrick
Nunes
Paul
Petri
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sensenbrenner
Walsh (IL)
Westmoreland
Woodall
NOES--384
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Capito
[[Page H4921]]
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--9
Canseco
Cantor
Deutch
Giffords
Gohmert
Hinchey
Hoyer
Johnson (GA)
Pelosi
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1756
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). 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.
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, 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. 1309) to extend the authorization of the national flood insurance
program, to achieve reforms to improve the financial integrity and
stability of the program, and to increase the role of private markets
in the management of flood insurance risk, and for other purposes, and,
pursuant to House Resolution 340, 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.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, 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. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BOSWELL. In its current form, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. BOSWELL moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1309, to the
Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Page 57, after line 2, insert the following new sections:
SEC. 14. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING RELIEF FOR 2011 FLOOD
VICTIMS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The flood disasters and emergencies of 2011 have been
unprecedented.
(2) Such flood disasters and emergencies cover 696 counties
in 29 States.
(3) The President has declared a major disaster from
flooding in 2011 for 26 counties in Louisiana. 32 counties in
Indiana, 34 counties in Montana, 7 counties in Vermont, 23
counties in New York, 3 counties in Alaska, 21 counties in
Illinois, 16 counties in Oklahoma, 6 counties in Idaho, 37
counties in South Dakota, 48 counties in Mississippi, 34
counties in Minnesota, 47 counties in North Dakota, 38
counties in Missouri, 64 counties in Tennessee, 76 counties
in Kentucky, 57 counties in Arkansas, 23 counties in Georgia,
67 counties in Alabama, 20 counties in North Carolina, 13
counties in California, 3 counties in Hawaii, 8 counties in
Oregon, 7 counties in Washington, 3 counties in Utah, and 3
counties in Maine.
(4) The President has declared an emergency from flooding
in 2011 for 28 counties in Missouri, 4 counties in Kansas, 18
counties in Nebraska, 26 counties in Louisiana, 4 counties in
Tennessee, 14 counties in Mississippi, and 22 counties in
North Dakota.
(b) Purpose.--It is the sense of the Congress that relief
should be provided in the form of grants to families in areas
affected by flooding to repair damage to their homes and in
the form of assurances that such homeowners are not subjected
to additional flood insurance premium increases as they
struggle in the aftermath of disaster recovery.
SEC. 15. EMERGENCY AID TO ASSIST 2011 FLOOD VICTIMS.
(a) Assistance With Increased Cost of Compliance.--
Subsection (b) of section 1304 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4011(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) properties for which a major disaster or emergency
has been declared under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.''.
(b) Grants.--
(1) Authority.--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 REPAIRING FLOOD DAMAGE TO HOMES IN
DISASTER AREAS.
``(a) Authority.--The Administrator may make grants under
this section to owners of qualified residences for costs of
repairing damage to such residences caused by flooding for
which a major disaster or emergency has been declared under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act on or after January 1, 2011.
``(b) Terms.--The Administrator shall issue such
regulations as may be necessary to establish appropriate
limitations and terms regarding grants under this section,
which may include limitations and terms regarding the amount
of grants, avoiding duplication of reimbursement for damages,
use
[[Page H4922]]
of grant amounts, and such other issues as the Administrator
considers appropriate.
``(c) Qualified Residence.--For purposes of this section,
the term `qualified residence' means a residential structure
that--
``(1) consists of from 1 to 4 dwelling units;
``(2) is located within the area for which a major disaster
or emergency has been declared under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act as a result of
flooding; and
``(3) is covered, upon issuance of such declaration, by a
contract for flood insurance coverage under this title.''.
(2) Availability of national flood insurance fund.--Section
1310(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4017), as amended by the preceding provisions of this
Act, is further amended--
(A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) for grants under section 1326.''.
Page 21, line 22, strike the closing quotation marks and
the last period.
Page 21, after line 22, insert the following new paragraph:
``(5) Tolling of periods after disasters.--In the case of
any covered property that is subject under subsection (i) to
a prohibition on increases in chargeable risk premium rates,
any 12-month period applicable to such covered property under
paragraph (1), (2), or (3) shall be tolled for the duration
of the 36-month period applicable to such covered property
under subsection (i), and any increases in risk premium rates
otherwise effective upon expiration of any of such 12-month
periods shall take effect upon the expiration of such periods
as resumed after such tolling.''.
Page 27, after line 11, insert the following new
subsection:
(e) Relief From Premium Increases to Assist 2011 Flood
Victims.--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 (c), in the matter that precedes
paragraph (1), as amended by the preceding provisions of this
Act, by inserting ``, and subsection (i)'' after ``subsection
(g)'';
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Relief From Premium Increases to Assist 2011 Flood
Victims.--Subject to subsection (h) and 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 for which a major disaster or emergency has
been declared under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act on or after January 1, 2011, as
a result of flooding, the chargeable risk premium rates for
flood insurance coverage under this title for any structure
located within such area upon the issuance of such
declaration may not be increased at any time during the 36-
month period beginning upon issuance of such declaration.''.
Page 27, line 12, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
Page 19, line 22, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.
Page 20, lines 3 and 4, strike ``Notwithstanding'' and
insert the following: ``Subject only to subsections (h) and
(i) and notwithstanding''.
Mr. BOSWELL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with further reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
Mr. DOLD (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At the outset, let me say this amendment does not--repeat, does not--
kill the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation has been hit by devastating and unprecedented
flooding this past spring that has displaced and damaged homes in 29
States and nearly 700 counties. That is right. Nearly three-fifths of
the States in this country, 60 percent, have counties that have been
declared emergency areas by the President. I would like to insert into
the Record the list of States and counties that have been hit by the
floods of 2011.
In my home State of Iowa, right as we stand here in this Chamber, we
are seeing flooding as the Missouri River rises on the western border.
Just last week, the Department of Agriculture declared Fremont,
Harrison, Mills, Monona, Pottawattamie, and Woodbury Counties in Iowa
as agriculture disaster areas. Farmers, homeowners, and small business
owners are seeing their lives and their very livelihoods quite
literally being washed away. As I talk to mayors, county supervisors,
and my friends across the State who are being affected, they want to
know if their government, this Congress, will stand with them in their
time of dire need. We need to step up to the plate and help these flood
victims rebuild their lives and repair the damage, and they should not
be subjected to premium increases as they struggle to get back on their
feet.
This final amendment helps flood victims in three important ways:
First, this amendment builds on a bipartisan program that was
established in 1994 following the devastating Midwestern floods by
reimbursing a flood policyholder for the cost of rebuilding a flood-
damaged structure as needed to comply with State and local floodplain
management laws.
Second, this amendment provides a new important tool to aid victims
of the 2011 floods by giving the agency discretion to provide grants to
homeowners to repair flood damage.
Third, this amendment provides a temporary reprieve from any
increases in flood insurance premiums for policyholders as they
struggle to rebuild their homes and their lives. It does so by
suspending any increases in flood insurance premiums for a period of 36
months--we're talking about increases--for policyholders located in
areas designated by the President as a major disaster or emergency.
Importantly, this amendment accomplishes this in a responsible way by
limiting such assistance to homeowners with existing flood policies. It
rewards those who have obtained flood insurance and have paid into the
Flood Insurance Fund. This amendment is consistent with the underlying
policy of this bill by encouraging homeowners to obtain flood
insurance, and by placing the program on stronger financial footing
through a responsible phase-in of risk premium rates to full actuarial
rates.
In past years, Congress has stepped up to the plate and provided
assistance to victims of natural disasters. That is what epitomizes our
great country and its spirit. Yet this Congress has shown a disregard
for flood victims at a time when we are struggling to recover from the
worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Yes, we are a
country marked by individual initiative, but we are also a country of
compassion.
{time} 1810
This final amendment is not a handout. It provides immediate
assistance and relief to those homeowners who have paid into the Flood
Insurance Fund. The Flood Insurance Fund is paid through premiums and
fees paid by policyholders, not the taxpayer.
I urge my colleagues to read the list of 29 States and 696 counties
that have been hit by these devastating floods and join me in providing
swift and immediate assistance to your constituents. These are your
friends, your neighbors; and they are asking for your help. So I ask
you to stand with them, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.
Vote ``yes'' on this final amendment; and, remember, it does not kill
the underlying bill.
Statement of Rep. Leonard L. Boswell To Accompany The Motion To
Recommit the Bill, H.R. 1309 with Instructions
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, there
have been a total of 696 counties in 29 states for which a
Major Disaster or Emergency has been declared. There is some
overlap of states for which a major disaster and emergency
have been declared and some overlap of counties for which a
major disaster and emergency have been declared. Below is a
breakdown of the affected counties and states by major
disaster and by emergency.
26 States for Which a Major Disaster has been Declared in 2011 for
flooding*
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Hawaii,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Vermont, Washington
696 Counties in 26 States Covered by a Major Disaster Declaration in
2011 for flooding*
Alabama Counties
Autauga County, Baldwin County, Barbour County, Bibb
County, Blount County, Bullock County, Butler County, Calhoun
County, Chambers County, Cherokee County,
[[Page H4923]]
Chilton County, Choctaw County, Clarke County, Clay County,
Cleburne County, Coffee County, Colbert County, Conecuh
County, Coosa County, Covington County, Crenshaw County,
Cullman County, Dale County, Dallas County, DeKalb County,
Elmore County, Escambia County, Etowah County, Fayette
County, Franklin County, Geneva County, Greene County, Hale
County, Henry County, Houston County, Jackson County,
Jefferson County, Lamar County, Lauderdale County, Lawrence
County, Lee County, Limestone County, Lowndes County, Macon
County, Madison County, Marengo County, Marion County,
Marshall County, Mobile County, Monroe County, Montgomery
County, Morgan County, Perry County, Pickens County, Pike
County, Randolph County, Russell County, Saint Clair County,
Shelby County, Sumter County, Talladega County, Tallapoosa
County, Tuscaloosa County, Walker County, Washington County,
Wilcox County, and Winston County.
Alaska Counties
Crooked Creek (ANV/ANVSA), Kuspuk Regional Educational
Attendance Area, and Red Devil (ANV/ANVSA).
Arkansas Counties
Arkansas County, Baxter County, Benton County, Boone
County, Bradley County, Calhoun County, Carroll County,
Chicot County, Clark County, Clay County, Cleburne County,
Cleveland County, Conway County, Craighead County, Crawford
County, Crittenden County, Dallas County, Faulkner County,
Franklin County, Fulton County, Garland County, Greene
County, Hot Spring County, Howard County, Independence
County, Izard County, Jackson County, Johnson County,
Lawrence County, Lee County, Lincoln County, Lonoke County,
Madison County, Marion County, Mississippi County, Monroe
County, Montgomery County, Nevada County, Newton County,
Perry County, Phillips County, Pike County, Poinsett County,
Polk County, Prairie County, Pulaski County, Randolph County,
Saint Francis County, Saline County, Searcy County, Sharp
County, Stone County, Van Buren County, Washington County,
White County, Woodruff County, and Yell County.
California Counties
Del Norte County, Inyo County, Kern County, Kings County,
Monterey County, Orange County, Riverside County, San
Bernardino County, San Diego County, San Luis Obispo County,
Santa Barbara County, Santa Cruz County, and Tulare County.
Georgia Counties
Bartow County, Catoosa County, Cherokee County, Coweta
County, Dade County, Floyd County, Gordon County, Greene
County, Harris County, Heard County, Jasper County, Lamar
County, Lumpkin County, Meriwether County, Monroe County,
Morgan County, Newton County, Pickens County, Rabun County,
Spalding County, Troup County, Walker County, and White
County.
Hawaii Counties
Hawaii County, Honolulu County, and Maui County.
Idaho Counties and Indian Reservations
Bonner County, Clearwater County, Idaho County, Nez Perce
County, Nez Perce Indian Reservation, and Shoshone County.
Illinois Counties
Alexander County, Franklin County, Gallatin County,
Hamilton County, Hardin County, Jackson County, Jefferson
County, Lawrence County, Marion County, Massac County, Perry
County, Pope County, Pulaski County, Randolph County, Saline
County, Union County, Wabash County, Washington County, Wayne
County, White County, and Williamson County.
Indiana Counties
Benton County, Clark County, Crawford County, Daviess
County, Dearborn County, Dubois County, Floyd County,
Franklin County, Gibson County, Harrison County, Jackson
County, Jefferson County, Jennings County, Knox County,
Martin County, Monroe County, Ohio County, Orange County,
Parke County, Perry County, Pike County, Posey County, Putnam
County, Ripley County, Scott County, Spencer County, Starke
County, Sullivan County, Switzerland County, Vanderburgh
County, Warrick County, and Washington County.
Iowa Counties
Fremont County, Harrison County, Mills County, Monona
County, Pottawattamie County, and Woodbury County.
Kentucky Counties
Anderson County, Ballard County, Bath County, Boone County,
Boyd County, Bracken County, Breathitt County, Breckinridge
County, Butler County, Caldwell County, Calloway County,
Campbell County, Carlisle County, Carroll County, Carter
County, Christian County, Clay County, Crittenden County,
Daviess County, Edmonson County, Elliott County, Estill
County, Fleming County, Floyd County, Franklin County, Fulton
County, Gallatin County, Grant County, Graves County, Grayson
County, Green County, Greenup County, Hancock County, Harlan
County, Henderson County, Henry County, Hickman County,
Hopkins County, Johnson County, Kenton County, Knott County,
Lawrence County, Lee County, Lewis County, Livingston County,
Logan County, Lyon County, Magoffin County, Marion County,
Marshall County, Martin County, Mason County, McCracken
County, McLean County, Meade County, Menifee County, Mercer
County, Monroe County, Morgan County, Nelson County, Nicholas
County, Oldham County, Owen County, Owsley County, Pendleton
County, Perry County, Robertson County, Rowan County, Spencer
County, Todd County, Trigg County, Trimble County, Union
County, Washington County, Webster County, and Wolfe County.
Maine Counties
Aroostook County, Piscataquis County, and Washington
County.
Minnesota Counties
Becker County, Beltrami County, Big Stone County, Blue
Earth County, Brown County, Carver County, Chippewa County,
Clay County, Grant County, Kittson County, Lac qui Parle
County, Le Sueur County, Lyon County, Marshall County, McLeod
County, Nicollet County, Norman County, Otter Tail County,
Polk County, Ramsey County, Red Lake County, Red Lake Indian
Reservation, Redwood County, Renville County, Roseau County,
Scott County, Sibley County, Stevens County, Swift County,
Traverse County, Washington County, Wilkin County, Wright
County, and Yellow Medicine County.
Mississippi Counties
Adams County, Alcorn County, Attala County, Benton County,
Bolivar County, Calhoun County, Carroll County, Chickasaw
County, Choctaw County, Claiborne County, Clarke County, Clay
County, Coahoma County, DeSoto County, Greene County, Hinds
County, Holmes County, Humphreys County, Issaquena County,
Itawamba County, Jasper County, Jefferson County, Kemper
County, Lafayette County, Lee County, Marshall County, Monroe
County, Montgomery County, Neshoba County, Newton County,
Noxubee County, Panola County, Prentiss County, Quitman
County, Scott County, Sharkey County, Smith County, Tate
County, Tippah County, Tishomingo County, Tunica County,
Union County, Warren County, Washington County, Webster
County, Wilkinson County, Winston County, and Yazoo County.
Missouri Counties
Barry County, Bollinger County, Butler County, Cape
Girardeau County, Carter County, Christian County, Douglas
County, Dunklin County, Howell County, Iron County, Jasper
County, Madison County, McDonald County, Miller County,
Mississippi County, New Madrid County, Newton County, Oregon
County, Ozark County, Pemiscot County, Perry County, Pettis
County, Polk County, Reynolds County, Ripley County, Saint
Francois County, Saint Louis County, Sainte Genevieve County,
Scott County, Shannon County, Stoddard County, Stone County,
Taney County, Texas County, Washington County, Wayne County,
Webster County, and Wright County.
Montana Counties and Indian Reservations
Big Horn County, Blaine County, Broadwater County, Carbon
County, Carter County, Cascade County, Chouteau County, Crow
Indian Reservation, Custer County, Dawson County, Fallon
County, Fergus County, Fort Belknap Indian Reservation,
Garfield County, Golden Valley County, Hill County, Judith
Basin County, McCone County, Meagher County, Musselshell
County, Petroleum County, Phillips County, Powder River
County, Prairie County, Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation,
Roosevelt County, Rosebud County, Stillwater County, Sweet
Grass County, Treasure County, Valley County, Wheatland
County, Wibaux County, and Yellowstone County.
New York Counties
Allegany County, Broome County, Chemung County, Chenango
County, Clinton County, Delaware County, Essex County,
Franklin County, Hamilton County, Herkimer County, Lewis
County, Livingston County, Madison County, Niagara County,
Oneida County, Onondaga County, Ontario County, Steuben
County, Tioga County, Ulster County, Warren County, Wyoming
County, and Yates County.
North Carolina Counties
Alamance County, Bertie County, Bladen County, Craven
County, Cumberland County, Currituck County, Greene County,
Halifax County, Harnett County, Hertford County, Hoke County,
Johnston County, Lee County, Onslow County, Pitt County,
Robeson County, Sampson County, Tyrrell County, Wake
County, and Wilson County.
North Dakota Counties and Indian Reservations
Barnes County, Benson County, Billings County, Bottineau
County, Burke County, Burleigh County, Cass County, Cavalier
County, Dickey County, Divide County, Eddy County, Fort
Berthold Indian Reservation, Foster County, Grand Forks
County, Grant County, Griggs County, Kidder County, LaMoure
County, Logan County, McHenry County, McIntosh County,
McKenzie County, McLean County, Mercer County, Morton County,
Mountrail County, Nelson County, Pembina County, Pierce
County, Ramsey County, Ransom County, Renville County,
Richland County, Rolette County, Sargent County, Sheridan
County, Spirit Lake Reservation, Steele County, Stutsman
County, Towner County, Traill County, Turtle Mountain Indian
Reservation, Walsh County, Ward County, Wells County, and
Williams County.
Oklahoma Counties
Adair County, Caddo County, Canadian County, Cherokee
County, Delaware County, Grady County, Haskell County,
Kingfisher County, Le Fiore County, Logan County, McClain
County, McIntosh County,
[[Page H4924]]
Muskogee County, Okmulgee County, Pittsburg County, and
Sequoyah County.
Oregon Counties
Clackamas County, Clatsop County, Coos County, Crook
County, Curry County, Douglas County, Lincoln County, and
Tillamook County.
South Dakota Counties
Aurora County, Beadle County, Brookings County, Brown
County, Buffalo County, Butte County, Charles Mix County,
Clark County, Clay County, Codington County, Day County,
Deuel County, Edmunds County, Faulk County, Grant County,
Hamlin County, Hand County, Hanson County, Hughes County,
Hutchinson County, Hyde County, Jackson County, Jerauld
County, Kingsbury County, Lake County, Marshall County, Miner
County, Moody County, Perkins County, Potter County, Roberts
County, Sanborn County, Spink County, Stanley County, Sully
County, Union County, and Yankton County.
Tennessee Counties
Benton County, Bledsoe County, Blount County, Bradley
County, Campbell County, Carroll County, Chester County,
Cocke County, Crockett County, Davidson County, Decatur
County, Dickson County, Dyer County, Fayette County, Fentress
County, Franklin County, Gibson County, Giles County,
Grainger County, Greene County, Hamilton County, Hardeman
County, Hardin County, Henderson County, Henry County,
Hickman County, Houston County, Humphreys County, Jackson
County, Jefferson County, Johnson County, Knox County, Lake
County, Lauderdale County, Lawrence County, Lewis County,
Lincoln County, Loudon County, Madison County, Marion County,
Marshall County, McMinn County, McNairy County, Monroe
County, Montgomery County, Moore County, Morgan County, Obion
County, Perry County, Pickett County, Polk County, Rhea
County, Scott County, Sequatchie County, Shelby County, Smith
County, Stewart County, Sullivan County, Sumner County,
Tipton County, Union County, Washington County, Wayne County,
and Weakley County.
Utah Counties
Garfield County, Kane County, and Washington County.
Vermont Counties
Addison County, Chittenden County, Essex County, Franklin
County, Grand Isle County, Lamoille County, and Orleans
County.
Washington Counties
King County, Kittitas County, Klickitat County, Lewis
County, Skagit County, Skamania County, and Wahkiakum County.
7 States For Which an Emergency has been Declared in 2011 for flooding*
Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North
Dakota, Tennessee
116 Counties in 7 States Covered by Emergency Declaration in 2011 for
flooding*
Kansas Counties
Atchison County, Doniphan County, Leavenworth County, and
Wyandotte County.
Louisiana Counties
Ascension Parish, Assumption Parish, Avoyelles Parish,
Catahoula Parish, Concordia Parish, East Baton Rouge Parish,
East Carroll Parish, East Feliciana Parish, Franklin Parish,
Iberia Parish, lberville Parish, La Salle Parish, Lafourche
Parish, Madison Parish, Pointe Coupee Parish, Richland
Parish, Saint Charles Parish, Saint James Parish, Saint John
the Baptist Parish, Saint Landry Parish, Saint Martin Parish,
Saint Mary Parish, Tensas Parish, Terrebonne Parish, West
Baton Rouge Parish, and West Feliciana Parish.
Mississippi Counties
Adams County, Bolivar County, Claiborne County, Coahoma
County, DeSoto County, Humphreys County, Issaquena County,
Jefferson County, Sharkey County, Tunica County, Warren
County, Washington County, Wilkinson County, and Yazoo
County.
Missouri Counties
Andrew County, Atchison County, Boone County, Buchanan
County, Callaway County, Carroll County, Chariton County,
Clark County, Clay County, Cole County, Cooper County,
Franklin County, Gasconade County, Holt County, Howard
County, Jackson County, Lafayette County, Lewis County,
Moniteau County, Montgomery County, Osage County, Platte
County, Ray County, Saint Charles County, Saint Louis, Saint
Louis County, Saline County, and Warren County.
Nebraska Counties
Boyd County, Burt County, Cass County, Cedar County, Dakota
County, Dixon County, Douglas County, Garden County, Knox
County, Lincoln County, Morrill County, Nemaha County, Otoe
County, Richardson County, Sarpy County, Scotts Bluff County,
Thurston County, and Washington County.
North Dakota Counties
Barnes County, Benson County, Burleigh County, Cass County,
Eddy County, Emmons County, Grand Forks County, McLean
County, Mercer County, Morton County, Nelson County, Oliver
County, Pembina County, Ramsey County, Ransom County,
Richland County, Sioux County, Standing Rock Indian
Reservation (also SD), Towner County, Traill County, Walsh
County, and Ward County.
Tennessee Counties
Dyer County, Lake County, Shelby County, and Stewart
County.
* Data is based on information publicly available on the
Federal Agency Management Association (FEMA) website at:
http://www.fema.govinews/disasters.fema.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this motion to
recommit, and I must say that I'm very disappointed in my friends on
the other side of the aisle for offering up yet another politically
motivated motion, especially considering that the flood insurance bill
passed out of the Financial Services Committee 54-0; 54-0 out of the
Financial Services Committee.
On top of that, we spent the majority of today debating the bill
before the House and entertaining some 25 motions and amendments to the
bill. The motion to recommit cynically undermines the broad bipartisan
cooperation I have been pleased to see throughout this legislative
process.
Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the type of political bickering that the
American people have loudly rejected. This circumvents the flood
insurance program. It is actually a disservice to the people who you
are attempting to try to help. The point of flood insurance is to
prevent assistance packages like this and should be taken up in regular
order. We have no idea of the cost of the new grants, the new programs,
and the new spending in this disaster relief package.
It prohibits us from charging actuarial rates. What the flood
insurance bill tries to do is infuse more private sector solutions, put
in a new map, and provide actuarial rates which will help benefit the
American public. Over 5 million residents and commercial properties
rely on flood insurance today; 20,000 American communities rely on it.
We must make sure that this flood insurance bill goes through, not
circumvent the process with some disaster relief package.
This is an attempt to have an insurance program without paying the
premiums. Frankly, we can't afford to do that. I would urge my
colleagues, especially those on the Financial Services Committee who
again passed it out of committee 54-0, to vote ``no'' on this motion to
recommit.
I want to thank the chairmen, Chairman Biggert and the chairman of
the full committee, Chairman Bachus, and also the ranking member, Mr.
Frank, and the ranking member in the subcommittee, Ms. Waters, for
their leadership. What we don't need now is to have the other side try
to circumvent this process with a disaster relief bill.
I urge my colleagues on this side and that side to support the
underlying bill and reject the motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered; and the motion to
suspend the rules on H.R. 2417.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181,
noes 244, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 561]
AYES--181
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
[[Page H4925]]
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--244
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Deutch
Giffords
Himes
Hinchey
Rush
Stearns
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Webster) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1831
Mr. COSTA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BUTTERFIELD 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:
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 561 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
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 is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 406,
noes 22, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 562]
AYES--406
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
[[Page H4926]]
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--22
Amash
Benishek
Broun (GA)
Chaffetz
Duncan (TN)
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Graves (GA)
Higgins
Huelskamp
Labrador
Mack
McClintock
Miller (MI)
Paul
Petri
Quayle
Rohrabacher
Sensenbrenner
Walsh (IL)
Yoder
NOT VOTING--3
Deutch
Giffords
Hinchey
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1839
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________