[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 77 (Tuesday, June 4, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3920-S3921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, as is obvious, the people of South 
Louisiana have been through a whole lot in the last several years--
Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, many significant hurricanes since 
then, most recently Hurricane Isaac, and the BP oil disaster, to name 
just a few really trying tragedies.
  But now, having survived all of that, having endured through all of 
that, many residents of South Louisiana think they face a challenge 
which is even greater and which is completely wholly manmade; that is, 
the challenge presented by new changes to the National Flood Insurance 
Program that many South Louisiana residents fear could make staying in 
their homes that they built, following all the rules every step of the 
way, unaffordable. That is a crying shame. We must avoid that happening 
at all costs.
  First of all, let me underscore that I talk about the folks of South 
Louisiana because I represent them. They have been through so much. But 
this is a national concern which potentially affects tens of millions 
of residents all around the country, in every one of the 50 States. 
That too is a reason we must solve this problem.
  Again, it is simple. When we reauthorized the National Flood 
Insurance Program last year, when we finally got past only renewing 
that program by fits and starts for a very short-term period, we put 
into the law several reforms that were supposed to make the program 
fiscally sound. However, as some of those reforms are beginning to be 
implemented, they threaten to produce sky-high flood insurance premiums 
that no one at the time we debated these changes--no one at FEMA, no 
one in private insurance, and no outside expert--forecasted.
  These sky-high premiums, if they are allowed to happen, threaten two 
things: First of all, they threaten, as I said, many good, hard-working 
taxpayers, residents who have followed all of the rules every step of 
the way in building their homes, in renovating their homes, and buying 
flood insurance. They threaten their being able to stay in their homes. 
They threaten the affordability of living that big part of the American 
dream. Second, they threaten making the National Flood Insurance 
Program sound because if significant numbers of folks cannot stay in 
their homes, cannot afford flood insurance, cannot pay into the system 
and therefore leave the system, potentially turn over their keys to the 
bank, walk away, certainly leave the national flood insurance system, 
perhaps leave home ownership, that is a big defeat for the fiscal 
soundness of the National Flood Insurance Program as well.
  About 2\1/2\ weeks ago I was in Bayou Gauche, which is a middle-class 
neighborhood in St. Charles Parish, LA, up the river from New Orleans. 
I stood in the driveway of a home owned by homeowners who are facing 
just this crisis, just this challenge. As I said a few minutes ago, 
they have survived a whole lot over the last several years: Hurricane 
Katrina, Hurricane Rita to their west, many major hurricanes since 
then, including most recently Hurricane Isaac and the BP oilspill, the 
BP disaster. They have survived more than they ever imagined was 
possible in a lifetime. Yet now they are fearful that their greatest 
challenge is yet ahead. Their greatest challenge is completely 
manmade--the fact that some of these new changes to the National Flood 
Insurance Program could cost them their house, could make their staying 
in that solid middle-class neighborhood and in their house 
unaffordable.
  When I was there, when we were talking about this challenge with many 
local residents and leaders, those homeowners presented me with this 
box of keys. It is pretty heavy, but I want the Presiding Officer and 
everyone on the floor to see it. These are hundreds of house keys that 
have been put in this box by homeowners who face the same threat, who 
say that if the right reforms and changes are not made, they are 
handing over these keys. They are handing them over to FEMA, they are 
handing them over to the Federal Government, they are handing them over 
to the bank because their homes will no longer be affordable. They have 
to have flood insurance if they have any mortgage. Virtually everybody 
has to have a mortgage to afford their house over time. If flood 
insurance rates go sky high and rates are really unaffordable, they 
will be handing over these keys for good.
  They all know and expect that there are going to have to be changes 
to the program and some significant increases for the program to be 
fiscally sound and pay for itself. They are not arguing with that. I am 
not arguing with that. What we are arguing against is completely 
unaffordable premium increases, things that will literally drive 
middle-class families out of their homes and out of their neighborhoods 
and make their American dream completely unaffordable. That should not 
be allowed to happen. That should not be allowed to happen because it 
is wrong to give them that uncertainty and that future when they have 
followed the rules every step of the way as they existed under the 
National Flood Insurance Program, under their mortgage, under 
everything else. It should not be allowed to happen because it will 
mean we will never achieve fiscal sustainability if tens of thousands 
and potentially hundreds of thousands of people around the country exit 
the program as they are threatening to do.
  We need to take action to be able to assure these homeowners that 
will not happen to them. With that goal in mind, I am pursuing several 
things.
  First of all, some of this can and must be fixed administratively at 
FEMA. I have led several delegations to FEMA to talk about this, to 
demand that they do what they can under their authority--particularly 
under the so-called LAMP process--to make sure they get it right, 
particularly in drafting and issuing new flood maps. LAMP is the new 
process that is under way at FEMA under which they are supposed to take 
into account, in making new maps, all flood protections, all features 
that are there on the ground to provide homeowners under that terrain 
flood protection, even if it is less than a 100-year level of 
protection. FEMA is still in the midst of their LAMP process. They are 
not finished by a long shot. We have to make sure FEMA gets that right, 
builds all protection features into their new map before any of those 
new maps and any of those rates take effect. That is just the biggest 
example

[[Page S3921]]

of what FEMA needs to do to get it right, what they can do under their 
authority.
  Part of this challenge is definitely administrative. That is why I 
have led those groups to FEMA and why FEMA needs to get it right. That 
is also why I will be presenting this box of home keys to FEMA later 
this week at the request of these Louisiana homeowners.
  The other part of our challenge is that we get it right legislatively 
because, in addition to everything FEMA can and must do, there probably 
also needs to be changes to Biggert-Waters to ensure homeowners are not 
thrown out of their homes because flood insurance is now unaffordable. 
That is why I have teamed up with the senior Senator from Mississippi, 
Thad Cochran, in introducing the Vitter-Cochran measure to fix 
provisions in the National Flood Insurance Program. It will do several 
things, at least four that are significant:

  First, it would ensure that communities that are developing new maps 
by the end of this year will be able to maintain the old grandfathered 
rates that are subject to change in section 207 of Biggert-Waters.
  Second, the bill would allow a 5-year phase-in of actuarially sound 
rates for newly purchased homes to require a reasonable phase-in to 
those higher rates.
  Third, the bill would authorize State and local governments 
flexibility to directly subsidize homeowners' flood-insured properties 
if that can be part of a solution as well.
  Fourth, it would require that a minimum of 25 percent of mitigation 
funding go directly to homeowners in a given year for programs and help 
that directly impacts homeowners, such as home elevation.
  I will be advancing that bill along with Thad Cochran and many other 
interested Members. We will also be looking for amendment opportunities 
to advance those ideas and those provisions as well. Certainly, I am 
joining with my other colleagues from Louisiana, from the Sandy-hit 
area in the Northeast, and from all parts of the country to advance 
these fixes.
  Senator Landrieu has an amendment on the farm bill which is on the 
Senate floor now of which I am cosponsor, and I am certainly working 
with her and many other Members to get this fix, to get it done, to 
reassure these threatened homeowners that help is on the way. We need 
to do this. We need to preserve the American dream and treat these 
people right, not make their middle-class homes and middle-class 
neighborhoods all of a sudden, through no fault of their own, 
unaffordable. We need to do it for the very goal of putting the 
National Flood Insurance Program on fiscally sound footing because if 
we have tens or hundreds of thousands of residents exiting the program, 
turning their keys over, turning them in to FEMA, turning them in to 
the bank, the National Flood Insurance Program will never get to that 
fiscally sound basis. We will have people exiting the system, no longer 
able to pay premiums. We need to get it right for them. We need to get 
it right for the American dream.
  I look forward to working with all of our colleagues in doing so 
because, again, I started at the beginning talking about what South 
Louisiana has been through--many hurricanes and the BP disaster and 
more. But this is not a parochial issue. It is not a Katrina issue. It 
is not a Sandy issue. It is far broader than this. This movie is coming 
to a theater near you. I urge Members to learn about that threatened 
impact on their constituents, on their homeowners, and to immediately 
join me and many others in this effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________