Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 36 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2128-H2139]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

HOMEOWNER FLOOD INSURANCE AFFORDABILITY ACT OF 2014

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3370) to delay the implementation of certain provisions of
the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 3370

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 ``Homeowner
Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Repeal of certain rate increases.
Sec. 4. Restoration of grandfathered rates.
Sec. 5. Requirements regarding annual rate increases.
Sec. 6. Clarification of rates for properties newly mapped into areas
with special flood hazards.
Sec. 7. Premiums and reports.
Sec. 8. Annual premium surcharge.
Sec. 9. Draft affordability framework.
Sec. 10. Risk transfer.
Sec. 11. Monthly installment payment for premiums.
Sec. 12. Optional high-deductible policies for residential properties.
Sec. 13. Exclusion of detached structures from mandatory purchase
requirement.
Sec. 14. Accounting for flood mitigation activities in estimates of
premium rates.
Sec. 15. Home improvement fairness.
Sec. 16. Affordability study and report.
Sec. 17. Flood insurance rate map certification.
Sec. 18. Funds to reimburse homeowners for successful map appeals.
Sec. 19. Flood protection systems.
Sec. 20. Quarterly reports regarding Reserve Fund ratio.
Sec. 21. Treatment of floodproofed residential basements.
Sec. 22. Exemption from fees for certain map change requests.
Sec. 23. Study of voluntary community-based flood insurance options.
Sec. 24. Designation of flood insurance advocate.
Sec. 25. Exceptions to escrow requirement for flood insurance payments.
Sec. 26. Flood mitigation methods for buildings.
Sec. 27. Mapping of non-structural flood mitigation features.
Sec. 28. Clear communications.
Sec. 29. Protection of small businesses, non-profits, houses of
worship, and residences.
Sec. 30. Mapping.
Sec. 31. Disclosure.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this title, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
(2) National flood insurance program.--The term ``National
Flood Insurance Program'' means the program established under
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et
seq.).

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF CERTAIN RATE INCREASES.

(a) Repeal.--
(1) In general.--Section 1307(g) of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014(g)) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2);
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``as a result of the
deliberate choice of the holder of such policy'' and
inserting ``, unless the decision of the policy holder to
permit a lapse in flood insurance coverage was as a result of
the property covered by the policy no longer being required
to retain such coverage'' ; and
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(1) and (2), respectively.
(2) Effective date.--The Administrator shall promulgate
such regulations, and make available such rate tables, as
necessary to implement the amendments made by paragraph (1)
as if it were enacted as part of the Biggert-Waters Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-141; 126 Stat.
957).
(3) Iimplementation, coordination, and guidance.--
(A) Facilitation of timely refunds.--To ensure the
participation of Write Your Own companies (as such term is
defined in section 100202(a) of the Biggert-Waters Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 4004(a)), the
Administrator and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
shall consult with Write Your Own companies throughout the
development of guidance and rate tables necessary to
implement the provisions of and the amendments made by this
Act.
(B) Implementation and guidance.--The Administrator shall
issue final guidance and rate tables necessary to implement
the provisions of and the amendments made by this Act not
later than eight months following the date of the enactment
of this Act. Write Your Own companies, in coordination with
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, shall have not less
than six months but not more than eight months following the
issuance of such final guidance and rate tables to implement
the changes required by such final guidance and rate tables.
(4) Refund of excess premium charges collected.--The
Administrator shall refund directly to insureds any premiums
for flood insurance coverage under the National Flood
Insurance Program collected in excess of the rates required
under the provisions of and amendments made by this section.
To allow for necessary and appropriate implementation of such
provisions and amendments, any premium changes necessary to
implement such provisions and amendments, including any such
premium refund due to policy holders, which shall be paid
directly by the National Flood Insurance Program, shall not
be charged or paid to policyholders by the National Flood
Insurance Program until after the Administrator issues
guidance and makes available such rate tables to implement
the provisions of and amendments made by this Act.
(b) Assumption of Policies at Existing Premium Rates.--The
Administrator shall provide that the purchaser of a property
that, as of the date of such purchase, is covered under an
existing flood insurance policy under this title may assume
such existing policy and coverage for the remainder of the
term of the policy at the chargeable premium rates under such
existing policy. Such rates shall continue with respect to
such property until the implementation of subsection (a).

SEC. 4. RESTORATION OF GRANDFATHERED RATES.

(a) In General.--Section 1308 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (h); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (h).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if enacted as part of the Biggert-Waters
Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-141; 126
Stat. 957).

SEC. 5. REQUIREMENTS REGARDING ANNUAL RATE INCREASES.

Section 1308(e) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4015(e)) is amended--

[[Page H2129]]

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``,
the chargeable risk premium rates for flood insurance under
this title for any properties'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``the chargeable risk
premium rates for flood insurance under this title for any
properties'' before ``within any'';
(3) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``the chargeable risk
premium rates for flood insurance under this title for any
properties'' before ``described in'';
(4) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2), as so amended,
as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and
(5) by inserting before paragraph (3), as so redesignated,
the following new paragraphs:
``(1) the chargeable risk premium rate for flood insurance
under this title for any property may not be increased by
more than 18 percent each year, except--
``(A) as provided in paragraph (4);
``(B) in the case of property identified under section
1307(g); or
``(C) in the case of a property that--
``(i) is located in a community that has experienced a
rating downgrade under the community rating system program
carried out under section 1315(b);
``(ii) is covered by a policy with respect to which the
policyholder has--

``(I) decreased the amount of the deductible; or
``(II) increased the amount of coverage; or

``(iii) was misrated;
``(2) the chargeable risk premium rates for flood insurance
under this title for any properties initially rated under
section 1307(a)(2) within any single risk classification,
excluding properties for which the chargeable risk premium
rate is not less than the applicable estimated risk premium
rate under section 1307(a)(1), shall be increased by an
amount that results in an average of such rate increases for
properties within the risk classification during any 12-month
period of not less than 5 percent of the average of the risk
premium rates for such properties within the risk
classification upon the commencement of such 12-month
period;'';
(6) in paragraph (3) (as so redesignated by paragraph (4)
of this section), by striking ``20 percent'' and inserting
``15 percent''; and
(7) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated) by paragraph (4)
of this section), by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting
``paragraph (3)''.

SEC. 6. CLARIFICATION OF RATES FOR PROPERTIES NEWLY MAPPED
INTO AREAS WITH SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARDS.

Section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4015), as amended by the preceding provisions of
this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(i) Rates for Properties Newly Mapped Into Areas With
Special Flood Hazards.--Notwithstanding subsection (f), the
premium rate for flood insurance under this title that is
purchased on or after the date of the enactment of this
subsection--
``(1) on a property located in an area not previously
designated as having special flood hazards and that, pursuant
to any issuance, revision, updating, or other change in a
flood insurance map, becomes designated as such an area, and
``(2) where such flood insurance premium rate is calculated
under subsection (a)(1) of section 1307 (42 U.S.C.
4014(a)(1)),
shall for the first policy year be the preferred risk premium
for the property and upon renewal shall be calculated in
accordance with subsection (e) of this section until the rate
reaches the rate calculated under subsection (a)(1) of
section 1307.''.

SEC. 7. PREMIUMS AND REPORTS.

Section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4015), as amended by the preceding provisions of
this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(j) Premiums and Reports.--In setting premium risk rates,
in addition to striving to achieve the objectives of this
title the Administrator shall also strive to minimize the
number of policies with annual premiums that exceed one
percent of the total coverage provided by the policy. For any
policies premiums that exceed this one percent threshold, the
Administrator shall report such exceptions to the Committee
on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate.''.

SEC. 8. ANNUAL PREMIUM SURCHARGE.

(a) Premium Surcharge.--Chapter I of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4011 et seq.) is amended by
inserting after section 1308 the following new section:

``SEC. 1308A. PREMIUM SURCHARGE.

``(a) Imposition and Collection.--The Administrator shall
impose and collect an annual surcharge, in the amount
provided in subsection (b), on all policies for flood
insurance coverage under the National Flood Insurance Program
that are newly issued or renewed after the date of the
enactment of this section. Such surcharge shall be in
addition to the surcharge under section 1304(b) and any other
assessments and surcharges applied to such coverage.
``(b) Amount.--The amount of the surcharge under subsection
(a) shall be--
``(1) $25, except as provided in paragraph (2); and
``(2) $250, in the case of a policy for any property that
is--
``(A) a non-residential property; or
``(B) a residential property that is not the primary
residence of an individual.
``(c) Termination.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall cease to
apply on the date on which the chargeable risk premium rate
for flood insurance under this title for each property
covered by flood insurance under this title, other than
properties for which premiums are calculated under subsection
(e) or (f) of section 1307 or section 1336 of this Act (42
U.S.C. 4014, 4056) or under section 100230 of the Biggert-
Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 4014
note), is not less than the applicable estimated risk premium
rate under section 1307(a)(1) for such property.''.
(b) Deposit in Reserve Fund.--Subsection (c) of section
1310A of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
4017a) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Deposit of premium surcharges.--The Administrator
shall deposit in the Reserve Fund any surcharges collected
pursuant to section 1308A.''.

SEC. 9. DRAFT AFFORDABILITY FRAMEWORK.

(a) In General.--The Administrator shall prepare a draft
affordability framework that proposes to address, via
programmatic and regulatory changes, the issues of
affordability of flood insurance sold under the National
Flood Insurance Program, including issues identified in the
affordability study required under section 100236 of the
Bigger-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law
112-141; 126 Stat. 957).
(b) Criteria.--In carrying out the requirements under
subsection (a), the Administrator shall consider the
following criteria:
(1) Accurate communication to consumers of the flood risk
associated with their properties.
(2) Targeted assistance to flood insurance policy holders
based on their financial ability to continue to participate
in the National Flood Insurance Program.
(3) Individual or community actions to mitigate the risk of
flood or lower the cost of flood insurance.
(4) The impact of increases in risk premium rates on
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.
(5) The impact flood insurance rate map updates have on the
affordability of flood insurance.
(c) Deadline for Submission.--Not later than 18 months
after the date on which the Administrator submits the
affordability study referred to in subsection (a), the
Administrator shall submit to the full Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs and the full Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the full Committee on
Financial Services and the full Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives the draft affordability
framework required under subsection (a).
(d) Interagency Agreements.--The Administrator may enter
into an agreement with another Federal agency to--
(1) complete the affordability study referred to in
subsection (a); or
(2) prepare the draft affordability framework required
under subsection (a).
(e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to provide the Administrator with the authority to
provide assistance to homeowners based on affordability that
was not available prior to the enactment of the Biggert-
Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-
141; 126 Stat. 916).

SEC. 10. RISK TRANSFER.

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:
``(e) Risk Transfer.--The Administrator may secure
reinsurance of coverage provided by the flood insurance
program from the private reinsurance and capital markets 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.''.

SEC. 11. MONTHLY INSTALLMENT PAYMENT FOR PREMIUMS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 1308 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015(g)) is
amended by striking ``either annually or in more frequent
installments'' and inserting ``annually or monthly''.
(b) Implementation.--The Administrator shall implement the
requirement under section 1308(g) of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended by subsection (a), not
later than the expiration of the 18-month period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 12. OPTIONAL HIGH-DEDUCTIBLE POLICIES FOR RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES.

Section 1306 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4013)), as amended by the preceding provisions of
this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(e) Optional High-deductible Policies for Residential
Properties.--
``(1) Availability.--In the case of residential properties,
the Administrator shall make flood insurance coverage
available, at the option of the insured, that provides for a
loss-deductible for damage to the covered property in various
amounts, up to and including $10,000.
``(2) Disclosure.--
``(A) Form.--The Administrator shall provide the
information described in subparagraph (B) clearly and
conspicuously on the application form for flood insurance
coverage or on a separate form, segregated from

[[Page H2130]]

all unrelated information and other required disclosures.
``(B) Information.--The information described in this
subparagraph is--
``(i) information sufficient to inform the applicant of the
availability of the coverage option required by paragraph (1)
to applicants for flood insurance coverage; and
``(ii) a statement explaining the effect of a loss-
deductible and that, in the event of an insured loss, the
insured is responsible out-of-pocket for losses to the extent
of the deductible selected.''.

SEC. 13. EXCLUSION OF DETACHED STRUCTURES FROM MANDATORY
PURCHASE REQUIREMENT.

(a) Exclusion.--Subsection (c) of section 102 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a(c)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Detached structures.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, flood insurance shall not be
required, in the case of any residential property, for any
structure that is a part of such property but is detached
from the primary residential structure of such property and
does not serve as a residence.''.
(b) RESPA Statement.--Section 5(b) of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2604(b)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (14), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, and the following statement:
`Although you may not be required to maintain flood insurance
on all structures, you may still wish to do so, and your
mortgage lender may still require you to do so to protect the
collateral securing the mortgage. If you choose to not
maintain flood insurance on a structure, and it floods, you
are responsible for all flood losses relating to that
structure.' ''; and
(2) by transferring and inserting paragraph (14), as so
amended, after paragraph (13).

SEC. 14. ACCOUNTING FOR FLOOD MITIGATION ACTIVITIES IN
ESTIMATES OF PREMIUM RATES.

Subparagraph (A) of section 1307(a)(1) of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014(a)(1)(A)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) based on consideration of--
``(i) the risk involved and accepted actuarial principles;
and
``(ii) the flood mitigation activities that an owner or
lessee has undertaken on a property, including differences in
the risk involved due to land use measures, floodproofing,
flood forecasting, and similar measures,''.

SEC. 15. HOME IMPROVEMENT FAIRNESS.

Section 1307(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the National Flood Insurance
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014(a)(2)(E)(ii)) is amended by
striking ``30 percent'' and inserting ``50 percent''.

SEC. 16. AFFORDABILITY STUDY AND REPORT.

(a) Study Issues.--Subsection (a) of section 100236 of the
Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law
112-141; 126 Stat. 957) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(5) options for maintaining affordability if annual
premiums for flood insurance coverage were to increase to an
amount greater than 2 percent of the liability coverage
amount under the policy, including options for enhanced
mitigation assistance and means-tested assistance;
``(6) the effects that the establishment of catastrophe
savings accounts would have regarding long-term affordability
of flood insurance coverage; and
``(7) options for modifying the surcharge under 1308A,
including based on homeowner income, property value or risk
of loss.''.
(b) Timing of Submission.--Notwithstanding the deadline
under section 100236(c) of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-141; 126 Stat. 957), not
later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Administrator shall submit to the full Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the full Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the full Committee on
Financial Services and the full Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives the affordability study and
report required under such section 100236.
(c) Affordability Study Funding.--Section 100236(d) of the
Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law
112-141; 126 Stat. 957) is amended by striking ``$750,000''
and inserting ``$2,500,000''.

SEC. 17. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP CERTIFICATION.

The Administrator shall implement a flood mapping program
for the National Flood Insurance Program, only after review
by the Technical Mapping Advisory Council, that, when
applied, results in technically credible flood hazard data in
all areas where Flood Insurance Rate Maps are prepared or
updated, shall certify in writing to the Congress when such a
program has been implemented, and shall provide to the
Congress the Technical Mapping Advisory Council review
report.

SEC. 18. FUNDS TO REIMBURSE HOMEOWNERS FOR SUCCESSFUL MAP
APPEALS.

(a) In General.--Section 1363(f) of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104(f)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting after ``as the case
may be,'' the following: ``or, in the case of an appeal that
is resolved by submission of conflicting data to the
Scientific Resolution Panel provided for in section 1363A,
the community,''; and
(2) by striking the second sentence and inserting the
following: ``The Administrator may use such amounts from the
National Flood Insurance Fund established under section 1310
as may be necessary to carry out this subsection.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1310(a) of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4017(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) for carrying out section 1363(f).''.

SEC. 19. FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEMS.

(a) Adequate Progress on Construction of Flood Protection
Systems.--Section 1307(e) of the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014(e)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``or
reconstruction'' after ``construction'';
(2) by amending the second sentence to read as follows:
``The Administrator shall find that adequate progress on the
construction or reconstruction of a flood protection system,
based on the present value of the completed flood protection
system, has been made only if (1) 100 percent of the cost of
the system has been authorized, (2) at least 60 percent of
the cost of the system has been appropriated, (3) at least 50
percent of the cost of the system has been expended, and (4)
the system is at least 50 percent completed.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, in determining whether a
community has made adequate progress on the construction,
reconstruction, or improvement of a flood protection system,
the Administrator shall consider all sources of funding,
including Federal, State, and local funds.''.
(b) Communities Restoring Disaccredited Flood Protection
Systems.--Section 1307(f) of the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014(f)) is amended by amending the first
sentence to read as follows: ``Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, this subsection shall apply to riverine and
coastal levees that are located in a community which has been
determined by the Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to be in the process of restoring flood
protection afforded by a flood protection system that had
been previously accredited on a Flood Insurance Rate Map as
providing 100-year frequency flood protection but no longer
does so, and shall apply without regard to the level of
Federal funding of or participation in the construction,
reconstruction, or improvement of the flood protection
system.''.

SEC. 20. QUARTERLY REPORTS REGARDING RESERVE FUND RATIO.

Subsection (e) of section 1310A of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4017a) is amended, in the
matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``, on a
calendar quarterly basis,'' after ``submit''.

SEC. 21. TREATMENT OF FLOODPROOFED RESIDENTIAL BASEMENTS.

The Administrator shall continue to extend exceptions and
variances for flood-proofed basements consistent with section
60.6 of title 44, Code of Federal Regulations, which are
effective April 3, 2009; and section 60.3 of such title,
which are effective April 3, 2009.

SEC. 22. EXEMPTION FROM FEES FOR CERTAIN MAP CHANGE REQUESTS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a requester
shall be exempt from submitting a review or processing fee
for a request for a flood insurance rate map change based on
a habitat restoration project that is funded in whole or in
part with Federal or State funds, including dam removal,
culvert redesign or installation, or the installation of fish
passage.

SEC. 23. STUDY OF VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY-BASED FLOOD INSURANCE
OPTIONS.

(a) Study.--
(1) Study required.--The Administrator shall conduct a
study to assess options, methods, and strategies for making
available voluntary community-based flood insurance policies
through the National Flood Insurance Program.
(2) Considerations.--The study conducted under paragraph
(1) shall--
(A) take into consideration and analyze how voluntary
community-based flood insurance policies--
(i) would affect communities having varying economic bases,
geographic locations, flood hazard characteristics or
classifications, and flood management approaches; and
(ii) could satisfy the applicable requirements under
section 102 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42
U.S.C. 4012a); and
(B) evaluate the advisability of making available voluntary
community-based flood insurance policies to communities,
subdivisions of communities, and areas of residual risk.
(3) Consultation.--In conducting the study required under
paragraph (1), the Administrator may consult with the
Comptroller General of the United States, as the
Administrator determines is appropriate.
(b) Report by the Administrator.--
(1) Report required.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit
to the

[[Page H2131]]

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House
of Representatives a report that contains the results and
conclusions of the study conducted under subsection (a).
(2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include recommendations for--
(A) the best manner to incorporate voluntary community-
based flood insurance policies into the National Flood
Insurance Program; and
(B) a strategy to implement voluntary community-based flood
insurance policies that would encourage communities to
undertake flood mitigation activities, including the
construction, reconstruction, or improvement of levees, dams,
or other flood control structures.
(c) Report by Comptroller General.--Not later than 6 months
after the date on which the Administrator submits the report
required under subsection (b), the Comptroller General of the
United States shall--
(1) review the report submitted by the Administrator; and
(2) submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services
of the House of Representatives a report that contains--
(A) an analysis of the report submitted by the
Administrator;
(B) any comments or recommendations of the Comptroller
General relating to the report submitted by the
Administrator; and
(C) any other recommendations of the Comptroller General
relating to community-based flood insurance policies.

SEC. 24. DESIGNATION OF FLOOD INSURANCE ADVOCATE.

(a) In General.--The Administrator shall designate a Flood
Insurance Advocate to advocate for the fair treatment of
policy holders under the National Flood Insurance Program and
property owners in the mapping of flood hazards, the
identification of risks from flood, and the implementation of
measures to minimize the risk of flood.
(b) Duties and Responsibilities.--The duties and
responsibilities of the Flood Insurance Advocate designated
under subsection (a) shall be to--
(1) educate property owners and policyholders under the
National Flood Insurance Program on--
(A) individual flood risks;
(B) flood mitigation;
(C) measures to reduce flood insurance rates through
effective mitigation;
(D) the flood insurance rate map review and amendment
process; and
(E) any changes in the flood insurance program as a result
of any newly enacted laws (including this Act);
(2) assist policy holders under the National Flood
Insurance Program and property owners to understand the
procedural requirements related to appealing preliminary
flood insurance rate maps and implementing measures to
mitigate evolving flood risks;
(3) assist in the development of regional capacity to
respond to individual constituent concerns about flood
insurance rate map amendments and revisions;
(4) coordinate outreach and education with local officials
and community leaders in areas impacted by proposed flood
insurance rate map amendments and revisions; and
(5) aid potential policy holders under the National Flood
Insurance Program in obtaining and verifying accurate and
reliable flood insurance rate information when purchasing or
renewing a flood insurance policy.

SEC. 25. EXCEPTIONS TO ESCROW REQUIREMENT FOR FLOOD INSURANCE
PAYMENTS.

(a) In General.--Section 102(d)(1) of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), in the second sentence, by
striking ``subparagraph (C)'' and inserting ``subparagraph
(B)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) in clause (ii), by redesignating subclauses (I) and
(II) as items (aa) and (bb), respectively, and adjusting the
margins accordingly;
(B) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as subclauses (I)
and (II), respectively, and adjusting the margins
accordingly;
(C) in the matter preceding subclause (I), as redesignated
by subparagraph (B), by striking ``(A) or (B), if--'' and
inserting the following: ``(A)--
``(i) if--'';
(D) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(E) by adding at the end the following
``(ii) in the case of a loan that--

``(I) is in a junior or subordinate position to a senior
lien secured by the same residential improved real estate or
mobile home for which flood insurance is being provided at
the time of the origination of the loan;
``(II) is secured by residential improved real estate or a
mobile home that is part of a condominium, cooperative, or
other project development, if the residential improved real
estate or mobile home is covered by a flood insurance policy
that--

``(aa) meets the requirements that the regulated lending
institution is required to enforce under subsection (b)(1);
``(bb) is provided by the condominium association,
cooperative, homeowners association, or other applicable
group; and
``(cc) the premium for which is paid by the condominium
association, cooperative, homeowners association, or other
applicable group as a common expense;

``(III) is secured by residential improved real estate or a
mobile home that is used as collateral for a business
purpose;
``(IV) is a home equity line of credit;
``(V) is a nonperforming loan; or
``(VI) has a term of not longer than 12 months.''.

(b) Applicability.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Required application.--The amendments to section
102(d)(1) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42
U.S.C. 4012a(d)(1)) made by section 100209(a) of the Biggert-
Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-
141; 126 Stat. 920) and by subsection (a) of this section
shall apply to any loan that is originated, refinanced,
increased, extended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2016.
(B) Optional application.--
(i) Definitions.--In this subparagraph--

(I) the terms ``Federal entity for lending regulation'',
``improved real estate'', ``regulated lending institution'',
and ``servicer'' have the meanings given the terms in section
3 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C.
4003);
(II) the term ``outstanding loan'' means a loan that--

(aa) is outstanding as of January 1, 2016;
(bb) is not subject to the requirement to escrow premiums
and fees for flood insurance under section 102(d)(1) of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a(d)(1))
as in effect on July 5, 2012; and
(cc) would, if the loan had been originated, refinanced,
increased, extended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2016,
be subject to the requirements under section 102(d)(1)(A) of
the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended; and

(III) the term ``section 102(d)(1)(A) of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973, as amended'' means section
102(d)(1)(A) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42
U.S.C. 4012a(d)(1)(A)), as amended by--

(aa) section 100209(a) of the Biggert-Waters Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-141; 126 Stat.
920); and
(bb) subsection (a) of this section.
(ii) Option to escrow flood insurance payments.--Each
Federal entity for lending regulation (after consultation and
coordination with the Federal Financial Institutions
Examination Council) shall, by regulation, direct that each
regulated lending institution or servicer of an outstanding
loan shall offer and make available to a borrower the option
to have the borrower's payment of premiums and fees for flood
insurance under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), including the escrow of such payments,
be treated in the same manner provided under section
102(d)(1)(A) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as
amended.
(2) Repeal of 2-year delay on applicability.--Subsection
(b) of section 100209 of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-141; 126 Stat. 920) is
repealed.
(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section or the
amendments made by this section shall be construed to
supersede, during the period beginning on July 6, 2012 and
ending on December 31, 2015, the requirements under section
102(d)(1) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42
U.S.C. 4012a(d)(1)), as in effect on July 5, 2012.

SEC. 26. FLOOD MITIGATION METHODS FOR BUILDINGS.

(a) Guidelines.--
(1) In general.--Section 1361 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4102) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Flood Mitigation Methods for Buildings.--The
Administrator shall establish guidelines for property owners
that--
``(1) provide alternative methods of mitigation, other than
building elevation, to reduce flood risk to residential
buildings that cannot be elevated due to their structural
characteristics, including--
``(A) types of building materials; and
``(B) types of floodproofing; and
``(2) inform property owners about how the implementation
of mitigation methods described in paragraph (1) may affect
risk premium rates for flood insurance coverage under the
National Flood Insurance Program.''.
(2) Issuance.--The Administrator shall issue the guidelines
required under section 1361(d) of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4102(d)), as added by the
amendment made by paragraph (1) of this subsection, not later
than the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Calculation of Risk Premium Rates.--Section 1308 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015), as
amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is further
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(k) Consideration of Mitigation Methods.--In calculating
the risk premium rate charged for flood insurance for a
property under this section, the Administrator shall take
into account the implementation of any mitigation method
identified by the Administrator in the guidance issued under
section 1361(d) (42 U.S.C. 4102(d)).''.

SEC. 27. MAPPING OF NON-STRUCTURAL FLOOD MITIGATION FEATURES.

Section 100216 of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 4101b) is amended--

[[Page H2132]]

(1) in subsection (b)(1)(A)--
(A) in clause (iv), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (vi);
(C) by inserting after clause (iv) the following new
clause:
``(v) areas that are protected by non-structural flood
mitigation features; and''; and
(D) in clause (vi) (as so redesignated), by inserting
before the semicolon at the end the following: ``and by non-
structural flood mitigation features''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(1)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (C) as
subparagraphs (B) through (D), respectively;
(B) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated), by striking
``subparagraph (A)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B)''; and
(C) by inserting before subparagraph (B) (as so
redesignated) the following new subparagraph:
``(A) work with States, local communities, and property
owners to identify areas and features described in subsection
(b)(1)(A)(v);''.

SEC. 28. CLEAR COMMUNICATIONS.

Section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4015), as amended by the preceding provisions of
this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(l) Clear Communications.--The Administrator shall
clearly communicate full flood risk determinations to
individual property owners regardless of whether their
premium rates are full actuarial rates.''.

SEC. 29. PROTECTION OF SMALL BUSINESSES, NON-PROFITS, HOUSES
OF WORSHIP, AND RESIDENCES.

Section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4015), as amended by the preceding provisions of
this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(m) Protection of Small Businesses, Non-profits, Houses
of Worship, and Residences.--
``(1) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the enactment of this section and semiannually thereafter,
the Administrator shall monitor and report to Committee on
Financial Services of the House Representatives and the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate, the Administrator's assessment of the impact, if any,
of the rate increases required under subparagraphs (A) and
(D) of section 1307(a)(2) and the surcharges required under
section 1308A on the affordability of flood insurance for--
``(A) small businesses with less than 100 employees;
``(B) non-profit entities;
``(C) houses of worship; and
``(D) residences with a value equal to or less than 25
percent of the median home value of properties in the State
in which the property is located.
``(2) Recommendations.--If the Administrator determines
that the rate increases or surcharges described in paragraph
(1) are having a detrimental effect on affordability,
including resulting in lapsed policies, late payments, or
other criteria related to affordability as identified by the
Administrator, for any of the properties identified in
subparagraphs (A) through (D) of such paragraph, the
Administrator shall, not later than 3 months after making
such a determination, make such recommendations as the
Administrator considers appropriate to improve affordability
to the Committee on Financial Services of the House
Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate.''.

SEC. 30. MAPPING.

Section 100216(d)(1) of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 4101b(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by striking ``subparagraph (A)'' and inserting
``subparagraph (D)''; and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as
subparagraphs (D), (E), and (G), respectively;
(3) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as so
redesignated, the following new subparagraphs:
``(A) before commencement of any mapping or map updating
process, notify each community affected of the model or
models that the Administrator plans to use in such process
and provide an explanation of why such model or models are
appropriate;
``(B) provide each community affected a 30-day period
beginning upon notification under subparagraph (A) to consult
with the Administrator regarding the appropriateness, with
respect to such community, of the mapping model or models to
be used; provided that consultation by a community pursuant
to this subparagraph shall not waive or otherwise affect any
right of the community to appeal any flood hazard
determinations;
``(C) upon completion of the first Independent Data
Submission, transmit a copy of such Submission to the
affected community, provide the affected community a 30-day
period during which the community may provide data to
Administrator that can be used to supplement or modify the
existing data, and incorporate any data that is consistent
with prevailing engineering principles;''; and
(4) by inserting after subparagraph (E), as so
redesignated, the following new subparagraph:
``(F) not less than 30 days before issuance of any
preliminary map, notify the Senators for each State affected
and each Member of the House of Representatives for each
congressional district affected by the preliminary map in
writing of--
``(i) the estimated schedule for--

``(I) community meetings regarding the preliminary map;
``(II) publication of notices regarding the preliminary map
in local newspapers; and
``(III) the commencement of the appeals process regarding
the map; and

``(ii) the estimated number of homes and businesses that
will be affected by changes contained in the preliminary map,
including how many structures will be that were not
previously located in an area having special flood hazards
will be located within such an area under the preliminary
map; and''.

SEC. 31. DISCLOSURE.

(a) Changes in Rates Resulting From This Act.--Not later
than the date that is 6 months before the date on which any
change in risk premium rates for flood insurance coverage
under the National Flood Insurance Program resulting from
this Act or any amendment made by this Act is implemented,
the Administrator shall make publicly available the rate
tables and underwriting guidelines that provide the basis for
the change.
(b) Report on Policy and Claims Data.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the
Congress a report on the feasibility of--
(A) releasing property-level policy and claims data for
flood insurance coverage under the National Flood Insurance
Program; and
(B) establishing guidelines for releasing property-level
policy and claims data for flood insurance coverage under the
National Flood Insurance Program in accordance with section
552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the
Privacy Act of 1974).
(2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include--
(A) an analysis and assessment of how releasing property-
level policy and claims data for flood insurance coverage
under the National Flood Insurance Program will aid policy
holders and insurers to understand how the Administration
determines actuarial premium rates and assesses flood risks;
and
(B) recommendations for protecting personal information in
accordance with section 552a of title 5, United States Code
(commonly known as the Privacy Act of 1974).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

General Leave

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and submit extraneous materials for the Record on H.R. 3370, as
amended, currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Homeowner Flood
Insurance Affordability Act.
Last Congress, overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate,
including all of my colleagues from West Virginia, voted for the
passage of Biggert-Waters. There was near unanimous agreement that
significant reforms were needed for the program, but when the new flood
insurance rates were published last fall, I began to hear from, and met
with, many West Virginians who were shocked by the increases in their
flood insurance bills that had far exceeded the worst-case scenario in
CBO's projection. In some cases, their only choice was to spend their
life's savings on their flood insurance bills or walk away from their
house, ruining their credit.
The bill before us today will make sure the people who purchased a
home after the passage of Biggert-Waters, only to see their premiums
skyrocket, can stay in their homes. Under this bill, homeowners will
see their premiums rise towards an actuarially sound rate, but on a
path that is much more affordable.
Additionally, we are taking steps to fix some of the mapping issues
in the flood program. Many of my constituents have told me that they
are in a Special Flood Hazard Area, despite no evidence of the area
ever flooding. These two issues address the core problems of the flood
insurance program: unaffordable rates and incorrect mapping.
There is no question that the NFIP is broken. We need to take steps
to put it

[[Page H2133]]

on solid financial footing, but immediately hitting people with
crushing increases in their premiums just because they bought a new
home is not the way to do it, and that was never the original intent of
Biggert-Waters.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3307, the Homeowner Flood
Insurance Affordability Act.
Today, I am pleased to lead the Democratic Party in delivering this
message to the thousands of Americans who are facing unaffordable flood
insurance premiums: relief is on the way.
As we committed to many months ago, Democrats have worked to fix this
problem from the moment we heard about the unintended consequences of
the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act.
Mr. Speaker, because I am the Waters of the Biggert-Waters Flood
Insurance Reform Act, I felt a responsibility to make sure that we deal
with the concerns that were coming to us from our constituents all over
this country. The rate increases were unimaginable. So Democratic
lawmakers in the House and the Senate took action, spearheading
bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate and garnered the support
of a majority of the House of Representatives.
Today, we have worked in good faith with Republican leadership to
achieve a measure that isn't perfect but that will provide real relief
to the thousands of families currently facing unaffordable premiums.
I believe this House measure strikes an important balance, addressing
affordability concerns, bringing accountability to FEMA, and protecting
the stability of the National Flood Insurance Program. The legislation
ends dramatic increases caused by events such as property sales and
restores grandfathered rates for those who played by the rules and
built their properties according to code.
For families hit by unaffordable premium increases, this bill
provides important relief in the form of a refund.
I am proud of the dramatic improvements to this bill that were made
by the Democratic Caucus. These include reasonable limitations on rate
increases that one property can experience, including those newly
mapped into flood zones. We have ensured that when FEMA engages in the
process of remapping, it actually works with communities to make sure
it is being done accurately. We have made FEMA more accountable by
requiring it provide clear and accurate information to anyone who may
be affected by a change in policy.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would not have come together without strong
support and participation from the Democratic Party. I would like to
thank Leader Pelosi and Whip Hoyer, as well as Senator Mary Landrieu
and Representative Cedric Richmond for their leadership, and the
leadership of so many Democratic Members across the country, which was
critical to taking this bill over the finish line. I applaud them. I
strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Let me just say a word of thanks to someone very special on this, Mr.
Eric Cantor, who weighed in and did everything possible to work this
out in a way that we could all be comfortable with. I am pleased for
the opportunity I have had to work with him. I also thank Mr. Grimm. We
started this out when others believed that we could not do anything
about it. Having said all of that, we have come together to do
something good for the people of this country.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Grimm), the author of this legislation and someone without
whose hard work we wouldn't be here today.
Mr. GRIMM. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Mr. Speaker, it is almost surreal standing here right now. I almost
don't believe that I am about to vote on something that I promised my
constituents. It is surreal because I am standing here about to do
something that was the reason I ran for Congress--to be able to lead on
an issue and solve a problem and come home and tell people we actually
got something done that is going to change your life for the better.
I have to say a special thank you to Maxine Waters, the ranking
member, whom I worked with from the beginning; my dear friend, Gregory
Meeks; Cedric Richmond; and Congressman Cassidy, who helped me write
this bill. Without him, I could not have gotten this done. Frank
LoBiondo has been tremendous, as well as Congressman Palazzo. Eric
Cantor has been an absolute champion on this issue.
I just have to say this is truly a collaborative effort.

{time} 1730

You cannot have a more bipartisan bill. At a time when there has been
gridlock and gamesmanship, we have come together to deal with a very,
very important issue because it goes to the heart of what we are here
to do: make people's lives a little bit better.
So I just want to say thank you to so many that worked so hard, and I
will leave the rest of the time for those of my colleagues to explain
some particulars of the bill. Again, thank you so much.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Meeks) who has worked so hard on this bill, who serves on the
Financial Services Committee and has been intimately involved with it.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank Ranking Member Waters and
my good friend, Michael Grimm, for working collectively to make this
bill happen.
You see, it was just 17 months ago that residents in my congressional
district, the Fifth Congressional District of New York, and others
throughout America were devastated by Superstorm Sandy. Little did they
know then that they were about to be hit by another storm.
Then came FEMA with astronomical rate increases to their flood
insurance program. Two strikes in the midst of severe recession, and
many of them were out.
This bill, today, once we pass it, and once the Senate passes it, it
will finally give relief to individuals who were wondering what they
were going to do, many whom had to pay already these astronomical
rates. Help is on its way. You will get reimbursed.
Many who did not know what the values of their property would be and,
if they choose down the road to sell it, whether they would be able to
do it. Help is on its way. This bill fixes that.
I congratulate both sides.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is, tragically, going broke.
Our national debt, which has skyrocketed under this President, is
clearly, by any measure, on a dangerous and unsustainable path, a path
that, if unaltered, will leave our children with less freedom, fewer
opportunities, and a lower standard of living. That is beyond unfair.
That is immoral.
One reason America is going broke is because of poorly designed and
costly government-run insurance programs. The National Flood Insurance
Program is one such program.
Its chief administrator has already testified that ``the NFIP was, by
statute and design, not actuarially sound.'' In fact, the program
charges only 70 percent of what its administrators believe they
actually need. Perhaps that is why the program is currently $24 billion
in the red to taxpayers and has no way to ever repay them.
The NFIP is not financially sound because pretty much every
policyholder receives taxpayer subsidies. Some get explicit subsidies
because the law prohibits the program from charging a full and fair
rate based upon their calculated actuarial risk.
Others receive implicit subsidies because, according to the GAO, the
program uses a faulty model that under-measures flood risk.
At the end of the day, the program forces roughly 96 percent of all
Americans to subsidize the remaining 4 percent, regardless of income or
need. That means a single mom in Dallas, where I live, who is working
hard as a cashier at the Albertsons grocery store may be forced to
subsidize the flood insurance for some millionaire's beachfront
vacation home. If that is not the definition of unfair, I don't know
what is.

[[Page H2134]]

To its credit, in 2012, Congress recognized that the government-run
flood insurance program was fundamentally broken and unfair. We passed,
almost unanimously, the Biggert-Waters Act. It phases out most of the
explicit subsidies over the next few years and requires rates to be
more closely based on a property's actuarial degree of flood risk.
Now, the first premiums under Biggert-Waters are starting to come
due. There is sticker shock, some based on fact, some based on fear.
Clearly, there are many, many, across our Nation who have been
unaware of their taxpayer-funded subsidies. There are some who simply
can't afford the new premiums, and others who are now having trouble
attempting to sell their homes.
This should be addressed by Congress, and that is why, over the last
8 weeks, Chairman Neugebauer and myself have put four different plans
on the tables for Members who approached us about making modifications
to the Biggert-Waters Act.
We agreed to go slower on reforms and to temporarily cap payments as
long as the program would eventually require all property owners to pay
the fair amount that they owe and, overall, the program would begin to
bring in more income so taxpayers could avoid yet another bailout.
Regrettably, that is not the approach we are debating today. The
House bill before us, although technically PAYGO compliant, would
postpone actuarially sound rates for perhaps a generation. It would
kill off a key element of risk-based pricing permanently, which is
necessary if we are to ever transition to market competition.
Finally, it creates brand new subsidies for a program that is already
bailout broke.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill isn't any better. It essentially
represents a 4-year freeze that is not PAYGO compliant. My fear is that
either bill represents a big step backwards from reform and leaves us
just a few hurricanes or a few short years away from the next taxpayer
bailout.
Either bill will make it incredibly difficult to do what Congress
must do, and that is phase out this unneeded, government-run insurance
program that fundamentally represents both an unfair and unsustainable
middle-income entitlement.
I respect my colleagues who have a different view. I respect my
leadership for bringing a bill that may not be optimum to the floor.

But, Mr. Speaker, if we don't protect taxpayers today, how will we
ever reform the gargantuan middle-income entitlements that put us on
the precipice of a debt crisis?
I, for one, will vote ``no'' on this well-intended but misguided
bill.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Richmond), one of the coauthors of the bill that we put
together to deal with this issue who has been working very hard on it.
Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Waters, and thank
you to the Republican leadership who brought this up.
We often hear in this Chamber over and over again a talk of a
financial bankruptcy that is plaguing or potentially plaguing our
country, and we say it so much so that we start to believe it, and we
miss one thing: that we are on the verge of a moral bankruptcy in this
country.
When you talk about homeowners who played by the rules, saved their
money, bought a piece of the American Dream, and then all of a sudden,
years, if not decades later, we come back with a well-intentioned bill
but that had unfortunate, unintended consequences that would strip the
American Dream and homeownership right from under them, then the
question becomes to this Congress: What do you do about it?
I said this before and I will say it again. What real leadership does
when they do something and they realize it had unintended consequences,
they fix it.
Congresswoman Waters realized that her name was attached to a bill
that potentially would strip homeowners of the American Dream, of the
largest piece of investment that you pass on from generation to
generation, and she stepped up and said, that is not what we intended.
We are going to fix it.
The Republican leadership, Mr. Grimm, stepped up and said, this is
unsustainable--and more than that, it doesn't make common sense.
So both sides came together to produce a bill that would have
affordability, stability, and predictability.
We talk about rules all the time, that corporations just want to know
the rules so they can play by them. Well, homeowners want to know that
too, and homeowners who built to the building codes and the elevations
that they were required to do at the time should not come back and be
penalized later.
So I just want to, again, congratulate Congresswoman Waters because
people back in New Orleans and in Louisiana today who are celebrating
Fat Tuesday and Mardi Gras and having a good time, they can just party
a little bit longer knowing that we are here today and we are going to
fix this problem that could strip the American Dream away from them.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), the chairman of the Housing and Insurance
Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to H.R. 3370. The National
Flood Insurance Program is in trouble. It is in deep debt, and it is
putting taxpayers at risk for another government bailout.
The program was added to the GAO's ``high-risk list'' in 2006 and
remains there today because of the financial exposure it represents to
the American taxpayers. Today, it is over $24 billion in debt, and this
number will continue to rise.
Recognizing this, Congress passed the Biggert-Waters Act in July of
2012. The act authorized the flood insurance program for 5 years and
included important reforms to get it back on sound financial footing.
One of these reforms was the gradual elimination of outdated rate
subsidies.
In a rare display of bipartisanship, Republicans and Democrats
overwhelmingly supported the notion that risk-based premiums were
needed for the program to be self-sufficient and to protect the
taxpayers from further bailouts. Over 400 Members of Congress voted for
that.
Since then, we have heard concerns from homeowners facing sticker
shock from the higher rates. I am sympathetic to those concerns, but I
believe there are more responsible ways to address this bill than the
bill before us today.
The Financial Services Committee put together four different
proposals to address these concerns. The last one included an 8- to 10-
year phase-in for rates and nearly a 2-year affordability cap of
$5,000. Unfortunately, each one of these proposals were rejected
because they fell short of maintaining subsidies indefinitely.
That is unfortunate because maintaining these subsidies hurts
everyone in the long run. It hurts taxpayers by putting them on the
hook for billions of dollars in subsidies. It hurts the Flood Insurance
Program by easing its path toward insolvency. It hurts homeowners by
encouraging them to build in areas that jeopardize their lives and
their properties.
After more than a decade, if I have learned anything in Congress, it
is that the Federal Government does a terrible job of underwriting and
pricing risk. Whether it is through subsidies or failures to price risk
due to political considerations, the American taxpayers, unfortunately,
end up footing the bill.
What is even worse under H.R. 3370 is that the taxpayers will be
subsidizing rates that benefit only 1 percent of households. More than
20 percent of the programs policies are heavily subsidized, regardless
of need, and of those policyholders, 70 percent go to homes in counties
with the highest property values.
While H.R. 3370 may help homeowners facing high rates in the short
run, it does them a disservice by not promoting a healthy, stable
financial program in the future.
For taxpayers, for homeowners and, ultimately, for the future of the
flood insurance, I think we can do better. I urge my colleagues to vote
against H.R. 3370.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), who has spent

[[Page H2135]]

an awful lot of time working on this issue with all of us.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member. I want to thank
Mr. Grimm and others for bringing this bill forward.
You have heard what the bill does. I will tell you that I want to
associate myself with all of the people who support it. I actually want
to associate myself with some of the remarks of people who oppose it.
I think that we need to fix the problem of short funding in the flood
insurance program, but I don't think we need to do it overnight, and I
don't think we need to do it on the backs of middle class people with a
hammer.
So I want to fix this. I think this bill is actually a step forward
to say we will fix it, but we will take some time doing it to do it
right so innocent people don't get hurt.
I also want to take a minute to point out some of the things that are
not in this bill that people need to be aware of. This bill does not
address people who own vacation homes.
I know that some people think that everyone who owns a vacation home
is a multimillionaire Donald Trump. The average income of a second
homeowner is about $96,000. The average value of a second home is about
$150,000.
Now, you don't see most of these homes on the Home and Garden Network
because they are usually on wheels. They are made out of T-111. They
are just inexpensive places that people get to bring their families.
Now, most of these homes are not on the shore, but they are, not all
of them, but some of them, are in flood plains. We need to take this
into account when we continue to address this issue as we move forward.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. King), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 3370. At the outset, let me thank
Congressman Grimm, Congressman LoBiondo, and Ranking Member Waters for
the work that they have done in bringing together a true, bipartisan
bill to this floor.
The Biggert-Waters bill was well-intended, but there were unintended
consequences, and some of those consequences would be absolutely
devastating to hundreds, if not thousands, of constituents in my
district who were devastated by Hurricane Sandy.
I would just state for the record that these people are not
millionaires. They complied with the law, with all the building codes,
all the ordinances. They never had any flood damage in their 50, 60
years prior to this--but their homes are devastated. To add to that the
incredible increase they will get in premiums for flood insurance would
be even the ultimate devastation.
So this bill is absolutely essential. Ironically, it will actually
decrease Federal spending over the next 5 years, but it is important
that we stand together to help those in need, people who complied with
the laws, hardworking, blue-collar Americans who are proud of their
homes, proud of their families, and want the opportunity to get back on
their feet.
They were devastated once. Let's not allow Congress to devastate them
again.

{time} 1745

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New
York, Representative Maloney, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlelady for her
leadership and for authoring the Grimm-Waters bill, which I support.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will protect homeowners from drastic premium
increases, provide relief to housing markets, and put the flood
insurance program on a path to long-term solvency.
The bill will also put a stop to FEMA's reckless implementation of
Biggert-Waters. The GAO found that FEMA doesn't even have the
information that the GAO said was key to determining a property's
actual flood risk; and yet, FEMA has gone ahead with massive premium
increases anyway, based on back-of-the-envelope calculations and a
shocking indifference to the impact on the middle class families that
are suffering across this country because of Hurricane Sandy, many of
whom are in my district.
This bill will require FEMA to actually complete the affordability
study that was mandated in the prior legislation, so that independent
experts can determine the best way to successfully balance the two main
goals, consumer affordability and long-term solvency.
This bill would set a hard cap on rate increases at 18 percent a year
and will protect families and businesses from the kinds of 500 percent
rate increases that they are suffering from now.
I congratulate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) on her
leadership and Congressman Grimm. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Grimm-
Waters bill.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, our bill is the result of extensive
bipartisan, bicameral work over the past year. This bill is both
compassionate and fiscally responsible. From the start, my priority has
been to ensure that flood insurance remains available and affordable
not just in Mississippi, but all across the country. Our bill meets
those goals.
Many of the people who are now facing unrealistic, overnight
increases followed all the rules. They went to great effort and expense
to build back to FEMA standards after storms like Hurricane Katrina.
Congress never intended to punish responsible homeowners, yet that is
exactly what FEMA is doing, as it implements the law with flawed maps
and procedures.
These actions are threatening individuals and entire communities. I
am not talking about wealthy waterfront homeowners. In south
Mississippi, I am hearing from teachers, veterans, fishermen, people
who work at the shipyards in support of our U.S. Navy, many 100 miles
inland.
Our bill holds FEMA accountable. It provides real responsible relief
and lasting reforms. I urge my colleagues to join me in strong support
of this bill.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Representative Lynch, who is a member of the Financial
Services Committee and is also the ranking member on the Subcommittee
on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census, and I thank
him for his hard work in putting this bill together.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from California for
her leadership on this bill. She has been a tiger on this issue, trying
to get this right.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) and the
Republican leadership, as well as Mr. Grimm from New York and Mr.
Richmond from Louisiana who really, I think, without their work
collectively, this would not be happening.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 3370, the Homeowner Flood Insurance
Affordability Act. Over the past several months, I have had the honor
of working with my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, to roll
back the harmful and unintended consequences of the original Biggert-
Waters Act.
This legislation that we take up today is a culmination of a lot of
efforts by a lot of individuals, as well as the activism on the part of
our constituents.
I have had an opportunity to attend some rallies and meetings in my
district with over 1,000 people attending, where the concerns and the
fears of my constituents were brought forward in great volume.
H.R. 3370, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, will do a
number of things. One, it reinstitutes or expands the grandfathering
provisions in section 4 from what they were in the previous bill.
A very important provision here, section 18 allows reimbursements for
successful appeals. Now, what that will do is, if FEMA incorrectly--as
they have in many cases--if they put homes in a flood zone incorrectly
and a homeowner appeals that, they get the money that they expended for
that appeal, for the surveying and technical assistance they need.
In addition, section 24 provides for a flood insurance advocate to
actually work on behalf of homeowners to make sure that they get the
full and meaningful appeal that they deserve and also that they
understand what the flood mapping process requires.

[[Page H2136]]

More fundamentally, this bill is an example of what we can achieve
when Congress works together, and I honestly hope that we will build on
this spirit of bipartisan cooperation. I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of this critical bill.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this
legislation, and we are about to do something tonight that doesn't
happen around here very often. We are going to do a bipartisan effort
that has common sense and fiscal responsibility, something that we
ought to be doing more often.
This is an issue maybe that doesn't affect everyone, but if you are
from a district where your constituents have had their lives and their
dreams ripped apart--first by Superstorm Sandy and then by the
miserable implementation of a flood insurance policy that was well-
intended, but not put together--how do you go back and say you are not
going to fix it?

This gives us an opportunity to give them hope for the future, to
give them a chance to rebuild. 16 months later, I have still got
constituents who aren't able to get back into their homes. How do you
tell them they are going to have such an outrageous increase on their
flood insurance, which will force them to throw their hands up and give
it up?
Congress is doing the right thing tonight. We need to follow through
on this, have it changed, and understand that this is the approach for
the future.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey, Representative Pascrell, and I thank him for his input on this
bill.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, it must be very painful for people to
watch this when affected--whether you are on a river or whether you are
on the ocean--because it is painful to see that some of the people who
are opposed to this bill also voted ``no'' on the Sandy relief, so they
are being consistent anyway.
After Sandy, many of my constituents in towns such as Moonachie and
Little Ferry are now experiencing a second blow from skyrocketing flood
insurance rates. In particular, the home sale trigger has resulted in
drastically higher flood insurance rates for prospective home buyers,
putting a wet blanket on real estate markets in flood-prone areas.
The bill before us today contains some very important changes. It
provides immediate relief to homeowners by repealing the home sale
trigger and reducing the rate of possible increases. I am hopeful that
we can revisit flood insurance reform in a way which will provide
relief to second homes and small businesses.
Although these are important first steps, I know we can do better,
and I thank all those who contributed to this legislation.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy, one of the champions of this bill.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3370.
First let me say this affects almost all Americans. On this map, you
can see, if there is a color, there is a chance that you are affected,
and Chairman Hensarling pointed out that Dallas is a hot spot of red.
That is a place where the woman he referred to will benefit because
of this reform, and I will say that all Americans will because it is
our job, in Congress, to protect the American citizen from agencies
implementing laws in ways which are not sustainable.
The flood maps that FEMA has been using have questionable actuarial
calculations, and there have been unrealistic rate increases.
The bill before us today, which I worked closely in developing with
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm) and others, to strike the right
balance, takes into consideration both fiscal solvency and consumer
affordability.
First, the bill is paid for. It is paid for, and the funds will go
into the NFIP reserve fund, so in the future, there will be money in
the till, should there be another disaster.
Secondly, I will say that, if we don't do this, the National Flood
Insurance Program will enter into a death spiral. CBO estimates that
for every 10 percent increase in premiums, 1.4 percent of the
subscribers drop off. If people are getting 2,000 percent premium
increases, they will all drop off, which puts it into a death spiral.
I would say this is actually the fiscally responsible thing that puts
the program on a glide path to actuarial soundness and, in the
meantime, benefits Americans across the way.
A broad coalition of Republicans, Democrats, and Realtors have worked
hard on this. I would like to thank Neil Bradley in Leader Cantor's
office; from my staff, Chris Gillott; and Richard Hoffman in
Representative Grimm's office, for a lot of tremendous work.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor).
The Florida delegation, both Democrats and Republicans, has been
absolutely magnificent in helping to get us to this point, and I thank
Representatives Castor, Hastings, Buchanan, and all of those from the
Florida delegation for all of the work they have done.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentlewoman from California for
her leadership on behalf of families all across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge all of our colleagues to vote
``yes'' on H.R. 3370 that will fix this flood insurance debacle.
A year and a half ago, a bill was passed here in the House to address
the solvency of the flood insurance trust fund. That was the right
thing to do. Unfortunately, it had serious unintended consequences that
families and businessowners and Realtors all across this Nation have
been dealing with.

But I am heartened here today because, even though this Congress has
an unfortunate reputation for not addressing the challenges that face
families all across this country, we are going to come together here
today to address a very important financial issue for families.
I would like to thank my colleagues from Florida, Congressman
Hastings, Congressman Bilirakis, Congressman Nugent, Congressman
Buchanan, and all of our delegation for fighting, standing together to
work for them. I urge all of our colleagues here today to do the same.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a great advocate for this bill.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this
legislation sponsored by my good friend from New York, Congressman
Grimm. It will provide relief for homeowners struggling to keep their
homes. It will ensure that all participants in the program are treated
fairly, and it will eliminate an untenable financial burden during
these tough economic times.
Some allege this bill will solely benefit the rich in beachside
mansions. Middle class retirees and those on fixed incomes are the ones
who are suffering from rate increases of $10,000 or more. They are the
ones who risk losing their homes.
If Congress fails to pass this bill, we will risk destroying all the
reforms made to the National Flood Insurance Program. We cannot let the
perfect be the enemy of the good.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
commonsense legislation, a solution that addresses a long-term issue
and helps people immediately, and I thank Representatives Waters,
Cassidy, and Shelley Moore Capito for their leadership on this bill.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California, Representative Garamendi, who has been advising us that we
really do have to make changes to the National Flood Insurance Program,
and I thank him for his work.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, and I
thank Congresswoman Waters and Mr. Grimm for their work.
This is desperately needed. There is a lot to be said, and a lot more
work will go into this before this becomes law, but it is a major step
forward.
One example: Isleton, California, in my district, in a zone that was
mapped with 100-year flood protection, was downgraded by the Army Corps
of Engineers and is now a high hazard area. Last year, it cost $700 a
year for the flood insurance. This year, it is $7,000, which is about
twice the mortgage on that $115,000 house. It is not workable.
We are seeing, across my area, insurance premiums of $10,000,
$25,000. This bill would stop that, move things back,

[[Page H2137]]

give us time to deal with what is the fundamental problem in flood
insurance, and that is the catastrophic coverage, which has to be
spread out across the Nation.

{time} 1800

More to be worked on, good progress, good bill. Let's vote it out of
here and get this thing solved.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Buchanan) for his hard work.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, flood insurance has been devastating to
people in Florida. It has been in my region. I have done multiple town
halls. It has gone up not 10 or 20 percent but 1,000 percent, 500
percent. Businesses can't sell their businesses. So this bill will
bring some immediate relief. It also brings some certainty so people--
because the market today is frozen, it will bring some certainty to
people so they can buy and sell their homes.
Also, as the cochair of the Florida delegation, I want to thank my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle because it is nice once in a
while where we can work together to get something done for the American
people.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon, Representative Blumenauer.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy.
I have a slightly different perspective. The problem isn't FEMA. The
problem is that Congress has not appropriately dealt with these issues
over time.
I have spent 10, 15 years now working on flood insurance reform. This
is not the last word. We are kicking the can down the road. We are
putting a surcharge on other people. We are grandfathering in some of
the properties that are going to get these subsidized rates and
transferring it. But this money is going to run out. It is going to
have to be reauthorized.
With all due respect, I think we need to look at the big picture. We
have got to look at the big picture, not keep putting people back in
harm's way, subsidizing people, and blaming FEMA because we don't
adequately fund them and, of course, we don't want them to accurately
map. We go gunnysack when that happens.
I had reservations at the time that this was too abrupt. But I am
concerned that we are retreating too much on the reforms that had been
made earlier, and it is going to be hard to get back, of course, until
the bubble bursts, which it will.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, next I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a great advocate for this bill
and for his State.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from West Virginia
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we have a flood insurance program that is broken. In
fact, 18 different times in the last 5 years the National Flood
Insurance Program has either expired or nearly expired because of all
of the flaws and disagreements within Congress. And yet the result of
that was that Biggert-Waters law of 2012 that is now being implemented
in a way that is unworkable for the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I think if you look at what American families expect,
they expect a flood insurance program that is both sustainable and
affordable, and these two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, what we
are achieving with this bill that is on the floor today will accomplish
both. It will make the program sustainable for the future with real
reforms, reforms that can actually be implemented in a way that will
allow the program to move forward and pay for itself. In fact, this
bill is fully paid for.
It also allows it to be done in a way that families can afford to pay
their flood insurance premiums, because sending somebody a $10,000- or
$20,000-a-year bill on a $200,000 house that never flooded is not an
actuarially sound rate; it is a death sentence. Federal law should not
be implemented in a way that literally forces millions of people out of
their homes who played by the rules.
So what we are bringing to the floor today is an actual solution to a
problem. This is not some delay. It is a real, long-term solution that
pays for itself within the program with real reforms that allow people
to move forward with a flood insurance program that will be sustainable
and ultimately lead to a private market where you don't just have FEMA
to go to, you can actually have private options as well for families. I
urge its passage.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York, Ms. Nydia Velazquez, a member of the Financial Services
Committee.
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
bipartisan legislation.
Sixteen months ago, Hurricane Sandy battered New York City. Even
today, efforts to rebuild continue. However, because of unforeseen
consequences in previous flood insurance laws, many of the businesses,
families, and homeowners affected by this storm may be hit again, this
time by a flood of rising insurance premiums.
Because of how the law is structured, over 26,000 New York City
homeowners and businesses will see their annual flood insurance
premiums increase at least 25 percent. In some cases, people who
previously paid $430 annually could see their rates rise to $5,000 or
even $10,000--an unsustainable amount.
Today's bill will address these unintended consequences of last
year's reforms. By eliminating the property transfer trigger, buyers
and sellers will now have peace of mind.
Mr. Speaker, we all want to ensure the National Flood Insurance
Program is solvent, but we must do it in a way that does not harm those
who have already suffered enough.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me how much time is remaining
on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from West Virginia has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, but I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker and Members, I am very proud and very pleased about this
bipartisan effort to fix a serious problem in this country. As a matter
of fact, we should all be pleased because it is said by the media and
others that we cannot work together. This is a time when we can
demonstrate that we really do care about the citizens of this country
and we recognize the problems that were created by the Biggert-Waters
bill.
I said earlier that my name was on that Biggert-Waters legislation,
and I certainly worked in a bipartisan effort to try and do the right
thing, and, of course, some day we would like to move all of these
subsidies to actuarial rates.
We have unintended consequences in Biggert-Waters, and we have set
out to fix them. So I want you to know that Mr. Grimm, Mr. Richmond,
Mr. Cassidy, and Mrs. Capito all have worked very hard to make sure
that we addressed the concerns of our constituencies.
Let me tell you, with this bill we are removing certain rate increase
triggers, the reinstating of grandfathering, lower rate increases,
refund of excess premium charges to homeowners, affordability study and
framework; added to that, working with the bill that the Republicans
brought to the floor and Democrats added to it, individual property
rate increase caps, affordability goal, rate increase protection for
newly mapped properties, mapping protections, consumer protections,
protections of small businesses, nonprofits, houses of worship, and
residences.
Mr. Speaker and Members, again, this is a bill that will address the
concerns and the outcry of our constituents, some of whom were
experiencing 500 and 600 percent rate increases. I tried to work with
the chairman, and I was disappointed that Mr. Hensarling saw
differently. He does not support this bill, and he said so. Mr.
Neugebauer and Mr. Hensarling said they had come up with other ways to
deal with it. I never saw any of that. Nobody ever tried to relate to
the fact that I was outreaching to try and get Mr. Hensarling, Mr.
Neugebauer, and others who had a different opinion to come and work
this out and do what we could for our constituents.
So, I am very pleased that we had Members on the opposite side of the
aisle who insisted that their constituents deserved protection and that
they

[[Page H2138]]

deserved support. Working with their leadership and Mr. Cantor working
with our leadership, with the Democrats on this side of the aisle, we
have come up with something that is extremely important and effective.
Now, I must say to both sides of the aisle, we have continuing work
to do. This is not a permanent fix on this. What I discovered was none
of us knew enough about FEMA. We have been crying for years about
remapping. We don't really know how it works. We don't know the
discretion that they have in making some of these decisions. We have
got to spend the next few years really learning FEMA, how it works and
how it makes decisions. We should never get into this kind of a
situation again because we simply have allowed them to do what they do
without us being involved. They don't report to us on a yearly basis,
as I would like to have them do.
So this is an opportunity for us not only to fix this problem at this
time but to focus on the fact that we have got oversight responsibility
that we have got to carry out to make sure that we are dealing with
these issues in a way that makes good sense.
So, again, I am very proud, and I am very pleased with this
bipartisan effort. I welcome the opportunity to have been able to work
with some Members from the opposite side of the aisle that I had not
worked with before. I think I learned a lot about them, and they
learned a lot about me. I am so thankful that our leadership gave me
the latitude to say go and do everything possible working with the
opposite side of the aisle to get this problem fixed. So they have not
only supported me, but they have supported all of the Members on our
side of the aisle who have said to them that this may be one of the
most important fixes that we will do this year.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member, Ms. Waters, for her
hard work on this and Mr. Grimm, Dr. Cassidy, and all the speakers we
have had today here on both sides. We can work together to fix a
definite problem, but I think we need to kind of reflect back on how
did we get to this problem. We were trying to fix a bigger problem, the
$24 billion hole that the Flood Insurance Program has created because
of mismanagement and not looking at it correctly.
Over 400 of us voted for that bill. So we did not realize at the time
the data that we were given by FEMA gave us a certain ceiling that
certain folks' premiums could rise, and as we have heard today from
everybody, Republicans and Democrats, no matter where you live in the
country, some of the premium escalation has just been incredible. So I
am proud that we are working together.

I mentioned West Virginia. We flood a lot in West Virginia. We have
got a lot of hills and hollows. Richard in St. Albans came to me in
October of last year. He had just bought a home before they put the new
FEMA rates into effect. He thought he was going to be paying a little
over $1,000 in his flood insurance program on a $150,000 house. Guess
what? $14,000 was the rate that he was going to have to pay. He said:

I am just going to walk away. I will get foreclosed on.
This is my dream home.

So for Richard, that is why I think all of this is important today,
and for all the other Richards out there across the country who have
had sticker shock, who haven't been able to cope, who have been very
upset about this and wondering, Is anybody really going to help me
here?
So what I think we have learned today is whatever the scenario is,
whether you are in a mountain situation by a river or if you are in an
urban area in New York or if you are in Florida, that these problems
were deep, expensive, and discouraging, and people were unable to
understand a way out. I think that is what we are giving them today.
Many of the reforms that were built into the first Biggert-Waters
bill still remain. We are refining those to make sure they make common
sense. We are making sure that folks around the country can afford the
homes that they have bought with the flood insurance and then get them
on a glide path towards the sustainability of not just their home but
also the program in general.
So I am proud of the efforts that all of us working together have had
here today. I would like to encourage the other body to pass this. It
is not going to work unless we get the Presidential signature that we
need to make sure that we get the real relief that people need and
deserve.
So with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to this bill reauthorizing the hopelessly indebted,
unworkable, unfair and failed federal flood insurance program.
The National Flood Insurance Program is hopelessly in debt, over $25
billion in fact, due to the fact that politics are responsible for
setting rates, not actuarial cost. Because of this many Americans
across this nation are paying rates far below what actual risk would
dictate in the marketplace while others, including many who I
represent, are being forced to pay into a program that they do not need
or want to help subsidize lower rates for other favored groups whose
risk is far greater.
In fact, over the life of the federal flood insurance program the
people of my state have paid multiple times more in premiums than has
been paid back in claims.
That is wrong. And this problem is expanding across the nation as the
flood insurance program sinks deeper into debt.
This problem reminds me of the ``risk corridors'', also known as the
insurance company bailout, included in Obamacare.
This Obamacare provision would be used to provide a federal taxpayer
bailout to private insurance companies when premiums paid by
beneficiaries do not supply enough money to pay claims.
How is the flood insurance program any different? Some have their
premiums kept artificially low and then federal taxpayers are asked to
pick up the tab when those areas eventually flood.
I think the ``risk corridor'' included in the flood insurance program
is just as wrong as the one included in Obamacare.
Both Obamacare and the National Flood Insurance Program are proof
that the federal government is a bad insurance company.
That is why I have continually submitted legislation to bring about a
responsible end to the federal flood insurance program and allow for
the creation of a private marketplace based upon actual risk.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this terribly flawed bill
and in finding a better way forward that brings about the end of the
national flood insurance program.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Homeowners
Flood Insurance Affordability Act, which removes some of the unintended
consequences from the Biggert-Waters law that would increase flood
insurance premiums on my constituents. This bill would repeal the
premium hikes and would reinstate ``grandfathered'' rates for
properties that were remapped into higher-risk areas.
In my own district following Superstorm Sandy, the changes in flood
projections brought on by the storm will hit my constituents with
higher flood insurance premiums--some as high as $10,000 extra per year
unless Congress acts to mitigate the hike.
I think we can all agree that we want to address the fiscal concerns
faced by the National Flood Insurance Program--but these steep,
immediate rate hikes are not the way.
This is a bipartisan bill that offers immediate protection to my
constituents from financially devastating flood insurance premium
hikes. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act (HR 3370), and would
like to thank Mr. Grimm and Mr. LoBiondo, all our colleagues from New
Jersey, and the Republican leadership for working together to bring
this much-needed legislation to the Floor.
After Superstorm Sandy devastated the Northeast, our communities
rallied, coming together to help friends and neighbors recover and
rebuild. While progress has been made, some shore towns and the
families who live along our coast are still struggling. Thousands of
homeowners are working to rebuild their properties, and their lives--
and the difficulties they continue to face cannot be overstated.
The coming rate hikes will have a chilling and dramatic impact on
these communities, and mitigating the consequences for homeowners along
the shore is a necessary step in the recovery effort.
At the start of this year, over 80,000 flood insurance policies were
in force in Monmouth, Ocean and Mercer Counties in my Congressional
District. The exploding cost of flood insurance--a program that many
have paid into for years--threatens to roll back much of the progress
made, and once again leave homeowners looking for answers.

[[Page H2139]]

The bill on the floor today makes targeted and necessary reforms and
will prevent massive premium increases from hitting homeowners who
simply cannot afford them--and cannot find a buyer to take them on,
leaving them stranded and without a solution. Many cannot afford the
recommended mitigation measures that may or may not reduce their
premiums, creating a further environment of uncertainty.
Accordingly, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act slows
the rate of increase that was included in the 2012 Biggert-Waters
reform bill, allowing homeowners to remain in their homes and plan
accordingly to continue flood insurance policies.
While not perfect, this bill will provide relief and stability to
these homeowners and their communities while bringing reform to the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). It also provides a mechanism
for enhanced community participation in the flood mapping process and
increases transparency by making information publicly available to
impacted parties.
Further, HR 3370 will provide individualized assistance by
establishing a flood insurance advocate to help homeowners and towns
obtain information and fair treatment during the mapping process. After
hearing from hundreds of families, particularly in Monmouth and Ocean
Counties, who are simply looking for information on how they will be
impacted by changes to the flood mapping process, I am pleased that
this important provision was retained in the final bill.
Mr. Speaker, there are NFIP-related issues that still must be
resolved--such as ensuring proper and accurate flood mapping--but this
bill is an important step in the right direction and will help mitigate
the rate shock that many of my constituents are facing.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3370, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

____________________