[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 75 (Tuesday, May 2, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2661-S2663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                    National Flood Insurance Program

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue of 
extraordinary importance to the people of Louisiana and to many 
Americans. Yet again, Americans are witnessing a dramatic, rumor-filled 
guessing game. I am not talking about the latest new release from 
Netflix, I am talking about the reauthorization of the extremely 
important National Flood Insurance Program--we call it the NFIP, which 
I can assure you has played more like an episode of ``Veep'' than 
``House of Cards'' for the audience that watches it unfold every few 
years.
  I am sorry to say, Congress has repeatedly and consistently mangled 
the reauthorization of this essential Federal program. In 2010, the 
NFIP expired four times--not once, not twice but four times, for a 
total of 53 days, which injected uncertainty throughout a fragile 
housing market that had just been devastated 2 years previously.
  That was inexcusable. Local economies felt the sting of 1,400 home 
closing delays or cancellations per day that the program was expired. 
Now, along with many of the program's stakeholders and participants, I 
believe it is crucial that we avoid this type of congressionally 
imposed delay.
  Congress should extend the program. Let me say that again. Congress 
should extend the National Flood Insurance Program for a multiyear 
reauthorization before the September 30 deadline of this year. Our 
economy demands it. Many Americans may remember when the Biggert-Waters 
Flood Insurance Reform Act was signed into law in 2012. I was not in 
the Senate then. I was State Treasurer in Louisiana, but I certainly 
remember it.
  In an effort to bring the program closer to solvency after Superstorm 
Sandy, policyholders, as a result of Biggert-Waters, saw their premiums 
quickly rise to ``actuarial levels.'' For policyholders in my home 
State of Louisiana, this meant unaffordable levels. It doesn't do any 
good to offer

[[Page S2662]]

Americans insurance they cannot afford. That is what Biggert-Waters 
did, just like the Affordable Care Act.
  FEMA's mishandling of Biggert-Waters implementation resulted in truly 
inaccurate rate hikes that placed the viability of the entire National 
Flood Insurance Program at risk. I even remember the local news 
stations in Louisiana, like WWL and WBRZ, broadcasting horror stories 
of exponential rate hikes as a result of Biggert-Waters, hitting 
hardest in South Louisiana's middle-class neighborhoods.
  Residents of St. Charles Parish and Lafourche Parish--in my State we 
call our counties parishes. We are the only one in America, only State 
in America, Louisiana, that does it. We do it right. Everybody else 
does it wrong. I remember residents of St. Charles Parish and Lafourche 
Parish sending in copies of their house keys to congressional 
representatives to give to FEMA because they could not afford the flood 
insurance.
  They were required to carry it. Therefore, they were just going to 
turn their home over. This was a sign that the government might as well 
take their homes because the insurance rates were so unaffordable.
  In this way, Biggert-Waters also made their homes unsalable. Going 
forward with the extension of the National Flood Insurance Program, we 
have to find a way to deal with the solvency of the NFIP that is 
responsible. At the same time, we cannot move the program from red to 
black entirely on the backs of policyholders. It just will not work.
  What do we need to do? We need to examine how FEMA spends every 
single dollar of premiums paid by policyholders into the system--every 
single dollar. We need to find solutions to improve the functionality 
and efficiency of the National Flood Insurance Program and to ensure 
that those who are mandated to carry flood insurance actually purchase 
flood insurance.
  It is clear to the policyholders in Louisiana that the NFIP has to do 
a better job also in one other respect. That is by giving our local 
officials a seat at the table. It is not written in the Constitution 
that flood policy and flood mapping has to originate and end with the 
Federal bureaucracy in Washington, DC.
  In fact, flood mapping and flood policy will benefit from having our 
local officials participate with a seat at the table. Our local levee 
boards and levee districts in Louisiana, along with the families who 
have lived on the land being insured for generations, know every single 
ditch, every single drainage canal from St. Tammany Parish to 
Terrebonne Parish. The NFIP bureaucrats ought to be asking them for 
guidance when rewriting flood maps and flood policy, not the other way 
around.
  Instead, our folks only get invited to the dance after all the 
decisions have been made in Washington, when the cow is already out of 
the barn. I believe this is a commonsense principle that ought to be 
included in legislation to ultimately extend and reform the program: 
give our local officials who know the land best a seat at the table, 
not perfunctory, a real seat at the table, to contribute to flood 
mapping and flood policy. The NFIP will be better for it.
  FEMA's mission, as we all know, is to lead America, to prepare for, 
prevent, respond to, and recover from disaster. That is why FEMA 
exists. The flood program is an extension of that mission. That is why, 
when consultants who work for FEMA--I am talking about contractors, I 
am talking about engineers, I am talking about lawyers, consultants who 
spend taxpayer money and are paid with taxpayer money working for FEMA, 
both contractors and subcontractors, if you wish to call them that, 
with the National Flood Insurance Program's Write Your Own Program, 
lose focus sometimes in helping flood victims.
  Let me say that again. We spend millions of taxpayer dollars through 
the National Flood Insurance Program paying consultants, contractors, 
lawyers, engineers to help administer the program and adjust claims. 
When it works, it is a beautiful thing. When it doesn't work, it is an 
unmitigated disaster and is unfair to every taxpayer who put up his or 
her hard-earned money and every policyholder of the National Flood 
Insurance Program. On occasions it has not worked.
  The vast majority of consultants do a fine job, but some don't. Those 
who have abused the program should be fired. That is why I am 
introducing a bill. It is called the National Flood Insurance Program 
Consultant Accountability Act. It is real simple. It will give the FEMA 
Administrator the authority to fire any consultant, contractor, lawyer, 
engineer, whomever, who engage in conduct detrimental to the mission of 
the National Flood Insurance Program.
  The bill will be fair. It will have an appeals process to ensure that 
good consultants are not penalized for being falsely accused, but this 
is a simple, commonsense reform that frankly should have been put in 
place years ago. If a consultant commits activity that in the opinion 
of the FEMA Administrator is detrimental to a program--for example, if 
he falsifies an engineering report that shows flooding caused the 
insured's damage, if he falsifies a report to say it didn't cause 
damage--then that consultant should be fired. This bill is going to 
give the FEMA Administrator the authority to do it.
  I believe the proper tools are not in place to hold government 
accountants accountable and to throw out bad actors. They are just not. 
During the Sandy recovery, major media reports claimed several firms 
actually altered engineering reports tied to flood insurance claims. 
The altered reports--engineering reports that originally said a flood 
caused the insured's damage and therefore the insured should be paid, 
those engineering reports were altered to say flooding did not 
contribute to the damage.
  These altered reports--intentionally altered--cost families the 
insurance payments they deserved and delayed their recovery. These were 
Americans who did the right thing. They bought flood insurance, and 
because of some consultants working for the NFIP, they were not 
allowed, at least initially, to recover. Only one engineering company 
was actually convicted of wrongdoing, but a number participated. Many 
of those who participated in this tomfoolery are still participating in 
the program and are still receiving taxpayer funding to contract with 
FEMA.

  On March 14, the head of FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, Mr. 
Roy Wright, testified before the Banking Committee, on which I sit. He 
has testified that he can only fire contractors from participating in 
the National Flood Insurance Program if they are debarred, disbarred, 
or criminally convicted. He can't just pick up the phone and correct 
the situation.
  If he sees a consultant misbehaving, not acting in the best interest 
of the National Flood Insurance Program or the insured or the American 
taxpayer, he can't do a doggone thing about it, according to Mr. 
Wright's testimony, unless they are actually criminally convicted or 
disbarred, if they happen to be a lawyer.
  This bill is going to let the FEMA Administrator do something about 
it. There is nothing like a good firing every now and then to shake up 
an organization.
  The NFIP is responsible for administering insurance payouts for the 
29,600 flood insurance claims--30,000 flood insurance claims--in my 
State submitted for the historic, ``once in a thousand years'' flood 
that occurred in Louisiana last August and last March.
  FEMA and its consultants and its contractors will be aiding in paying 
out, I hope, more than $2.4 billion in taxpayer money. Louisiana's 
insured and the American taxpayers need to know that these consultants 
can be trusted and are highly regarded by their peers.
  As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, I plan to include this 
bill and other types of commonsense reforms during the reauthorization 
process of the National Flood Insurance Program, and I hope to do so on 
a bipartisan basis.
  I encourage my colleagues not to play politics with this legislation. 
I encourage my colleagues not to play politics with the National Flood 
Insurance Program. It is central to the success of the American 
economy.
  Let's try to work to avoid partisan battles and develop a National 
Flood Insurance Program that makes sense for the policyholders and for 
the American taxpayer.

[[Page S2663]]

  I am not naive. I know that different coalitions and special interest 
groups, armed with their lobbyists, descend on the Hill. I hope we 
won't forget the people back home--in my hometown and in the Presiding 
Officer's hometown--who will feel the repercussions of our legislative 
actions with respect to this important program.
  I am very much looking forward to working with my colleagues on the 
Banking Committee to make this a successful reauthorization of the 
National Flood Insurance Program for the 5.5 million Americans who rely 
on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from Arkansas.