[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 119 (Monday, July 16, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H6224-H6226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  PROMOTING FLOOD RISK MITIGATION ACT

  Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R 5846) to require the Comptroller General of the United States 
to conduct a study regarding the buyout practices of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5846

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Promoting Flood Risk 
     Mitigation Act''.

     SEC. 2. GAO STUDY REGARDING BUYOUT PRACTICES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
       (2) the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of 
     the Senate;
       (B) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate;
       (C) the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (D) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives;
       (3) the terms ``buyout practice'' and ``buyout program'' 
     mean a practice or program, as applicable, under which the 
     Administrator provides assistance to State and local 
     governments so that those entities may acquire flood-damaged 
     properties committed to open space use in perpetuity in 
     accordance with section 404(b)(2) of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5170c(b)(2));
       (4) the term ``eligible property owner'' means a 
     policyholder under the National Flood Insurance Program with 
     a household income that is not more than 120 percent of the 
     mean household income for the community in which the primary 
     residence of the policyholder is located;
       (5) 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.);
       (6) the term ``repetitive loss structure'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 1370(a) of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4121(a)); and
       (7) the term ``severe repetitive loss structure'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 1366(h) of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c(h)).
       (b) Study Required.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study to assess--

[[Page H6225]]

       (1) the efficacy of buyout practices, as in effect on the 
     date on which the study is conducted; and
       (2) ways to streamline the buyout practices described in 
     paragraph (1) in order to provide more timely assistance to a 
     larger number of State and local governments.
       (c) Considerations and Analysis.--The study conducted under 
     subsection (b) shall consider and analyze the following:
       (1) To the extent possible, current (as of the date on 
     which the study is conducted) and future trends with respect 
     to repetitive loss structures and severe repetitive loss 
     structures that are insured under the National Flood 
     Insurance Program, including, with respect to both inland and 
     coastal areas--
       (A) changes in flood risk, flood frequency, and flood 
     magnitude since the inception of the National Flood Insurance 
     Program; and
       (B) projections for changes in flood risk, flood frequency, 
     and flood magnitude by 2025, 2050, and 2075.
       (2) To the extent possible, buyout practices (as of the 
     date on which the study is conducted), including--
       (A) the availability of funding sources for buyout programs 
     through various grant programs;
       (B) the total number of properties acquired though buyout 
     programs;
       (C) the average length of time for a State or local 
     government to acquire a flood-damaged property under a buyout 
     program, with that period beginning on the date on which the 
     State or local government, as applicable, begins 
     participating in the buyout program;
       (D) an estimate of the number of flood-damaged properties 
     that could be acquired from willing property owners under 
     buyout programs with the full cooperation of State and local 
     governments;
       (E) the socioeconomic status of recipients of buyouts under 
     buyout programs; and
       (F) examples of successful buyout programs, including best 
     practices employed.
       (3) Administrative, financial, or temporal constraints that 
     may impede the timely acquisition of properties under a 
     buyout program, including--
       (A) a lack of communication or cooperation between the 
     Administrator and the State and local governments that 
     purchase properties under a buyout program;
       (B) pressures to redevelop a property after acquiring a 
     property through a buyout program; and
       (C) a lack of adequate funding.
       (4) Potential options, methods, and strategies to address 
     the constraints identified under paragraph (3), including 
     evaluating the feasibility of--
       (A) a pilot program under which--
       (i) an eligible property owner may agree, before a flood 
     event occurs, to have the primary single-family residence of 
     the eligible property owner purchased after the residence has 
     been substantially damaged by a flood;
       (ii) the Administrator may provide--

       (I) financial assistance to State and local governments 
     that are willing to participate in the program to purchase 
     and acquire the properties of owners that have incurred 
     substantial damage from a flood event; and
       (II) a premium credit as an incentive to eligible property 
     owners to agree to participate in the program;

       (iii) properties that are acquired--

       (I) shall be maintained as open space in accordance with 
     section 404(b)(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(b)(2)); and
       (II) may be used for non-structural mitigation, 
     conservation, and recreational purposes; and

       (iv) not fewer than 5 and not more than 10 State and local 
     governments shall participate; and
       (B) the role that nonprofit organizations could play in 
     making buyouts more readily available or more efficient, 
     similar to the role that those organizations play in the 
     acquisition of properties for conservation purposes.
       (5) The ecological, financial, and flood risk reduction 
     benefits that buyout practices, as in effect on the date on 
     which the study is conducted, provide, which shall--
       (A) take into account the differences between inland and 
     coastal areas; and
       (B) include--
       (i) examples in which ecosystem restoration and other 
     nature-based approaches have enhanced the reduction of flood 
     risk; and
       (ii) recommendations for best practices.
       (6) To the extent possible, an assessment of how the 
     Administrator may use buyout programs to reduce future flood 
     disaster recovery costs that are attributable to future 
     projections of flood risk as a result of sea level rise, 
     population changes, subsidence, and other factors.
       (7) A cost-benefit analysis of mitigation and buy-out 
     projects and programs, including an assessment of 
     opportunities and challenges for leveraging different Federal 
     resources and funding to maximize the value of Federal 
     investment in disaster mitigation.
       (d) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress 
     and the Administrator a report that sets forth the analysis, 
     conclusions, and recommendations resulting from the study 
     conducted under subsection (b).
       (2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall detail the feasibility of the Administrator 
     establishing, and the processes required for the 
     Administrator to establish, an alternative buyout program, 
     such as the pilot program described in subsection (c)(4)(A).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta) and the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5846, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5846, as amended, the Promoting Flood Risk 
Mitigation Act, requires the Government Accountability Office to 
conduct a study and issue a report to Congress regarding the flood 
buyout practices of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  The removal of homes and buildings that have been repeatedly flooded 
to avoid future disaster damages and losses is a critical mitigation 
technique.
  These mitigation measures not only save lives but also reduce 
disaster costs by minimizing the risk of future damage from disasters. 
Studies have shown that for every $1 invested in mitigation, there is a 
potential savings of $4 to $8, because of damages avoided.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5846, the Promoting Flood Risk 
Mitigation Act, as amended.
  This bill was brought to us by my colleague from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  The bill requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct a 
study of the efficacy of buyouts of flood-prone property acquired by 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency and examine ways to streamline 
funding to provide more timely assistance to a larger number of State 
and local governments.
  One only needs to look at last year's hurricane season to see the 
devastating impacts of these intense storms that were caused by climate 
change and what they did to our communities. Unfortunately for many 
residents, the damage and destruction caused by Hurricanes Harvey, 
Irma, and Maria were not occurring for the first time but for a second 
or third time. These homes have been flooded and then had to be 
repaired with Federal assistance.
  In order to stop this endless repairing and rebuilding of homes in 
floodplain areas, we must find ways to encourage more homeowners to 
agree to having their homes bought out, as well as ways to encourage 
State and local governments to purchase more of these properties.
  The bill before you requires the GAO to assess the feasibility of a 
pilot program that, in exchange for a credit on their flood insurance 
premiums, property owners would be able to agree, before a flood 
occurs, to have their residence bought out if their residence is later 
substantially damaged by flood. The study would also examine the role 
that nonprofit organizations could play in making buyouts more readily 
available and more efficient.
  We must stop the cycle of destroy, rebuild, destroy, rebuild. This 
study is a good first step to assess the benefits of buyouts and the 
feasibility of potential solutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who is the ranking member of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure, to further discuss this.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and the 
gentlewoman from Nevada from the committee of jurisdiction on this 
issue.
  During the markup of the National Flood Insurance Program, a number 
of us suggested that perhaps there is a way to help this bankrupt 
program save substantial funds. Right now, the program is $20 billion 
in debt, and we have a temporary extension from the March omnibus that 
expires in July.
  The issue is that 2 percent of the properties in America have 
accounted for 24 percent of the spending by the National Flood 
Insurance Program. More than 30,000 of them have flooded five times 
each and been rebuilt by the

[[Page H6226]]

bankrupt Federal Flood Insurance Program. Some have flooded more than 
30 times.
  This is insanity, that we would keep rebuilding in these flood-prone 
areas, rebuilding, rebuilding, rebuilding, and piling up debt and 
raising the insurance premiums for everybody else on the program who 
presents way less risk.
  So we decided that a way to go would be to provide a significant 
incentive to these people, and the incentive would be that they would 
have an agreed-upon contract with FEMA to purchase their property at 
preflood market value, and they would also get a discount on their 
Federal flood insurance. So they get the discount on the insurance and 
have entered into an agreement to sell the property to FEMA at the full 
market price. FEMA would remove the structures, and it would be turned 
into open space that would continue to flood repeatedly, but we 
wouldn't have to pay anything to rebuild it.
  We proposed that. The House Republicans said, oh, they thought it 
would be too expensive. We don't know if it would be too expensive. It 
is 2 percent and 24 percent of the costs. I don't think it is going to 
be more expensive. I think it is going to save a heck of a lot of 
money.
  So this bill would have the GAO, the Government Accountability 
Office, study this proposal and set up a pilot program to see if, 
indeed, it would facilitate cost savings and avoid the repeated 
rebuilding of flood-prone structures and have willing takers on the 
other side.
  The other real incentive is that, if someone has finally tired of it 
the fifth time their house was flooded and they want out, that process 
now takes 2 to 5 years and involves a whole lot of negotiations over 
value, preflood value, and all that sort of thing. Here you get an 
agreed-upon preflood value; you get a discount on your flood insurance; 
and you just walk away. FEMA will take care of the rest, the removal of 
the rubble and turning that into open space.

  So I think this would be one thing we need to do to help the Federal 
Flood Insurance Program, which is critical. Thirty-four thousand people 
in my State have it. I have had Federal insurance; I don't have it 
anymore. But this is a critical program for many, many people who are 
only very, very occasionally going to be flooded, but they can't get a 
mortgage unless they have flood insurance.
  Mr. Speaker, I recommend this bill strongly to my colleagues.
  Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his work on this 
bill. I thank the gentlewoman from Nevada for her work on this bill. It 
is a bipartisan bill because it makes commonsense. So whether it is 
DeFazio or Blumenauer or Duffy--go down the list of different people 
who have worked on it--they have worked on something that makes eminent 
commonsense, and I want to thank them for their efforts.
  The saying is: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  But the corollary to that is: If it is broken, fix it.
  What we have just heard are any number of different conversations 
about the degree to which the buyout program is not just a little bit 
broken but a whole lot broken.
  First off, just at an individual level, it captures people in a 
hamster wheel that they can never get out of. If you look at the 
average buyout time, it is about 5 years. In that 5-year time period, 
people are stuck there waiting and waiting and waiting as their house, 
in many cases, refloods.
  I have been to Shadowmoss in the West Ashley section of Charleston. I 
remember going in there after a flood. Those people who had a second 
story had carried stuff up to the second story. Those who didn't were 
just dealing with the flooding as it occurred on the first floor. But 
they had been repeatedly flooded.
  So at an individual level, this makes sense for the remedy that it 
offers an individual, so they are not stuck in a house that is 
repeatedly flooding, as they are trapped in dealing with that.
  It makes sense based on what Mother Nature is telling us.
  My colleague from Nevada mentioned this notion of climate change. I 
don't know exactly what is going on, but I know that in Charleston, 
South Carolina, if you compare the 1950s with the present day, there is 
10 times more flooding in what they call king tides, and it has become 
regular. Something is going on out there that says this buyout program 
needs to be adjusted, and it needs to be adjusted now.
  The final point I would make is that this makes, as has been 
registered thus far, a whole lot of sense for the taxpayer, because if 
you look at the numbers, again, 30,000 homes in America have been 
flooded five or more times with substantial consequence to the 
taxpayer. We are talking about $5.5 billion being spent by the taxpayer 
in rebuilding and repairing. Destroy and repair is the term my 
colleague from Nevada used. The destroy-and-repair, destroy-and-repair 
cycle is destructive for the taxpayer.
  It is for that reason that everybody from the State floodplain 
managers to the National Association of Realtors to the Nature 
Conservancy has supported this measure. I cannot endorse it enough, and 
I thank the gentleman for his work on it.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I, once again, urge passage of this 
legislation and all the bills that we have brought before you today 
from this subcommittee.
  I want to thank our chairman, Mr. Barletta, for working with us 
across the aisle on these bipartisan bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
H.R. 5846, as amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5846, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________