[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 37 (Thursday, February 29, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H749-H750]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1115
                            FLOOD INSURANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, as I prepare to leave office at the 
end of this Congress, one of my greatest disappointments has been an 
inability to make progress dealing with our flood insurance system and 
the dangerous pattern of development and infrastructure.
  What is so frustrating to me is that the handwriting has been on the 
wall. Even though I have tried to sound the alarm, we really have 
precious little to show for it.
  I was on national TV 2 weeks before Hurricane Katrina, sketching in 
very vivid terms what was going to happen to New Orleans when the big 
one hit. Sadly, that was true even though Katrina wasn't the big one, 
but it could have been much, much worse. The devastation was 
unimaginable, and our efforts at recovery were woefully inadequate, 
inefficient, and unfair. We keep having to learn the same lessons with 
new victims in new disasters.
  This inspired my first major piece of legislation, which aimed to 
reform the flood insurance program. However, looking back, it was 
simply inadequate. We tried to provide incentives which simply weren't 
strong enough. There are all sorts of examples.
  Houston has been a poster child for repetitive flood loss. I used an 
example of one home flooded 22 times over 35 years and received more 
than $1.8 million in flood insurance claims for a home worth a fraction 
of that amount.
  While we labored mightily through the legislative process to make 
modest gains in the flood insurance program, it was too little and too 
late. Our incentives weren't strong enough to overcome a 200-year 
history of people making poor decisions on where and how they live and 
how we designed our infrastructure.
  People continue to live in low-lying, flood-prone areas because we 
are attracted to water. Rich and middle-class people are attracted to 
it, and poor people are forced to live in vulnerable areas because the 
land is less expensive.
  Both strategies are flawed. What is so frustrating is that we spend 
enough money to potentially do things much better. Madam Speaker, $1 in 
prevention saves $6 in costs of damages, but we continue to make the 
mistakes of the past by spending billions of dollars on flawed 
reactions to catastrophes like Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy.
  Additionally, it is not just massive storms. Day in and day out, we 
continue to put people in harm's way. We treat our rivers, waterways, 
and wetlands like machines that make the inevitable floods worse. We 
are happy to invest in decidedly suboptimal solutions. Traditional 
infrastructure that paves wetlands, channelized our rivers, and 
fortifies our coastlines make the inevitable flooding worse.
  By giving people the illusion of protection, we encourage more people 
to move into harm's way. Over the past 20 years, we have failed in 
fundamental reforms. Making people respond to accurate flood mapping is 
too painful in the short term, so more people suffer pain in the long 
term.
  The national flood insurance program is hopelessly inadequate and 
insolvent. The fundamental solutions have not changed over the last 25 
years I have been working on this problem. We need to have accurate 
floodplain mapping, so people know exactly the situation they face and 
can act accordingly.

[[Page H750]]

  We can begin to make flood insurance actuarially sound. We shouldn't 
pretend that we can make incremental changes to a system that is 
fundamentally bankrupt. We should accept those losses and start over.
  There must be stronger financial disincentives for people who refuse 
to do their jobs, and not just for individuals. State and local 
governments, with their land use planning, zoning, and building codes, 
should bear more of the financial burden in changing our policies to be 
sustainable financially, not the general taxpayer.
  For people at risk, this is not unduly harsh. It is the reality in a 
world that is changing dramatically because of climate change. We do 
not do people any favors by ignoring the reality, subsidizing reckless 
behavior, and putting more people and property at risk. This does 
involve some short-term pain but will avoid long-term financial 
disaster and human catastrophe.

                          ____________________