[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[House]
[Page 18893]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       TWO FLOODS AND YOU ARE OUT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there is a theme this morning on the 
floor of the House: dealing with how we can promote livable 
communities. Whether it is dealing with community-oriented policing, 
``Weed and Seed,'' or associating the comments of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett) about Better America Bonds, there is a lot that the 
Federal Government can do to make a difference for things that people 
really care about, making their families safe, economically secure and 
healthy.
  Mr. Speaker, a critical part of making the Federal Government a 
better partner in promoting livable communities is the work we do with 
basic infrastructure. Rather than spending a lot of new money, making 
new rules and regulations and starting new programs, one the most 
important contributions the Federal Government can make is using our 
existing resources more wisely.
  Nowhere is that more clearly illustrated than what we do with water 
resources. Currently, the Federal Government makes it easier to spend 
money paving a creek to stop flooding than to restore wetlands to 
achieve the same goal. I have already introduced legislation that would 
make it easier for communities to invest in cheaper, greener approaches 
to flood protection. This approach does not need to cost the Federal 
Government an additional dime, and it gives the communities more 
choices as they solve their problems and increase livability.
  The National Flood Insurance program poses another critical water 
resource management challenge. It is appropriate for the Federal 
Government to step in when there is a case of unforeseen natural 
disaster. However, if it is clear that some people make it hard on 
themselves by continuing to invest in unwise anti-environmental, 
unsustainable situations, then we have an obligation to draw the line. 
The Federal taxpayer should not be paying for people to live in places 
where God repeatedly has shown that he does not want them.
  There is a home in Houston which has an appraised value of $114,000 
which has received over $800,000 in flood insurance payments in 16 
events in the last 10 years. Over 5,600 properties, nearly 1 in 10, 
have loss claims which exceed the value of the property. Forty percent 
of our flood insurance goes to 2 percent of the property that is 
repeatedly flooded.
  Mr. Speaker, if the local government and private property owners are 
going to be foolish, they need to do it on their own dime. Indeed, it 
is not just our money they are wasting; these development patterns take 
on a life of their own. They pressure organizations like the Corps of 
Engineers, FEMA and state and local communities to further engineer the 
environment and protect ill-advised development from flooding, often 
succeeding in making matters worse.
  Despite having spent over $40 billion since 1960, our losses adjusted 
for inflation are three times greater than when we started the building 
spree. Our disaster relief costs have increased 550 percent in the last 
10 years.
  It is time for us to rethink our policies and our investments. It is 
time to stop the waste of money, predictable loss of property, and 
threat to public safety. As a basic simple common sense step, it is 
time to reform the National Flood Insurance program.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Nebraska, 
(Mr. Bereuter) who has long been a champion of reforming the Flood 
Insurance Program to propose a simple approach to repetitive flood 
loss. We retool the Flood Insurance Program so that rather than 
continuing to rebuild a repeatedly flooded home, the program would 
provide homeowners with money to help them move away from flood waters 
or at least floodproof their homes. Those who refuse assistance must 
start paying the real actuarial insurance costs for the risks that they 
choose to take.
  This policy is both humanitarian and fiscally responsible, allowing 
people to move out of harm's way and protecting the Federal taxpayer by 
making the National Flood Insurance program solvent. We need to enforce 
the existing rules and regulations to keep people out of harm's way. We 
need to spend money to prevent loss rather than repeatedly cleaning up 
after it is too late.
  This basic solution to more livable communities will not require more 
money or bureaucratic regulations. As usual, a livable community is 
possible if the Federal Government is a thoughtful partner with 
citizens and their local government. I would like to urge my colleagues 
to join with me and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) to 
reform the National Flood Insurance program and to sign on as 
cosponsors of our ``Two Floods and You're Out'' legislation.

                          ____________________