[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21897-21898]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       TWO FLOODS AND YOU ARE OUT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri.) 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, the goal of livable communities is to 
make our families safe, healthy, and economically secure. Witnessing 
the devastation that has occurred this last week in the southeastern 
United States is painful to watch. Thirty-five known dead; others still 
unaccounted for. Imagine the suffering and disruption of lives and 
business. It has shown us once again how vulnerable millions of 
Americans are to natural disaster. The worst floods in years, 
unforgettable images of disaster, entire families wiped out. We need to 
help those who are suffering now, but we also need to take steps to 
prevent suffering like this in the future because it will happen again.
  Hurricane experts suggest we are emerging from a relatively calm 
weather period to a more active destructive one. Increasing development 
pressures are resulting in building homes in flood plains around 
rivers, lakes, and on our coasts. One does not have to believe in 
global warming to know we have a problem, and it is getting worse.
  We have to begin to deal with this in a sensible fashion. We need to 
look at where we build on coasts and developments in wetlands. We need 
to look at how we build. Even now there is a battle raging in North 
Carolina, ironically, about their building codes, arguing over, for 
instance, whether there should be protections for windows--like storm 
shutters.
  When we have already built, we need to look at how we can best 
protect property and lives from the devastating impact of natural 
disaster. Government, in fact, bears some responsibility for allowing 
and indeed facilitating homes in harm's way by subsidizing repeated 
flood losses through the National Flood Insurance Program.
  Along with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), I have 
proposed legislation to provide significant new assistance for those 
who are most at risk to provide $400 million additional from the years 
2001 to 2004 to help flood-proof or relocate people who are facing the 
greatest risk from repetitive flood loss, the people most in harm's 
way.
  If an offer of mitigation or relocation would be refused under our 
proposal, then at least the residents who decide to stay in harm's way 
would be at least required to pay the full cost of their flood 
insurance, as those who already live in homes that were built or 
substantially improved starting in 1975 already do. The intent here is 
not to punish but is to take away the incentive that people are given 
by the Federal Government to continue to live in hazardous 
circumstances.
  The bill's name, Two Floods and You Are Out--of the Taxpayers' 
Pocket, might be a bit provocative but the issue goes far beyond money. 
The goal of the two floods bill is not to eliminate the flood insurance 
but, rather, the goal is to protect the lives of Americans who live in 
the path of frequent flooding, to protect the flood insurance program 
for the 4 million current policyholders, and to protect the American 
taxpayer.
  The flood insurance program cannot continue as it is now. There is a 
deficit right at this moment of almost three-quarters of a billion 
dollars and it is climbing. Two percent of the policyholders have 
claimed 40 percent of all flood insurance payments since 1978. Many of 
them have chosen to live, sadly, in these areas of greatest conflict.
  There is a home in Texas that has received over $806,000 of flood 
insurance in 16 different events in less than 20 years, and the home is 
worth only $114,000.
  The question then becomes, should the Federal Government be in the 
business of providing an incentive for a small number of people to stop 
and continuously risk not just their property but their lives and those 
of their families and their neighbors.
  Nicholas Sparks in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine suggests 
that, well, maybe the answer is yes. He plans to rebuild in a hurricane 
devastated sand dune on the Carolina coast.
  I think that the majority of Americans would disagree. If there is a 
compassionate way to provide an incentive for people to move out of 
harm's way, that is what we should consider. If there is a way to 
provide that incentive while also protecting the flood insurance 
program and the American taxpayer, then that approach should be 
implemented as soon as possible.

[[Page 21898]]

  There are ways to protect lives: The flood insurance program and the 
taxpayer. The Two Floods bill would provide assistance to those who are 
most in danger to help them move to higher ground or to flood-proof 
their home. The money spent to move them from harm's way protects the 
lives of families that live by them and protects the health of the 
flood insurance program by ending the danger of repeated damage claims.
  Putting people, their families, and their neighbors who try to save 
them at risk does them no favor. Encouraging people we know to suffer 
repeated loss and threat is a waste of more than taxpayers' money. The 
loss of property, business, and human life is a tragedy we can help 
prevent. I urge my colleagues to support reform of the national flood 
insurance program.

                          ____________________