[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 19749-19753]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM ENHANCED BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT OF 
                                  2005

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 3669) to temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the national flood 
insurance program.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3669

       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 ``National Flood Insurance 
     Program Enhanced Borrowing Authority Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN BORROWING AUTHORITY.

       The first sentence of subsection (a) of section 1309 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is 
     amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``; except that, through September 30, 2008, 
     clause (2) of this sentence shall be applied by substituting 
     `$3,500,000,000' for `$1,500,000,000'''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). Pursuant to the 
rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3669, the National Flood 
Insurance Program Enhanced Borrowing Authority Act of 2005.
  This is an important bill. This legislation increases FEMA's 
borrowing authority for flood insurance by $2 billion and will go a 
long way in helping the Department's flood insurance response. This 
bill will ensure the program has sufficient funding on a cash basis in 
the short term. It will also allow FEMA to continue payment of the 
initial claims resulting from Hurricane Katrina while the 
administration further evaluates the extent of the damage and the most 
appropriate means to cover all potential claims.

                              {time}  1200

  In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Federal and local 
governments now face the Herculean task of coordinating the relocation 
of thousands upon thousands of individuals and families whose lives 
have been torn apart by devastation and rising floodwaters.
  There are more than 78,000 people now in shelters who will be 
requiring short-term and long-term-range housing solutions. In fact, 
today we had a roundtable with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Miller) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and this very issue was 
talked about and the magnitude of it and the importance of it and the 
urgency of it.
  In addition, it has been estimated that up to 360,000 residential 
mortgages could be negatively affected by the damage caused by the 
hurricane across the gulf region. Conservative estimates on residential 
and commercial property damage are in the range of $20 billion.
  Floods have been and continue to be one of the most destructive and 
most costly natural hazards to our Nation. During this past year alone, 
there have been three major floods in my area in Ohio. All three of 
these incidents qualified for Federal relief, granted by the President. 
Recent flooding in January this year resulted in historic levels in 
several local dams, and in Tuscarawas County, a community I represent, 
7,000 people were displaced and forced to evacuate. So I have witnessed 
firsthand what floods can do. But I will tell my colleagues that, of 
course, the magnitude of what is going on down south is beyond belief.
  Last Congress, the Committee on Financial Services spent considerable 
time and effort on legislation to reauthorize and reform the National 
Flood Insurance Program. On June 30, 2004, President Bush signed into 
law the Flood Insurance Reform Act. This legislation reauthorizes the 
National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, through September 2008.
  The major goal of the Flood Insurance Reform Act last Congress was to

[[Page 19750]]

reauthorize and reform the program with an eye toward maintaining the 
financial viability of the NFIP. While some provisions were included to 
address administrative and procedural concerns regarding it, we did not 
focus on issues that were procedural in nature such as the filing of 
claims, the timeliness of response to the claims filing, policyholder 
education, and insurance agent sales and training. Consequently, the 
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity has continued to 
review the National Flood Insurance Program in an effort to determine 
what changes need to be made to address the program's shortcomings.
  In addition to a request for a GAO study, our subcommittee has 
conducted three hearings this year on this important program, including 
a field hearing 2 weeks ago in rural Ohio. As the damage assessments 
and insurance claims begin to come in from the gulf coast region, we 
will be continuing our oversight of the NFIP and to look for possible 
legislative solutions that make this program as efficient and 
responsive as it can be.
  The National Flood Insurance Program is a valuable tool in addressing 
the losses incurred to this country due to floods. It assures that 
businesses and families have access to affordable flood insurance that 
would not be available on the open market. Clearly, we need to continue 
our review of this program and to take steps to make sure it is meeting 
the needs of those for whom it was intended.
  In times like these, it is more important than ever for Americans to 
stand united in helping our fellow citizens. The House of 
Representatives will continue to stand with the people of the gulf 
coast and our colleagues who represent those areas throughout this 
effort, and we encourage Americans who want to help to contact 
charitable organizations in their areas.
  America has overcome challenges in the past. As Members of the House 
and, specifically, the Committee on Financial Services, we are prepared 
to roll up our sleeves and do the hard work to overcome this tragedy. 
Increasing FEMA's borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance 
Program is just one step in the process of helping those who have been 
affected by Katrina's waters.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) for 
his expeditious work in sending this bill to the floor. I would also 
like to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Baker), the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), and 
especially thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for 
helping us to move this legislation.
  I urge the adoption of this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, preliminarily, I yield 
myself 1 minute just to introduce as our first speaker the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The gentleman from Ohio correctly noted that we made our committee 
and the Congress follow some very substantial improvements from the 
standpoint both of fiscal responsibility and environmental sensitivity 
to the flood insurance program. Now, we obviously did not have in mind 
at that point something of this particular disastrous consequence, but 
we did put into the law, for the first time really, some of the 
environmentally important issues that should be there. I am hoping that 
elsewhere, as we go through the appropriations process, that program 
will be fully funded, particularly in the proposals for mitigation.
  But on our side, it was a genuinely bipartisan issue. The former 
Member, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), collaborated with 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumen-
auer), who was the main co-author of that important reform in flood 
insurance.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
permitting me to speak and allowing this to move forward. I appreciate 
his leadership and partnership with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Oxley) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) for the follow-
through on the important flood insurance reform that was, as he 
mentioned a moment ago, enacted this last year.
  The committee has been focused on making sure that the promise of 
flood insurance reform is, in fact, realized. While our hearts go out 
to those who have suffered what has happened in the gulf region, I 
think the spotlight of this terrible catastrophe will help us follow 
through on the important work that we have started with the committee 
and in terms of dealing with the flood insurance program.
  I acknowledge that what we are doing here today is an important, 
necessary step. The additional $2 billion in borrowing authority is 
unprecedented, but the floods are unprecedented. I think we should 
acknowledge on the floor that this is just the down payment; that the 
$2 billion, by no stretch of the imagination, is likely to be enough. 
We are probably going to be back asking for another $2 billion or $4 
billion before we are done, but it is important to allow FEMA to move 
forward at this point.
  I hope that this will enable us to provide a platform for further 
reform. I hope, and I appreciate the prodding that the subcommittee did 
earlier with FEMA and its performance. It is appalling to me that FEMA 
never pushed forward requesting the mitigation funds that were 
authorized. Now we have the money in the House version of the 
appropriations bill, but we need to move forward to see to it that this 
Congress puts money in place that will move people out of harm's way.
  I hope the committee will work with us to look at other adjustments 
that may be necessary in the flood insurance program. Certainly the 
notion that people who live protected by levees, and I use the term 
``levee protection'' advisedly, may not need flood insurance. Well, I 
think we are seeing an example of where, in fact, they probably do need 
flood insurance.
  I think there are other questions that we need to explore. I know the 
Committee on Financial Services is exploring other aspects; and I 
appreciate consultation with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Ranking 
Member Frank), is about issues in terms of the viability of small 
financial institutions that have been wiped out. Well, I hope that with 
the same spirit of necessary reform and accommodation, we can look at 
how we finance the flood insurance. Can we afford to put $2 billion, $4 
billion, $6 billion of additional flood losses on the backs of 4 
million policyholders? It seems to me from a distance that that would 
be both unfair and undesirable.
  I hope that this is the first step to be able to move forward with 
these longer-term reforms. I appreciate the work that the committee is 
doing. I appreciate moving forward with this expeditiously, but our 
work has just begun, and I look forward to working with my colleagues 
on these next important steps.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in 
a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney).
  Is it the gentleman's understanding that Congress should and will 
continue to assess and address ongoing problems with the National Flood 
Insurance Program?
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, yes, that is my 
understanding.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, 
this legislation will allow FEMA to provide much-needed relief to the 
residents of the Gulf Coast as they rebuild their homes and their 
lives, as well it should.
  However, many residents in my district are still struggling to 
rebuild following Hurricane Isabel which struck Virginia in 2003. Some 
are still living in FEMA trailers and many have been shattered to learn 
that the flood insurance will not cover their losses. I have spoken to 
many misled policyholders

[[Page 19751]]

who have had their claims mismanaged by the National Flood Insurance 
Program.
  I would like to work with the gentleman to see that my constituents 
are treated fairly and to fix the system so that victims of Katrina do 
not have the same problems that we have seen in my district and other 
districts across the country.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentlewoman, and I also want 
to commend her for her work product and the time that she has put in on 
the Committee on Financial Services. She has definitely added to and 
benefited us to be able to work through these programs and to make 
these reforms, and we have appreciated all of that input from the 
gentlewoman. It has been invaluable. The gentlewoman's testimony 
earlier this year regarded the lingering effects of Hurricane Isabel 
and the numerous problems that her constituents had in processing 
claims and payments of the National Flood Insurance Program.
  I share the gentlewoman's concerns that these problems will increase 
in the wake of this recent hurricane, no doubt; and I anticipate that 
we will need to conduct further oversight hearings on FEMA's 
administration of the program. The committee has already held three 
hearings on the NFIP this year and, as I mentioned, most recently one 
in my district in Ohio. We have heard numerous stories about inaccurate 
flood maps, delayed and inaccurate claim payments, and 
misunderstandings about the nature and extent of flood policy coverage. 
I know the gentlewoman has heard about that too and has done her level 
best to respond to her constituents, which I know they appreciate.
  As a result, we have asked the GAO to conduct a study of the NFIP, 
and I pledge to continue to ensure that the program meets the needs of 
the people it was designed to assist. I really look forward to working 
with the gentlewoman to meet those ends to do what is right for your 
constituents and the Nation when it comes to continuing to reform and 
work with this program.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from Ohio, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on issues 
related to the National Flood Insurance Program.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Obviously, there is a great degree of support in the Congress for 
getting the money out right away. We have people who were victims of 
this flood, and they have been victims in a number of ways. This is one 
small piece of the compensation that goes to them. There will be people 
who will be uncompensated, people who did not have flood insurance, 
people who are not able to make the kind of partial payment that is 
required, but the least we can do is to make this payment.
  But as we vote quickly to send this money, we need to work in the 
next few weeks and months to deal with and resolve some broader 
questions.
  I believe that the country has suffered over the past decade, and it 
is particularly suffering now, from a philosophy that has undervalued 
the need for us as a civilized people to come together and work 
together on some things. We are a society run, to a great extent, 
according to the principles of the free market of private capital. It 
is a wonderful system for generating wealth. The goods and services 
that are produced through the free market system benefit all of us, and 
that free market system leads to the best possible production.
  The problem comes with people who are so enamored of that system that 
they value it not only for what it does, but for what it does not do, 
is not supposed to do, and should not be burdened with trying to do. 
That is, there are in this society a number of very important values 
that we have as civilized people with a moral commitment to each 
other's well-being that can only be done if we pool our resources.
  Let us take the specific issue we are now talking about: insurance. 
The insurance industry is a private industry. It is an industry that 
provides important services to people, that provides jobs for people, 
that pools resources and provides investment capital. But even in the 
area of insurance, we have recognized historically, there are some 
gaps.
  The very existence of the Federal Flood Insurance Program, which we 
are here today financing, is an acknowledgment that there are limits to 
the private system. Private insurance, we have decided as a society, 
cannot handle the flood question, so the government must step in. I say 
that because it has become fashionable to denounce government, to take 
credit for less government. Well, less government, what does that mean? 
Less FEMA, less flood insurance, less for the Corps of Engineers?
  This is an example. We are here today to provide more government. We 
are here today to provide public resources, $2 billion. By the way, 
this $2 billion, we are authorizing the flood insurance program to 
borrow it. They are going to borrow it from the Treasury. They will be 
borrowing it from the Treasury which will, of course, in turn borrow it 
from the capital markets, from the American people, from China, and 
from everybody else who lends us money. That is the second point I want 
to make.
  As we now acknowledge after this terrible disaster and an inadequate 
response to the disaster, partly caused by a failure to appreciate the 
importance of our coming together through government to perform 
important functions, we will be spending a great deal of additional 
money. We are adding this $2 billion, I assume, to the deficit, let us 
be clear.

                              {time}  1215

  We are not having any offsets. And this is a very small part of what 
we are doing. The time has come to recognize that we have over these 
past years left this Federal Government with too little in the way of 
resources to carry out our purposes. And we talk a lot about values and 
about the moral purposes we seek to achieve. I believe strongly that 
morality ought to be an element of public policy. I believe that we 
have not fulfilled our moral duty to the poorest people and working 
people and lower middle income people in New Orleans and elsewhere who 
have not been treated fairly as they were victimized.
  That is a moral question. It is a moral question when people are left 
behind because they do not have the resources to leave and other people 
leave. It is a moral question when people are not rescued when they 
could be rescued. It is a moral question when we let people live now in 
conditions brought about by this flood that are not decent conditions 
for human beings.
  And part of the answer, not all of the answer, but a necessary part 
of the answer is for the government to have the resources. And those 
who subscribe to the view that we must here in this House carry out our 
moral duty to each other should understand one of our moral duties 
right now is to go to people in need, to people who are frail, who are 
ill, who are young, who are old, who are in good health, but who have 
been reduced by physical forces to circumstances that no one of us 
would want to live in.
  And only if we come together through this mechanism called 
government, and only if we give this mechanism called government 
resources, tax money, because that is where the money comes from, will 
we have the capacity to discharge our fundamental moral duty. We talk a 
lot about family values. Let us value the families that have been so 
badly battered by this hurricane and whose condition was exacerbated by 
an inadequate response by the rest of the country.
  I cannot think of a better demonstration of family values than to go 
to the families living in Astrodomes and Superdomes and other places, 
hardly adequate for a family to live in. Let us go show our family 
values by doing whatever we can. We can never make people whole in the 
situation, but let us try to alleviate their misery.
  Well, again, we are borrowing $2 billion today, and I am glad we are 
doing that because we need to get to their

[[Page 19752]]

aid. But it is a very small part of what we need to do. But I hope that 
this $2 billion will not stay borrowed. This $2 billion, a very small 
piece of what we need to do, underlines the importance of our, let me 
put it this way.
  We have, I think, a greater recognition of the value of government 
than we used to. I have not heard anybody today boast about how much 
they have reduced government. Indeed, I have heard virtually universal 
insistence that the government has got to do more in housing. We have 
got to do a better job with the Corps of Engineers, and we have got to 
do a better job with the EPA to deal with the terrible environmental 
problems that will result from this. We have to increase Medicaid 
funding at the Federal level for some of the States that are receiving 
people. We have to provide more funding for education. We are going to 
have to rebuild streets; we are going to have to pay police officers 
overtime.
  There will be enormous demands on this government for money. And what 
does that mean? It means enormous demands that we recognize our moral 
obligation to each other and each other's families to alleviate the 
effects of the disaster. Let us not just borrow that money. Let us not 
just add it to the deficit. The time has come to say that we have left 
ourselves inadequately prepared to deal with this.
  For anyone, an individual, a company, a nonprofit institution or a 
government to live deliberately and consciously on the edge is 
irresponsible, but that is what we have done to ourselves in this 
country. We have so reduced the resources available to this Federal 
Government that when this terrible disaster hit, we left ourselves 
inadequately prepared financially to deal with it. We did not do enough 
because of financial problems in the past.
  But let us now say, okay, we now understand this. There is a war 
going on in Iraq. I opposed it, but the war is there, and it imposes 
costs on us. There is still an effort in Afghanistan which I supported. 
Now we have this disaster. The time has come to recognize that this 
government, the instrument of our collective moral capacity in this 
instance, and volunteers will be very helpful, and I salute the 
volunteers who have done this.
  But no one thinks that individual volunteerism is going to resolve 
this crisis. There needs to be a common effort, coordinated and 
organized; and that means government. So for those who have joined in 
the insistence that we spend more, we have spent $50 billion in the 
supplemental, $2 billion here, and then we will do more in housing. And 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), who has been a great leader for us 
in the housing area, his committee. As we sit here today and stand here 
today, in another part of this complex a meeting is going on. The 
gentleman from Ohio, to his credit, convened all of the groups dealing 
with housing, low-income advocates, public officials, manufactured 
housing, homebuilders, people who finance housing. They are giving us 
an important set of ideas about how to respond.
  Now, some of them can be done by cutting red tape and by giving 
flexibility. They do not all cost money. But some of them cost money. 
You cannot take people who have lost physical homes and house them 
decently without money. So we have in every area virtually where the 
Federal Government is involved a need to spend more money. The height 
of irresponsibility would be, it seems to me, to join in this 
insistence on spending more money and to refuse to address the revenue 
problems of the government.
  How can you be in favor of spending hundreds of billions perhaps, 
certainly well over a hundred billion extra in addition to everything 
else we have been spending, but say, oh, and by the way let us cut some 
more revenue from the government. Let us leave the government less able 
to do this. And understand that people said, well, it will be a deficit 
and we can live with a deficit.
  This absence of resources puts a constraint on spending. Of course 
spending should not be wasteful. But it is clear, if you look, I have 
been here, we have done these appropriations, and appropriations 
chairman after appropriations chairman has come up and said, you know, 
I agree, we do not have enough money here. I wish we had more money for 
housing. I wish we had more money for transportation. I wish we could 
have done more for medical research. I wish we could have done more for 
environmental cleanup. But given the budgets, that is all we could do.
  In other words, the self-imposed restriction has hurt us. Previously, 
it was maybe a philosophical debate. Today, it is a moral necessity. It 
simply is not, it seems to me, morally acceptable, it is not in 
consonance with family values to continue to deprive ourselves of the 
resources we need to meet these needs. And so I support this two 
billion, and I will support many billions more, tens of billions more. 
But I will also support changing some of the policies of the past.
  The wealthiest people in this country, people who make more than 
$500,000 a year in income, I think it is reasonable for us to say to 
them, you know, over the past few years, your taxes have been reduced 
and you have profited. The time has come for us to undo some of those 
tax breaks. Leave in place everything up to $500,000, if that is what 
you want to do. I would change it even further. But at the very least 
can we not say that people's incomes above $500,000 should no longer 
get the tax reduction they got? None of them will be hurting. None of 
them will be competing for space in the shelters. None of them will 
need any reconstruction of their homes. And if we do not do that, no 
matter how much we say, oh, we do not care, we will just add it to the 
deficit. We do not care. We will care because nobody is so 
irresponsible as to totally disregard that deficit impact.
  And so if we are going to be true to what we have been saying we want 
to do, if we are true to our own moral profession, then we have two 
obligations, one, sensibly, thoughtfully, not wastefully, to spend the 
resources it is going to take to deal with this problem. And by the 
way, let us be clear. We do not want to alleviate this problem by 
exacerbating others. We do not want people from this area to go and 
take housing that is already scarce and knock other people out or knock 
other people's schools out or compete for scarce Medicaid dollars.
  We need to increase what we are doing. We need to do a better job of 
preparing for this in the future. This will take, we all agree, a very 
large amount of money. It may be fun to spend the money, or at least it 
is popular. It would not be morally appropriate to spend all this money 
and to take credit for spending the money without going back and 
undoing some of the tax reductions so that some of the wealthiest 
people in this country who have enjoyed great prosperity lose a little 
of their tax breaks and contributed so at the very least this 
additional spending will not add to the deficit, will not be a burden 
for the future; and the fact that it is a deficit will not be a 
constraint on our willingness to spend what is necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank) for supporting this and the reforms that we have had. Let 
me also say something. The gentleman mentioned about what is going on 
in the rest of the complex. And we are hearing things and looking at a 
bigger picture in some long-term eyes, but also some short-term eyes. 
And I think as we go down this path, just to go off of this bill for a 
second because we are talking about money today and we are going to 
spend two billion more, but as we also go down this path in the near 
weeks to come, I think that the Congress is going to have to put its 
fingerprints, and we are going to work together, but it is going to 
have to put its fingerprints on some things.
  You just take the current system and you throw some money into it and 
you say here is another X amount of billion dollars, and we do not 
consider the human need, basic need right now for housing, for 
transitional housing, to do

[[Page 19753]]

something about the shelters, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters) mentioned that today in the meeting. But we are going to have 
to put our fingerprints on some of it.
  We just cannot let it be up to the standard system of here is the 
money, and the government agency will then decide what it is going to 
do. Yes, there are certain monies they can do that. There is also going 
to be certain things that we are going to have to take a good look at 
and be able to think outside the box for a situation that is very 
dramatic for people, and it is going to have to be done soon.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing 
to work with the gentleman from Ohio who has been one of the Members 
who has not been willing to give up our responsibility, and we will 
work together.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3669, a bill 
that would temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency's National Flood Insurance Program.
  This bill was introduced by my friend and colleague from Ohio, Mr. 
Ney, in response to the terrible destruction that has resulted from 
Hurricane Katrina. Communities across the Gulf Coast from Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Alabama have been wiped out. Massive numbers of people 
are virtual refugees in their own country. And though it will take 
weeks to determine the full extent of this tragedy, it is likely that 
thousands of our fellow citizens lost their lives.
  For those who survive, the task has turned towards recovery. One of 
the first things many will be thinking about is whether or not their 
homes and possessions will be covered by insurance.
  Though standard homeowners insurance policies do not cover flood 
damage, many residents of the areas affected by Katrina were required 
to purchase flood insurance because their homes were located on a 
floodplain. As a result, FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, 
will soon begin the difficult task of assessing damages and paying 
claims.
  Under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, FEMA has the 
authority to borrow up to $1.5 billion from the Treasury in order to 
pay flood claims. FEMA has exercised its borrowing privileges in the 
past and has always repaid the Treasury in full. This $1.5 billion will 
be used to ensure that the program has sufficient funding on a cash 
basis in the short term. Clearly, this will not be enough.
  H.R. 3669 will allow the National Flood Insurance Program to borrow 
an additional $2 billion, if necessary, to make payments on initial 
claims while the full extent of the damage is assessed. This borrowing 
authority is temporary. Like all other such funds requested by the NFIP 
from Treasury, this money will be paid back in full once the NFIP has 
had time to recover from the hurricane.
  In the meantime, the Financial Services Committee will continue our 
oversight of the NFIP and work to address any changes that may be 
necessary in light of Katrina. We in the Congress have put in a great 
deal of work over the past several years to ensure the viability of the 
program, culminating in the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance 
Reform Act of 2004. This Act expanded the use of mitigation grants and 
requires homeowners to participate in flood mitigation programs to 
prevent frequent flood losses. We are now faced with a situation that 
will surely test the NFIP's ability to quickly verify policies, assess 
damages, and pay claims. I look forward to working with my colleagues 
on the Committee, particularly Mr. Ney and Mr. Baker, to ensure that 
Americans continue to have access to affordable and effective flood 
insurance.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in assisting Hurricane Katrina 
victims by supporting final passage of H.R. 3669.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). The question is on 
the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3669.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________