[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20322-20323]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  EXTENDING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 6965) to extend the authorization of the national flood insurance 
program, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6965

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Extension.--Section 1319 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking 
     ``September 30, 2008'' and inserting ``April 30, 2009''.
       (b) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     4016(a)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2008'' and 
     inserting ``April 30, 2009''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito) will each control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on 
this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would extend the National Flood Insurance 
Program by 7 months. During the most recent hurricanes of last year, we 
found that the program had some substantial problems to it. The House 
has passed a bill, the Senate has passed a bill, and we have been 
unable to this point to reconcile the two bills.
  So the solution in the meantime is to extend the existing flood 
insurance program by 7 months. It is important to homeowners and 
businesses so they can have easy access to flood insurance.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant support really of 
H.R. 6965 to extend the authorization of the National Flood Insurance 
Program. I would prefer that this would be a debate on a consensus 
reform package that would put the National Flood Insurance Program on a 
more actuarially sound footing.
  Both the House and Senate have passed separate bills that include 
important and necessary reforms. However, there are significant 
differences between the two packages. And, unfortunately, we have been 
unable to reach a compromise on our differences.
  Although there are differences in the two approaches, there are some 
similarities. For instance, both measures would reauthorize the flood 
program for 5 years and include important reforms to phase out premium 
subsidies and require more realistic pricing that is actuarially sound 
and based on the actual risk of flooding. Both bills would also phase 
out rate subsidies for nonresidential properties and non-primary 
residences.
  One of the great challenges for this program is the debt, which 
presents an ongoing challenge and stands at $17.4 billion resulting 
from the 2005 hurricanes. Any flood program reform package has to 
address the NFIP's debt, the interest payments on that debt and the net 
impact that they have on the budget.
  We also have to face the reality of new claims in the pipeline to 
cover losses from Hurricanes Ike and Gustav, as well as the flooding in 
the Midwest earlier this summer.
  Both bills contain strong and prudent reforms designed to strengthen 
the flood program, phase out subsidies, and encourage a premium pricing 
structure that is based on the actual risk of property loss from 
flooding.
  The National Flood Insurance Program is currently set to expire on 
September 30. For this reason we are today considering a simple 7-month 
extension designed to keep the flood insurance program up and running 
past the September 30 deadline. Allowing the flood insurance program to 
expire could cause serious disruptions to the mortgage market and we 
could not afford to let that happen, especially in light of our current 
financial instabilities. A 7-month extension would allow Congress time 
to complete their work on a comprehensive reform package.
  I want my colleagues in the House to know that the Republican members 
on the Financial Services Committee remain committed to enacting 
comprehensive reforms that not only modernize the National Flood 
Insurance

[[Page 20323]]

Program so that homeowners will continue to have access to flood 
insurance, but also to protect the American taxpayer at the same time. 
I urge passage of this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time, although I have no further 
speakers.
  Mr. WATT. I thank the gentlewoman for her excellent presentation on 
this. If she is prepared to yield back, I am also prepared to yield 
back.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the 
reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program.
  To be clear, there are certainly issues that Congress must address in 
any future consideration of the flood insurance program. But first and 
foremost, we must ensure that the NFIP continues to protect our 
communities.
  The NFIP was established to provide homeowners with protection from 
flood, following recognition that the private market was simply not 
capable of providing the necessary coverage. The program, which has 
been operating since 1968, is integral to ensuring that homeowners in 
high-risk areas, such as my South Florida district, are able to receive 
adequate protection from flood and are able to swiftly recover 
following a disaster.
  In Broward County, we currently have over 400,000 residential NFIP 
policies in place--which is more policies than any other county in the 
nation. Palm Beach County is also near the top of the list with over 
150,000 NFIP policies.
  The stability provided by the NFIP allows homeowners to responsibly 
insure their property from flood damage, which is especially important 
given the active the nature of this year's hurricane season.
  It's important to recognize however that the NFIP is only one piece 
of the larger puzzle of protecting our homeowners from disaster. With 
the property insurance crisis growing across the U.S., many people are 
facing difficulties protecting themselves against windstorms. And it is 
no longer simply a Florida problem, but is becoming a national issue. 
Policyholders are being dropped or are facing dramatic rate increases 
in states that are not traditionally considered high risk, such as 
Massachusetts and New York. Many insurers are no longer writing at all 
on the coasts of states like Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.
  That is why Congressman Tim Mahoney and I introduced and passed the 
Homeowners' Defense Act last year. This legislation addresses the 
crisis in availability and affordability of homeowners' insurance. It 
helps states to manage the risk that has been assumed by their state 
sponsored insurance funds by allowing them to enter the capital markets 
to find global investors that would be willing to assume that risk on 
their behalf. Our plan aims to increase market stabilization, 
particularly in times following natural disasters when rates 
traditionally increase dramatically and homeowners are dropped from 
their insurers.
  With this legislation having already passed the House, I look forward 
to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass our comprehensive 
plan to help homeowners and stabilize the market.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6965.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________