[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10879-10887]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM ACT OF 2011

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 340 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1309.

                              {time}  1234


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1309) to extend the authorization of the national flood insurance 
program, to achieve reforms to improve the financial integrity and 
stability of the program, and to increase the role of private markets 
in the management of flood insurance risk, and for other purposes, with 
Ms. Foxx in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance 
Reform Act of 2011. I'd like to thank Ms. Waters and all the Members 
from both sides of the aisle who helped to craft this bill.
  On May 13, the Financial Services Committee favorably reported the 
Flood Insurance Reform Act by a unanimous vote of 54-0. This bill is 
important and reflects the hard work and bipartisan support of the 
Financial Services Committee.
  It would reauthorize for 5 years the National Flood Insurance 
Program, NFIP. The bill would enact a series of reforms designed to, 
number one, improve NFIP's financial stability; two, to reduce the 
burden on taxpayers; three, restore integrity to the FEMA mapping 
system; four, to explore ways to increase private market participation; 
and, five, to help bring certainty to the housing market.
  For over 40 years, taxpayers have subsidized flood insurance premiums 
for policyholders. To improve NFIP's financial stability, H.R. 1309 
phases in actuarially sound rates for policyholders and phases out 
taxpayer-subsidized rates. As a result, the Congressional Budget Office 
stated that the bill generates $4.2 billion; and absent a Katrina-like 
catastrophe, the bill will actually accelerate NFIP's payments on its 
$17.75 billion debt to the taxpayer. As it stands, NFIP has already 
paid back taxpayers about $1.8 billion.
  But perhaps most importantly, H.R. 1309 eliminates a barrier to the 
development of a private flood insurance market and puts us on a path 
towards a responsible, long-term plan that eliminates taxpayer risk.
  For the first time, policyholders can choose private flood insurance 
over government flood insurance without the risk of lender rejection; 
and the bill eliminates taxpayer-subsidized rates so that the private 
sector can offer consumers increasingly competitive rates as compared 
to the NFIP. Second, FEMA is required to solicit bids to determine the 
cost to the private sector, not to the taxpayer, bearing the risk of 
flood insurance.
  Third, it requires that GAO and FEMA evaluate the feasibility of 
voluntary, community-based flood insurance. And, fourth, the bill 
reiterates FEMA's existing authority to purchase reinsurance from the 
private sector as an alternative to the U.S. Treasury and taxpayers 
serving as a backstop to NFIP.
  Finally, the bill addresses many of the concerns that Members have 
raised with us about new maps, especially as they relate to the dam and 
levee decertifications. It allows communities to suspend the 
requirement to purchase flood insurance while they work to construct or 
fix their flood protection systems.
  Madam Chairman, when Congress created NFIP, there was no viable 
private-sector flood insurance market. Taxpayers were providing 
increasing amounts of direct assistance through disaster relief to 
flood victims. Without reforms contained in this bill, taxpayers will 
never be paid back the debt they are owed; homeowners and businesses 
will have limited or no access to flood insurance; and Congress will 
inevitably have to bail out flood disaster victims, as it did prior to 
1968. We cannot allow this to happen.
  This bill is the first significant reform to the program in nearly a 
decade. The NFIP is too important to let lapse and too in debt to 
continue without reform. I look forward to today's amendment debate and 
urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill.


[[Page 10880]]


                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                     Washington, DC, June 2, 2011.
     Hon. Spencer Bachus,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bachus: I am writing concerning H.R. 1309, 
     the ``Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011,'' which is 
     scheduled for floor consideration soon. As a result of your 
     having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 1309 that fall 
     within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, we are able to agree to forego action on this bill 
     in order that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor 
     for consideration.
       The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1309 at 
     this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our 
     Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the 
     bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may 
     address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our 
     Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an 
     appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this or similar legislation, and 
     requests your support for any such request.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 1309, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lamar Smith,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                              Committee on Financial Services,

                                     Washington, DC, June 2, 2011.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011. I agree 
     that there are provisions in the legislation that fall under 
     the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. I am most 
     appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in 
     the interest of expediting Floor consideration of H.R. 1309.
       Further, I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, 
     the Committee on Judiciary is not waiving its jurisdiction. I 
     will include this exchange of letters in our Committee Report 
     on H.R. 1309 and the Congressional Record during Floor 
     consideration.
       Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Spencer Bachus,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, 
           and Technology,
                                     Washington, DC, June 2, 2011.
     Hon. Spencer Bachus,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bachus: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space, 
     and Technology in H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act 
     of 2011. H.R. 1309 has been marked up by the Committee on 
     Financial Services. The amended version of the bill contains 
     provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
     on Science, Space, and Technology.
       Based on discussions that the staff of our two committees 
     have had regarding this legislation and in the interest of 
     permitting your Committee to proceed expeditiously to floor 
     consideration of this important legislation, I am willing to 
     waive consideration of this bill. However, agreeing to waive 
     consideration of this bill should not be construed as 
     waiving, reducing, or affecting the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
       Additionally, the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology expressly reserves its authority to seek conferees 
     on any provision within its jurisdiction during any House-
     Senate conference that may be convened on this, or any 
     similar legislation. I ask for your commitment to support any 
     request by the Committee for conferees on H.R. 1309, as well 
     as any similar or related legislation.
       I ask that a copy of this letter and your response be 
     included in the report on H.R. 1309 and in the Congressional 
     Record during consideration of this bill.
       I look forward to working with you as this important 
     measure moves through the legislative process.
           Sincerely,

                                                Ralph M. Hall,

                                   Chairman, Committee on Science,
     Space, and Technology.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                              Committee on Financial Services,

                                     Washington, DC, June 2, 2011.
     Hon. Ralph M. Hall,
     Chairman, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Rayburn 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hall: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011. I agree 
     that the section requiring a study on graduated risk in this 
     important legislation falls under the jurisdiction of both 
     the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on 
     Science, Space and Technology. I am most appreciative of your 
     decision not to request a referral in the interest of 
     expediting consideration of H.R. 1309.
       Further, I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, 
     the Committee on Science, Space and Technology is not waiving 
     its jurisdiction. I will include this exchange of letters in 
     our Committee Report on H.R. 1309 and in the Congressional 
     Record during consideration of this bill.
       Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Spencer Bachus,
                                                         Chairman.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance 
Reform Act of 2011. Before I begin my remarks, I would like to thank 
Chairman Spencer Bachus, Chairwoman Judy Biggert, and Ranking Member 
Barney Frank for their assistance and support with this bill.
  We were able to work in a bipartisan manner on this bill in our 
committee passing it on a vote of 54-0. The spirit of cooperation 
between Republicans and Democrats on this bill has been extremely 
welcome, and this is why I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this 
bill.

                              {time}  1240

  Madam Chairwoman, earlier this year I introduced similar legislation, 
H.R. 1026, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act. A version of my 
bill passed the House last year on a bipartisan vote, and I hope that 
the bill offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois will also pass the 
House with significant support from both parties.
  The flood insurance program is more important now than ever before. 
Floods are the most common natural disaster and flood insurance is the 
most effective means for helping families to rebuild after a flood. 
Therefore, it is vital that flood insurance remain accessible, 
affordable and available to the 5.5 million homeowners with policies 
and the many more who may want or need to purchase them.
  Unfortunately, the lack of a long-term authorization has placed the 
flood insurance program at risk. The program lapsed three times last 
year. These lapses meant that FEMA was not able to write new policies, 
renew expiring policies or increase coverage limits. Given the current 
crisis in the housing market, this inability in the flood insurance 
program is unacceptable and must be addressed. I am pleased that the 
gentlewoman's bill not only reauthorizes the program for 5 years but 
also provides the program with the tools it needs to return to a strong 
financial footing while protecting homeowners.
  The bill also addresses the impact of new flood maps on communities. 
The mapping process has caused confusion and financial strain on 
homeowners who now find themselves in flood zones and subject to 
mandatory purchase requirements. I saw this firsthand in my home city 
of Los Angeles. Last year, I was able to assist homeowners in the Park 
Mesa Heights area of the city who had been mistakenly placed in a flood 
zone. In that case, FEMA acted quickly to respond to new data and 
correct the mistake. However, there are thousands of homeowners 
nationwide who now find themselves in flood zones and subject to 
mandatory purchase requirements.
  The gentlewoman's bill would ease the financial strain on newly 
mapped homeowners by allowing for a 3-year delay of the mandatory 
purchase requirement and allows for a 5-year phase-in of actuarial 
rates afterwards. In addition, I know that the gentleman from Alabama, 
the chairman of the committee, will be offering an amendment similar to 
the one I offered at markup that would extend the 3-year delay to 5 
years. I know that the gentleman has worked with a bipartisan coalition 
of members of the House

[[Page 10881]]

Levee Caucus, led by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), and I 
look forward to passage of that amendment.
  To make sure that FEMA issues the most accurate maps, the bill 
establishes a Technical Mapping Advisory Council. By improving the 
mapping process, the council would prevent instances of erroneous flood 
maps, like the one I encountered in Park Mesa Heights. The bill also 
makes other improvements to the program by phasing in actuarial rates 
for pre-FIRM properties, raising maximum coverage limits, providing 
notice to renters about contents insurance, and allowing homeowners 
that receive letters of map amendment to be reimbursed for their costs.
  Madam Chairwoman, I believe that the gentlewoman from Illinois and I 
have produced a good bill that will protect homeowners, the flood 
insurance program, and taxpayers. I hope that we can pass this bill 
today and that the Senate takes up flood insurance reform in short 
order so that we do not risk another lapse when the program expires on 
September 30 of this year. Again, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois 
for her tremendous work on this bill, and I strongly urge an ``aye'' 
vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia 
(Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the legislation that 
is before us today to reform the National Flood Insurance Program.
  I would like to thank the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and 
the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters) for their hard work to 
bring forth a bipartisan bill which addresses many of the concerns to a 
program hampered by extraordinary losses and currently facing about $18 
billion of debt.
  H.R. 1309 provides a long-term extension of the National Flood 
Insurance Program, but it makes a significantly indebted program more 
fiscally sound. A 5-year reauthorization will give the certainty that 
is needed to a program that has been without it for the past 2 years. 
It is irresponsible and unfair to communities and individuals, 
especially those who live in flood-prone areas such as mine, to pass 
short-term extensions and allow temporary lapses when more than 5 
million policyholders depend on it for financial security against 
flooding. Unless congressional action is taken, on September 30, 2011, 
these policyholders will again be put in danger of losing protection.
  Unfortunately, the persistence of subsidized rates for properties in 
high-risk areas has left the NFIP underfunded and at risk. This bill 
makes needed reforms to put premiums more in line with risk by 
incorporating actuarial rates for at-risk properties. Increasing the 
limit on annual premium rate increases will gradually phase out 
subsidized premiums and help reduce taxpayer exposure. At the same 
time, this legislation allows properties relief from the mandatory 
purchase requirement for up to 3 years so they may be able to plan 
better for being newly mapped into special flood hazard areas.
  Most importantly, this bill gives us a chance to give long-term 
certainty to policyholders as well as insurers who participate in the 
program. In a still unsure housing market, it is critical that we 
provide as much clarity as possible to current and future homeowners.
  I am very pleased that this legislation looks at privatization 
initiatives and the possibilities that the private market as well as 
reinsurance can play in protecting communities against future flood 
damages. It is my hope that we will pass this bill.
  Again, I want to congratulate the chairwoman for her hard work.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy). She has been very much involved in the 
development of this legislation and has worked very hard.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) for yielding me this time. It has been a 
pleasure working with her. I would also like to thank Chairman Bachus 
and Subcommittee Chair Biggert with whom we have worked. This is 
something that is important to both of our districts. I also thank 
Ranking Member Barney Frank.
  Madam Chairman, H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011, 
reauthorizes the National Flood Insurance Program for 5 years, but it 
also provides much needed reforms to the National Flood Insurance 
Program.
  My district in Long Island, especially the community of Valley 
Stream, was included in the early rounds of FEMA's implementation of 
the flood map modernization process, and we have experienced much of 
the frustrations associated with the process. The whole idea of redoing 
what we're doing in this flood map is hopefully to prevent other 
Members of Congress from being frustrated as much as I have when 
they're trying to help their community.
  Since our maps were enacted in the fall of 2009, I hear daily from 
our frustrated homeowners who are required to purchase flood insurance 
because of the updated maps and who feel they did not have the time or 
the tools necessary to understand and respond to the maps' results. 
H.R. 1309 contains provisions to better inform homeowners who are 
required to purchase flood insurance because of updated maps. For 
example, the bill requires FEMA to notify federally elected officials 
when there are changes to a flood zone or a map directly in their 
district.
  The bill also requires FEMA to create a method for flood insurance 
policies to be paid for with installment payments, to ease the burden 
of having to pay the up-front full payment which can cost thousands of 
dollars. The bill also allows for homeowners who are in the reduced 
cost preferred risk policy program to enter into the 5-year phase-in 
for full actuarial rates when the extended rate expires in 2013.
  To ensure the accuracy of the data and process FEMA used in creating 
the updated maps around the country, H.R. 1309 also creates a Technical 
Mapping Council made up of agency employees and experts in the field of 
mapping to develop new mapping standards for future map modernization 
activities. We need to use every tool available to bring relief to 
homeowners who are being burdened by FEMA's map modernization process, 
and the bill before us is a good start.

                              {time}  1250

  I would like also to say, once again, working with my colleague Mrs. 
Biggert, working on the subcommittee has been a really good process. We 
have been able to bring our experiences, what happened in my community 
in Valley Stream and the frustration that homeowners have gone through. 
This legislation, although it doesn't cure everything, it will help 
constituents. And those who have not had their maps done yet, this is a 
good way for going forward.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), a member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. FINCHER. Madam Chairman, I stand before you today because my 
district recently suffered severe flooding this spring and summer which 
we are now just beginning to recover from. The flooding of the 
Mississippi River, caused by an unusual amount of rain from back-to-
back storms, left thousands of Tennesseans with flood damage. In my 
district alone, over 3,000 homes were damaged by storms and floods, and 
over 4,000 registered for disaster assistance.
  Because the Mississippi River borders 110 miles of Tennessee's Eighth 
Congressional District, many small towns and farms are subject to 
unpredictable flooding each year. With this in mind, I am pleased to 
support H.R. 1309 today.
  H.R. 1309 reauthorizes the National Flood Insurance Program for 5 
years, which would provide some certainty for the economy and to the 
national housing market. During a period of 9.2 percent unemployment, 
we need this certainty to boost the housing construction industry and 
to help create badly needed jobs.

[[Page 10882]]

  Another reason I am supporting H.R. 1309 today is this legislation 
encourages greater private sector participation in the National Flood 
Insurance Program. Madam Chairman, if we are to reduce Federal spending 
and the size of government in our lives, we need to put every program 
on the table and analyze ways we can encourage the private sector to 
shoulder more government risk.
  I am pleased to support H.R. 1309 and encourage my colleagues to vote 
in favor of this bill.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairwoman, I am so pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). He has a long history in 
this area, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 2004 bears his name. 
I appreciate his support.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy, as I 
appreciate her leadership and the leadership of Chair Biggert for 
bringing this important legislation to the floor.
  It is true, I have been working in these areas for the last 10 years 
to make sure that the program is stable in the long term and encourages 
participation. Here we are raising rates where necessary to more 
accurately reflect flood risk.
  For too long, homeowners in low-risk areas have been subsidizing 
those in high-risk areas, all backed by the Federal taxpayers. This 
bill will make the program closer to being actuarially sound. I 
appreciate the work done to deal with repetitively flooded properties, 
which comprise 2 percent of the properties insured by the program but 
are responsible for 30 percent of the claims.
  We do people no favors by paying them to rebuild in the same way, in 
the same place, time and time again in harm's way. That's why I 
strongly support the amendment that has been included in the en bloc to 
reauthorize and streamline a number of mitigation programs targeted 
towards repetitive flood programs.
  I authored, with my colleague Doug Bereuter of Nebraska, a program to 
provide mitigation assistance for ``severe repetitive loss 
properties.'' Unfortunately, since 2004, we found the program has been 
hard for FEMA to administer. When they have been able to get the 
program off the ground, it has allowed mitigation of almost 600 
properties and saved $125 million. But if we are able to move forward 
here, allowing the program to work right, it can make a huge, long-term 
difference both in the lives of property owners as well as the fiscal 
stability of the program.
  The Waters amendment addresses the administrative programs by 
combining three mitigation programs into one streamlined provision, 
removes red tape, and enables FEMA to more easily work with the 
communities to mitigate the properties.
  It is important to note that it does not cost the taxpayers any 
money. The money for mitigation comes from the flood insurance fund 
made up of premium dollars, and each dollar spent on mitigation saves 
the fund far more in the future.
  I appreciate the work of Mrs. Biggert, Ms. Waters, Chair Bachus, 
Ranking Member Frank, and the committee to dig into the details here to 
ensure that FEMA will continue to have the tools it needs to address 
the properties that are costing the program the most. This is going to 
go a long way toward helping people out of the cycle of flooding and 
will help reduce the heavy drain that these properties have on the 
flood insurance program.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Canseco), another great member of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Mr. CANSECO. I would like to thank Chairman Biggert for her 
leadership on this bill which makes vital reforms to a troubled 
program.
  Madam Chairman, we are all aware of the importance of flood 
insurance. Back in Texas, floods are a common occurrence. And when they 
happen, they destroy homes, property, and even entire communities.
  Yes, this program provides flood victims with the monetary 
compensation necessary to begin rebuilding their homes and their lives; 
yet we cannot forget that the only reason this program is still 
operating is because taxpayers have bailed it out as, by any measure, 
it has been insolvent.
  That is why I am offering a very simple amendment to this bill that 
accomplishes three things:
  Number one, it adds a provision to the bill that recognizes that 
while flood insurance is important to millions of Americans, this 
program is deeply in debt to the American taxpayer and there is 
currently no tangible plan to pay that money back;
  Number two, it requires the administrator of FEMA to report back to 
the Congress within 6 months a 10-year plan to pay back the $18 billion 
it currently owes taxpayers;
  Number three, it adds accountability to a program that is far from 
being fiscally sound.
  Let's keep in mind that if the National Flood Insurance Program were 
an initiative solely of the private sector, it would have declared 
bankruptcy long ago. Remember also that the person propping up this 
program, the American taxpayer, is very weary and tired from 
continually being held responsible for bailing out government's failed 
initiatives. For years the taxpayer has been asked to pick up the tab 
for government programs no matter how effective or how solvent they may 
be. The argument was that we could hold off worrying about overspending 
until we reached a crisis point. Well, with each American family now 
responsible for over $120,000 of the Nation's debt and with annual 
trillion-plus dollar deficits, we are now at that crisis point.
  Madam Chairman, my amendment and this bill are a step toward bringing 
fiscal responsibility back to this program. But, more importantly, it 
stands up for the American taxpayer whose voice has been ignored in 
Washington for too long.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairwoman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott). Mr. Scott has been a 
strong advocate for his constituents, making sure that they could 
afford it. The installment part of this bill is all because of his 
work.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Let me commend Ms. Waters and Mrs. 
Biggert for their extraordinarily important work on this legislation 
that is very much needed. People all across this country are very 
grateful that we are finally bringing some help here.
  Madam Chair, nothing is more devastating to a family, to a community, 
than to lose, almost in the flick of an eye, to lose your home to a 
flood--I mean, totally underwater--to lose businesses. This happened in 
my State in a devastating manner in 2009. It was the worst flood in 
modern history of the State of Georgia. We lost over 20,000 homes 
throughout the State, but no area was more impacted than my own 
congressional district. Ten people statewide lost their lives. There 
was a cost of over $500 million to lost businesses and homes. And of 
those 10 people who lost their lives, seven of them were from my 
congressional district.

                              {time}  1300

  To even make this more pointed, seven of them were from one county in 
my district. Douglas County and Cobb County were just devastated by 
this flood. The communities of Austell and Powder Springs and 
Douglasville and Lithia Springs and College Park had to all virtually 
start over. Imagine yourself as a child with your whole school under 
water. It was an extraordinarily unfortunate situation. To make matters 
worse, Madam Chair, most of these individuals had no flood insurance. 
The reason they didn't have any flood insurance was the cost of flood 
insurance and the requirement that you had to pay for your flood 
insurance in one lump sum.
  Thanks to this committee, thanks to this bill, thanks to the work of 
Ms. Waters, Mrs. Biggert, Chairman Bachus, and Ranking Member Frank, we 
have galvanized this. Thanks to the Federal Government and FEMA and now 
thanks to this bill and the amendment that you all were kind enough to 
adopt, which was mine, individuals can

[[Page 10883]]

now purchase their flood insurance in monthly installments.
  What a relief. What a great measure. This is what the American people 
expect of us--to come up here and immediately respond to a pressing 
need. This is a great day. It is a great bill. I want to thank all of 
you for working with us on this.
  Madam Chairman, again, I want to thank Mrs. Biggert and Ms. Waters 
for their excellent work, for a job well done. The people of this 
country thank us, too, as they can pay for their flood insurance in 
installments.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much 
time both sides have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois has 20 minutes. The 
gentlewoman from California has 16\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan, 
Candice Miller.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I certainly thank the gentlelady for 
yielding some time to me.
  I hate to rain on this bipartisan parade. I know that there's a 
bipartisan effort here, but I think this program needs to be 
eliminated, not to be reformed, and I would start with this basic 
premise:
  Why in the world is the Federal Government in the flood insurance 
business?
  If you read the Constitution, what does it say? Actually, in the 
preamble, it says the first and foremost responsibility of the Federal 
Government is to provide for the common defense. I can't find anywhere 
in that Constitution that says we're supposed to be in the Federal 
flood insurance business. I just can't find it. I'll tell you what. I 
know we're trying to reform what, I think, is an unnecessary 
boondoggle, ridiculous program, but rather than reforming it, as I say, 
I think it needs to be eliminated.
  This program started in 1968, and we started writing policies in 
1972. The FEMA administrator just recently testified, I believe before 
the Financial Services Committee, and said this Federal Flood Insurance 
Program is in debt. As has been mentioned here, it is almost $18 
billion in debt. We have to raise the debt ceiling for the Federal 
Flood Insurance Program to about $25 billion, and the FEMA 
administrator is telling us that it is always going to be in debt--
forever--massive debt.
  The biggest issue facing Congress today is what we are going to do 
about the $14 trillion in debt we are currently faced with and raising 
the debt ceiling for that. So, as we are struggling with all of this, 
it is almost ludicrous to me that we are talking about raising the debt 
ceiling on a program that the Federal Government should not be involved 
in. One of the reasons it's not doing particularly well is--guess what? 
big surprise--the Federal Government is probably not the best insurance 
agent in the world. I mean, when you see that 1 percent of the 
policyholders is getting 40 percent of the claims, something is 
seriously wrong.
  I am going to be offering amendments shortly to eliminate this 
program, and I'll speak more to it at that time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Cuellar), who has worked very hard to make sure that we open 
up communications with communities that are located in areas where 
flood insurance rate maps have not been updated in 20 years.
  Mr. CUELLAR. I want to thank Congresswoman Waters for her courtesy 
and, of course, for her leadership on this issue. I also want to thank 
the subcommittee chairwoman, Mrs. Biggert, as well as Financial 
Services Chairman Bachus and Ranking Member Frank, for their bipartisan 
work on this piece of legislation.
  I consulted with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle with regard 
to my amendment, and I believe this will be included en bloc with the 
other amendments.
  Homeowners, businesses and regions throughout the country are hit by 
flood disasters every year, and I understand that, in such traumatic 
and desperate times, our communities must be prepared and equipped with 
the most up-to-date information and resources. I have repeatedly met 
with my constituents and district county judges, specifically Judge 
Eloy Vera from Starr County in South Texas, who experienced flooding 
issues recently. I learned that flood zone maps had not been updated 
for decades--decades--and that this hampered economic development when 
they were struck by a flood recently. The reasons for outdated flood 
maps vary, and maps from the 1970s are not uncommon, but there is a 
need to strengthen the relationships between entities that handle flood 
insurance maps to address regional concerns.
  My amendment is simple and bipartisan. It encourages FEMA, State 
emergency agencies and localities to increase communications to resolve 
outstanding issues and to provide necessary, tailored information in an 
effort to decrease the prevalence of outdated flood zone maps. Flood-
threatened areas with outdated flood zone maps are not only 
contradictory, but can result in serious problems for the region. 
Increasing FEMA, State and local relationships is a practical and 
effective way to assist communities and to ensure a steady process to 
modernize flood maps.
  So we are ready when a disaster strikes, I urge support for my 
commonsense amendment that will be included en bloc.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Berg).
  Mr. BERG. This has been a very tough spring for North Dakota as well 
as for many other districts along these overflowing rivers. 
Unprecedented flooding has devastated many communities, leaving 
property destroyed, thousands without homes and hundreds of thousands 
of acres of farmland flooded. Roads and bridges are severely damaged as 
well.
  This year's flooding is unusual both in the scope of its damage as 
well as in how long the flooding has lasted. Many North Dakotans 
purchased flood insurance to be prepared for the floods and to protect 
themselves and their families from the losses that these floods cause. 
Unfortunately, FEMA's current policy fails to account for a long-
lasting flood event like the one that we've seen along the Missouri 
River.
  I support the 30-day waiting period. If individuals purchase 
insurance 30 days before their properties are damaged, they should be 
protected regardless of when FEMA declares a ``flood in progress.'' 
That declaration could be counties or even States away or unexpectedly 
worsened by the Corps' decision to increase the outflows from dams 
along the flooded rivers upstream and to do this with very little 
warning.
  The Terry-Berg amendment would protect these individuals who have 
played by the rules. We need responsible policies that help plan for 
the uncertainty of natural disasters. We also need to protect and help 
the people who have suffered when these disasters hit home. This 
amendment will do both. So I urge my colleagues to support these 
victims by voting in favor of this amendment.

                              {time}  1310

  Ms. WATERS. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the ranking member for her work on 
this and the chairwoman of the subcommittee. Thank you for coming 
together and creating a process that allowed us to interact and work 
for our constituents.
  Recognizing the gentleman from North Dakota, I have actually been on 
those flood flights that he's experiencing and am very appreciative of 
what he brought forward.
  Today, I have a pretty simple amendment, I think, that addresses a 
real issue that we're having.
  Over the past decade, there have been two real changes to the levee 
system that protects our communities in this country. The first, of 
course, was FEMA increasing the amount of information and the due 
diligence they're doing on recertification of levees. That's 
appropriate after Hurricane Katrina. Secondly, the private engineering 
firms that perform the recertifications are facing astronomically

[[Page 10884]]

increased costs from their private insurers.
  No one wants to insure a levee in a flood-prone area other than the 
rest of the community, thus the government. Together, these two changes 
have added increasingly high costs to our local communities as they're 
trying to protect their residents and keep their levees up to 
standards. It has created an extra burden on these communities that 
they can ill afford. This amendment offers a solution.
  The Army Corps of Engineers stands ready and able to perform these 
levee certifications. In many cases, they built the levees. They can do 
it at a significantly reduced cost to the local communities. But under 
legislation passed in the 2000 Water Resources Development Act, State 
and local communities cannot hire the Corps of Engineers to do the 
work; they must first go to private contractors. It's exactly what 
happened in my town of Mankato, Minnesota. The north Mankato levee, 
which was designed and built by the Corps, needed to be recertified 
because of these changes. Because they couldn't use the Corps of 
Engineers, our local officials had to scramble and go out of their way 
to find a private contractor willing to do the work at an added cost of 
tens of thousands of dollars. At no fault to the private contractors, 
their insurance of liability was so high they had to pass the cost on 
to the local communities.
  This approach was worked on in the last Congress with then-
Representative Boozman, now-Senator Boozman. It has the support of the 
National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and 
the National Association of Towns and Townships. And here's the good 
thing: The Congressional Budget Office has certified this amendment 
will cost nothing to the taxpayers. Our taxpayers on the local level 
are paying far more as it is. This is a way to get it right, use the 
Corps that we already have, save taxpayers money, increase the 
efficiency of our levees, and reduce the claims that are made by this.
  I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation, and once 
again I thank the committee for their outstanding work on the 
underlying bill.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. I want to thank the gentlelady from Illinois and the 
entire Financial Services Committee for working with us on this 
amendment and recognizing the tragedy and disaster that's currently 
occurring along the Missouri River, with my constituents, North Dakota, 
South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri.
  What occurred here is that at the beginning, when they started 
realizing there was going to be flooding and the Corps had to run the 
traps through the dam system, one government agency started telling 
people downriver to buy flood insurance. Then FEMA steps in and sets a 
start-of-flood or flood-in-progress date that nullified what the 
constituents and people bought.
  Now, what the Terry-Berg amendment does is, it would protect those 
individuals during a flood in progress if the individual has purchased 
flood insurance and has not sustained damage or loss of property within 
that 30-day window. That's the clear language of the policies that they 
were purchasing that had been nullified by FEMA's declaration. This 
amendment does not dispute the 30-day waiting period--which is designed 
to discourage people from waiting until a flood is imminent to buy 
insurance--it simply ensures American families who purchase flood 
insurance are covered if they sustain damage after the declaration of a 
flood in progress. This resolves the conflict caused between two 
government agencies and adheres to the intent, and I want to thank the 
Financial Services Committee for including this in the en bloc package.
  Ms. WATERS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois 
for her leadership on this important issue.
  I rise today in support of House Resolution 1309 and in support of my 
en bloc amendment that aims to provide more certainty to the National 
Flood Insurance Program.
  My amendment calls on FEMA to take into account the effects and 
implications of weather conditions when making a flood-in-progress 
determination. Currently, FEMA's flood determinations are made 
independently by a FEMA adjustor, allowing a significant amount of room 
for subjectivity. I appreciate the need for FEMA's flexibility, but 
taking a more formulaic approach to flood events will provide increased 
certainty to our river communities. My amendment would also require 
FEMA to review the process for providing public notification of a flood 
event.
  When the Missouri River started flooding earlier this summer, FEMA 
was delinquent in reporting their flood-in-progress determination to 
the public. That determination was made June 1 but was not announced 
until June 6. For 5 days, we had no way of knowing that FEMA had made 
this determination, impacting policyholders and new homebuyers.
  We believe that FEMA must look at the policies in place and make 
recommendations for a more objective and precise determination process, 
along with public notification standards that will keep policyholders 
better informed. It is critical that FEMA develop enhanced procedures 
for flood determinations and communications with the public.
  I urge support for my amendment and for the underlying bill.
  Ms. WATERS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  With the NFIP's authorization set to expire on September 30, it's 
really critical that the House pass the bill and work with the Senate 
to shape a final commonsense reform measure. We have to avoid a 
recurrence of what happened in the last Congress when the program 
lapsed and caused turmoil in a recovering housing market. Houses 
couldn't be closed if they didn't have insurance and if they had a 
mortgage. At that time, it was simply extended without any reforms. So 
if there is no viable private insurance market, we're going to have to 
pay more. So I would suggest that we really look forward to passing 
this bill.
  Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I would like to thank my good friend from Illinois 
for the time. She has been a wonderful advocate on behalf of homeowners 
and renters of the United States, and especially in my area.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this bill to reauthorize the 
National Flood Insurance Program as administered by FEMA through the 
year 2016.
  Granted, the bill before us is not perfect, but homeowners and 
businesses in my congressional district--that stretches from Miami 
Beach all the way down to Key West--deserve to see stability brought to 
this vital program.
  Since September of 2008, the NFIP has had 11 short-term extensions, 
and just last year alone the program was allowed to lapse three times. 
That is inexcusable. These lapses meant that FEMA was not able to write 
new policies, renew expiring policies, or increase coverage limits. And 
for a program that insures over 90 percent of all flood insurance 
policies nationwide--40 percent of those being in my home State of 
Florida--this is rightly inexcusable. Just as bad, for each of the 53 
days that the NFIP was lapsed, over 1,400 homebuyers who wanted to 
purchase homes located in floodplains were unable to close on their 
home purchases.

                              {time}  1320

  It is necessary to demonstrate these irresponsible lapses will not 
occur again; and those of us in south Florida and the Miami Beach area 
to the Keys will stay prepared for any event that could occur during 
hurricane season, which is upon us again, and we need to know that the 
NFIP is there to help us recover. Let us not let another lapse

[[Page 10885]]

happen right in the middle of hurricane season.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this much-needed, way 
overdue important reauthorization.
  I thank the gentlewoman for the time, and let's pass this bill.
  Ms. WATERS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to our distinguished 
chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Madam Chairman, this month we're all focused on the debt and the 
deficit and our negotiations to try to balance the budget. So it's with 
great pride that I tell the House that all 54 members of the Financial 
Services Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, have unanimously 
passed out of the committee a bipartisan piece of legislation which 
will save the U.S. Government and the American taxpayers $4.2 billion 
over the next 10 years. It does that without decreasing any of the 
benefits of the program. It does it in some commonsense ways.
  One is that premiums will be actuarially sound. They will be based on 
the risk, and we will be eliminating subsidies to bring the program 
into balance. We further insulate taxpayers from losses by adding a 
reinsurance provision whereby part of the premium that people pay, just 
as if they do on their house or for wind coverage if they have a home 
on the beach--part of it is in private insurance laid off into 
reinsurance. The program today, if you eat up the reserves, then the 
Treasury is responsible for making up the difference.
  After this legislation goes into effect, there will be reinsurance 
that will be purchased, and the taxpayer will only be exposed after 
risk-based premiums are exhausted, reinsurance in addition to that is 
exhausted. So we reduce taxpayer exposure to a tremendous extent.
  Also, people have said, why is there not private insurance? Well, we 
have a provision in here, supported by both parties, that if the 
private market comes in and offers insurance for the same coverage that 
people will be free to choose that coverage as opposed to the national 
flood insurance offered by the government.
  You've heard the gentlelady from Florida express her concern that 11 
times this legislation has been extended. Where it has been extended, 
it has retarded economic growth along our coastlines, along our rivers; 
and you can actually imagine that a lot of the economic activity and 
the job creation in our country comes in these areas.
  And today I think there would be no one in the House that says we 
want to put the economies of those areas on hold for 3 months or 6 
months. We want the economy to have much fewer problems. We don't want 
to stop home sales; we don't want to stop commercial developments in 
those areas.
  There are other shortcomings with the present program. One is there 
are disputes over whether or not land should be included within the 
floodplains, whether coverage should be offered. We make improvements 
there. We returned to a program several years ago where there's a 
technical advisory committee that, in addition to FEMA, will make these 
decisions, and it will be a more professionally based decision. Those 
areas which are spending money, local areas like Los Angeles, 
California, Ms. Waters' district; along the Mississippi River, where 
local governments have come together and made expenditures to protect 
against floods, there's acknowledgment of their work, and the phase-in 
period for them is extended to encourage more of that.
  All in all, I think that I would just go back to where I started and 
say that the Financial Services Committee is no different from any 
other committee in this House. There are conservatives, there are 
liberals, there are moderates that serve on that committee, both 
Republicans and Democrats. But all 54 members--let me stress that 
again--all 54 members of the Financial Services Committee voted 
unanimously for this legislation. And we are prepared in our debate as 
we go forward to accept amendments offered by several other Members, 
both Democrats and Republicans, to accept those amendments where it 
does not do violence to the program, where it doesn't increase costs or 
exposure to the taxpayer.
  All in all, I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, 
who produced this legislation. I think our constituents for months have 
been saying to the Congress, please set aside your political 
differences, please try to work together, please try to cooperate when 
you can do so without violating your principles.
  And Mrs. Biggert and Ms. Waters, the subcommittee ranking member on 
her side, they put aside their differences. I worked with Chairman 
Frank. We had hearings, we had markups, and we produced something that 
I thought was not possible, and that's a bill that we all think will 
improve the program tremendously, will reduce the cost and reduce 
taxpayer exposure and really make the mapping better and the protection 
for our communities in flood-prone areas work more effectively.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  I am very pleased and proud to be a cosponsor of this tremendous 
comprehensive legislation.
  I would like to thank the chairwoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for 
her work, her leadership, and her cooperation. And I would like to 
thank both the chairman of our committee, Mr. Bachus, and the ranking 
member, Mr. Frank, for their support and their cooperation on this 
legislation.

                              {time}  1330

  You heard Mr. Bachus, our chairman, recount for you that 54 members 
of the committee unanimously voted to support this legislation. That is 
pretty unheard of. And I think that the committee, the entire committee 
is to be congratulated for the tremendous work that we all put in to 
making sure that we have comprehensive legislation that would afford 
protection for our citizens and, at the same time, as was mentioned, 
reduce the costs, but recognize that this has been a long time in 
coming.
  So as a cosponsor of this bill, H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform 
Act of 2011, this bipartisan effort that has brought us to this point, 
I would like to say that all of the Members who have spoken today, for 
the most part, on both sides of the aisle, have been complimentary of 
this comprehensive work. Of course, we did have one Member who 
disagreed with government's involvement in this flood insurance 
program. That's a rather radical view. I think most Members of this 
Congress believe that we have a responsibility to give support to those 
who are the victims of natural disaster, disasters that have been 
caused through, of course, no fault of their own. They're pleased that 
they have an opportunity to get some protection, with the help of their 
government, and to make sure that their homes and their families can be 
supported at a time that can be very traumatic in their lives.
  Again, I will have to remind all of my colleagues that unfortunately 
the lack of a long-term authorization has placed the flood insurance 
program at risk. The program lapsed three times last year. These lapses 
meant that FEMA was not able to write new policies, renew expiring 
policies, or increase coverage limits.
  Today, you have heard the Members of Congress again on both sides of 
the aisle give appreciation for the mapping reform that we have 
included in this legislation, for the outreach that we have included in 
this en bloc amendment that would allow the constituents of all of our 
districts to understand better what FEMA is doing, how it's doing, and 
how they can be a part of it. I am also pleased that included in this 
en bloc amendment is protection for small businesses. And I am very, 
very pleased that we have seen this as an effort not only to 
reauthorize, but to correct some of the weaknesses in the program and 
to strengthen the program in general.
  With that, Madam Chair, I would ask for support for this bill. I know 
that

[[Page 10886]]

there are some amendments that are being introduced a little bit later 
on; and I think that, again, you will see bipartisan support for most 
of these amendments. And I look forward to completing the bill with the 
amendments and to sending this bill on, where I believe we will have 
like support on the Senate side, and eventually to the President's 
desk. It's about time. I think that this country's going to be better 
off for it.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
1309. It's a bill to reform and reauthorize the National Flood 
Insurance Program. I think that we have had a great debate, and it 
certainly is a pleasure to have a bill that has such bipartisan 
support. I think it's such an important bill.
  It's going to enact a series of reforms designed to improve NFIP's 
financial stability, reduce the burden on taxpayers, restore integrity 
to the FEMA mapping system, and explore ways to increase the private 
market participation and help bring certainty to the housing market. 
It's a $4.2 billion revenue raiser. And I think that that's very 
important too, that we will really be able to change the scope of this. 
If we go back to 1968 when this started, there was no private 
insurance, and this is why this happened. And we have to keep it that 
way, or we will pay so much more for disaster relief when this happens 
to so many people who live in floodplains.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I really thank the 
members of the Financial Services Committee, particularly Ms. Waters 
and Mr. Frank, and on our side Mr. Bachus, the chairman.

                                             SmarterSafer.org,

                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 2011.
     Hon. John A. Boehner,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: 
     SmarterSafer.org, a diverse coalition of taxpayer advocates, 
     environmental organizations and insurance interests, urges 
     you to quickly take up comprehensive flood insurance reform, 
     like H.R. 1309, a bill that extends the program for five 
     years and makes meaningful reform to the program.
       Congress must act quickly to reauthorize the program before 
     it expires in September, and must couple any reauthorization 
     with meaningful reforms. The flood program is almost $18 
     billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury, and that amount will 
     likely grow as a result of recent flooding. To ensure the 
     viability of the program so that those at risk can rebuild 
     after a disaster, to protect taxpayers, and to protect 
     environmentally sensitive areas, Congress must make 
     significant reforms to the flood insurance program.
       A comprehensive bill, like H.R. 1309, which was the subject 
     of significant hearings and debate, is needed. When you 
     consider this bill, we ask that you look at adopting changes 
     to do the following: phase out all subsidies, extend and 
     streamline the mitigation grants program including making 
     permanent the severe repetitive loss mitigation program; 
     ensure the program is not expanded to additional coverages; 
     and allow for no mapping or mandatory purchase delays. Though 
     we believe that H.R. 1309 is a step in the right direction, 
     with these changes you will be putting the flood program on a 
     sustainable path. Under H.R. 1309 flood maps will be up to 
     date and accurate; subsidies in the program will be phased 
     out; and FEMA is authorized to purchase reinsurance to cover 
     losses and protect taxpayers. We urge you to schedule this 
     bill for consideration.
           Sincerely,
       Environmental Organizations--American Rivers, Ceres, 
     Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense Fund, National 
     Wildlife Federation, Republicans for Environmental 
     Protection, Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy; Consumer and 
     Taxpayer Advocates--American Conservative Union, Americans 
     for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Center on Risk, 
     Regulation, and Markets--The Heartland Institute, Competitive 
     Enterprise Institute.
       Insurer Interests--Allianz of America, Association of 
     Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers, Chubb, Liberty Mutual Group, 
     National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, National 
     Flood Determination Association, Reinsurance Association of 
     America, Swiss Re, USAA; Housing--National Low Income Housing 
     Coalition, National Leased Housing Association; Allied 
     Organizations--American Consumer Institute, Friends of the 
     Earth, International Code Council, National Fire Protection 
     Association, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Zurich.
                                  ____

                                                     May 27, 2011.
     Hon. John A. Boehner,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf 
     of the undersigned associations, we are writing to 
     respectfully urge you to schedule floor consideration of H.R. 
     1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011 at the first 
     available opportunity. Significant reform and long-term 
     reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program 
     (NFIP) is critically important to the citizens and taxpayers 
     who rely on this vital flood protection program.
       Without action, on September 30, 2011, the NFIP 
     authorization will expire. More than 5.6 million 
     policyholders depend on the NFIP as their main source of 
     protection against flooding, the most common natural disaster 
     in the United States. A long-term extension is necessary to 
     provide certainty to recovering real estate, insurance and 
     financial markets and every participant in the economy that 
     the NFIP effects--homeowners, small business owners, 
     builders, real estate professionals, mortgage lenders, 
     investors, insurance agents and insurance companies. All 
     these entities depend on the program for flood damage 
     protection.
       H.R. 1309 includes both a long-term reauthorization and 
     important reforms that will optimize the current program with 
     important coverage and rate reforms, needed improvements to 
     the floodplain mapping and appeals processes, and other key 
     reforms which would encourage program participation and put 
     the NFIP back on the path to sound financial footing.
       As you know, H.R. 1309 was favorably reported by the House 
     Financial Services Committee with unanimous, bipartisan 
     support. We thank the bill sponsors and the Committee for 
     their leadership on this important issue. We respectfully 
     urge you to work for quick passage of this legislation by the 
     full House.
           Sincerely,
       American Bankers Association, American Bankers Insurers 
     Association, American Financial Services Association, 
     American Insurance Association, American Land Title 
     Association, American Resort Development Association, 
     American Securitization Forum, Chamber Southwest LA, 
     Commercial Real Estate Finance Council, Consumer Bankers 
     Association, Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, Credit 
     Union National Association, The Financial Services 
     Roundtable, Independent Community Bankers of America.
       Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, 
     International Council of Shopping Centers, Mortgage Bankers 
     Association, National Association of Federal Credit Unions, 
     National Association of Home Builders, National Association 
     of Mutual Insurance Companies, National Association of 
     REALTORS, National Apartment Association, National Multi-
     Housing Council, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, 
     Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, The Real 
     Estate Roundtable, Reinsurance Association of America, Risk 
     and Insurance Management Society, Inc.

  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Dold).
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. DOLD. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I do want to talk about the flood insurance program, one that I think 
enjoys great bipartisan support. I want to thank the chairwoman for her 
guidance and, obviously, Ms. Waters for her leadership as well.
  Five million, actually, residential and commercial properties across 
the land rely on this flood insurance. They depend on it for stability. 
And we have to recognize that there, indeed, are problems. We have 
debt; there is no question about that. It's undercapitalized, which is 
placing the taxpayers at risk. But this bill would minimize taxpayer 
risk by making the program more self-sufficient over time by expanding 
the private sector's role while allowing--and not allowing for coverage 
gaps.
  It also moves toward actuarially sound rates and creates a new 
flooding map, which creates a platform upon which risk can be measured 
and priced by the private sector. This is exactly the kind of solution 
that we need to have here in the United States Congress, to be able to 
still provide coverage in areas that need it so desperately and yet 
move us gradually over to actuarially sound rates.
  With that, I thank the gentlelady for her leadership.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the 
Flood Insurance Reform Act, H.R. 1309.

[[Page 10887]]

  Flood insurance is critical for homeowners in our area who rely on 
this program to protect their hard-earned investments in their homes. 
The National Flood Insurance Program is the primary source of flood 
insurance for Americans and people in our district. About 5.6 million 
homes and businesses nationwide rely on NFIP.
  In our district, in Houston and East Harris County, Texas, flood 
insurance is a top priority. The Harris County Flood Control District 
does an impressive job of implementing new flood control measures in 
the way of maintaining bayous, building retention basins, and 
implementing drainage features, but even the best flood control will be 
defeated by a particularly bad storm.
  While I support the underlying bill, I am especially supportive of 
measures that I first advocated for in 2007. During Floor Debate of the 
2007 bill, I offered an amendment that was adopted, and it is also 
included in the bill we are debating today.
  Our language provides for a limited, five-year phase-in of flood 
insurance premiums for low-income homeowners or renters whose primary 
residence is placed within a flood plain through an updating of flood 
insurance program maps. These homes can be valued at no more than 75 
percent of the median home value for the state in which the property is 
located. This is important to residents of our district, who need the 
stability and stability that this provision allows.
  I want to thank Chairman Bachus and Ranking Member Frank for their 
leadership on this issue and for including this important provision.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Flood Insurance 
Reform Act of 2011 (H.R. 1309).
  The National Flood Insurance Program is the primary source of 
reliable and affordable flood insurance for over 5.6 million homes and 
businesses. Today's bipartisan legislation reauthorizes the program for 
five years through FY 2016 and contains numerous reforms designed to 
put the program on firmer financial footing.
  The bill is supported by the National Association of Realtors, the 
National Association of Homebuilders, the American Insurance 
Association, the Property Casualty Insurers Association and the 
Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, and in my 
judgment, strikes the proper balance between providing Americans with 
the flood insurance protection they need at a price taxpayers can 
afford.
  Mr. REED. Madam Chair, I rise today to express my frustration 
regarding the FEMA flood remapping process, an issue that will impact 
my district and many others.
  We have recently debated and accepted multiple amendments and voted 
on H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011. While I supported 
this bill and am grateful for all it does to help our constituents 
navigate through this very complex issue, I think we need to continue 
to examine the root of the problem, which is the flood mapping process 
that determines these areas require constituents to purchase flood 
insurance in the first place.
  I understand the importance of the FEMA flood maps. It is vital that 
we are able to identify flood risk areas and make sure people living in 
those areas are protected from catastrophic flooding. However, with 
these new maps, due to be completed in the near future, FEMA has 
changed the standards which affect more than 100,000 miles of levees 
across the United States.
  As a result, many of my constituents who have never had any issues 
with major flooding could be forced to purchase mandatory flood 
insurance costing thousands of dollars a year. This is despite the fact 
that these constituents enjoy the protection, in the case of a major 
flood, of a sound levee system.
  It may not be the exact protection that FEMA has begun demanding, but 
it is adequate as constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers following 
the flooding caused by Hurricane Agnes.
  Yet the new regulation requires these hardworking family homeowners 
to find a way to pay for completely unnecessary flood insurance for a 
flood they will never see. It's a classic example of a concept which 
looks good on a white board in some Washington office but that has 
unintended negative consequences in the real world.
  While H.R. 1309 helps to alleviate some of these issues, we must get 
to the heart of the matter. I believe Mr. Walberg's amendment to H.R. 
1390 was an excellent step towards doing so and I was very pleased to 
lend my support to it.
  The Walberg amendment placed a moratorium on new updated maps until a 
Technical Mapping Advisory Council submits new mapping standards to 
FEMA and Congress, which allows for map revision and updates with local 
input. I also supported Mr. McGovern's amendment to gain reimbursement 
for communities when they rightfully challenge FEMA on its mapping 
errors.
  I am determined and will continue working for a long-term solution to 
the root of the problem, which is that these maps simply don't 
accurately reflect actual flood risks. The proposed maps certainly 
don't accurately reflect the flood risks, or lack thereof, in my 
district.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1309, the Flood 
Insurance Reform Act of 2011. This important bill reauthorizes the 
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through Fiscal Year 2016 and 
secures the program's near-term fiscal health. Minnesota has 
experienced its fair share of flooding this year. This bill is vitally 
needed to help communities in my state and states across the country 
recover from natural disasters.
  The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established by 
Congress under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The NFIP is a 
federal program that enables property owners in participating 
communities to purchase flood insurance in exchange for state and 
community flood protections. The National Flood Insurance Program is 
the primary source of reliable, affordable flood insurance coverage for 
about 5.6 million homes and businesses.
  H.R. 1309 takes the necessary steps to ensure the NFIP's long term 
viability by encouraging broader participation in the program, 
eliminating wasteful subsidies, and updating the program to meet needs 
of the 21st century. Lastly, this bill delays the mandatory requirement 
for homeowners in newly classified ``Special Flood Hazard Areas'' to 
purchase flood insurance. The three year delay ensures affected 
homeowners are not suddenly burdened with new insurance costs and 
allows them adequate time to challenge new flood zone designations.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 
2011.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Kline) having assumed the chair, Ms. Foxx, Chair of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1309) to 
extend the authorization of the national flood insurance program, to 
achieve reforms to improve the financial integrity and stability of the 
program, and to increase the role of private markets in the management 
of flood insurance risk, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________