Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1309, Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is one of those rare occasions when the gentleman from Texas and I actually agree on something. I think the underlying bill is a good bill, and I look forward to supporting it. While this rule is not an open rule, and I don't think that we have had an open rule on an authorizing bill since this Congress began, but the gentleman is such a good guy that I'm not going to make a big deal of that. Twenty-five of the 30 amendments that were offered were made in order, so I think we will have a good debate.

The rule before us today provides for the reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, through September 30, 2016. This program was established in 1968 in response to increasing Federal Government spending for disaster relief. The NFIP was intended to alleviate some of the public's financial burden because the government covered losses generated by the floods in the form of disaster relief payments.

With the increase of severe weather in the past few years, the need to reauthorize this program before it expires on September 30 is great. The National Flood Insurance Program, housed within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has become financially strained following severe hurricanes--including Katrina in 2005, which significantly increased insurance claims.

In addition to extending this bill for an additional 5 years, this bill also includes a 3-year delay of the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement as a result of the new, updated flood maps. This will allow our constituents to be notified if their home is now at risk of flooding and purchase insurance accordingly, by requiring annual notifications to homeowners living in flood zones about the flood risk in their community, the geographical boundaries of the flood zone, the requirement to purchase flood insurance, and a general estimate of what similar homeowners in similar communities typically pay for flood insurance.

This bill also provides optional coverage for additional living expenses incurred by homeowners when losses from a flood make their homes unfit to live in. For businesses and commercial properties or multifamily properties, this bill provides optional coverage for losses resulting from any partial or total interruption of the insureds' businesses caused by flood.

Mr. Speaker, we saw massive devastation to the southeastern part of our country in 2005, but we also saw the resiliency of the American people. It's no easy task to rebuild your entire life from the ground up. In recognizing the economic reality that having flood coverage could keep families from financial ruin but at the same time add additional and substantial costs to family budgets, this bill allows families to pay flood insurance premiums in installments.

This bill will also help our local communities prepare for the worst by authorizing the use of Community Development Block Grant funds for communities to reach out to homeowners about flood insurance rates, mapping and inclusion in flood zones, and by authorizing localities to use Community Development Block Grant funds to supplement existing State or local funding for building code enforcement. The National Flood Insurance Reform Act gives communities the tools they need to prepare, protect and to rebuild.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Rules Committee made in order my amendment to H.R. 1309. I would like to thank the committee for working with me to make this important amendment in order. My amendment is simple. If FEMA makes a mistake in designing a flood map, communities can be reimbursed for the costs of mounting a successful challenge.

Currently, communities that dispute FEMA's flood elevations can hire a private engineering firm to get a ``second opinion'' flood map. While this may sound like an attractive option, it puts a lot of small communities in very difficult financial positions. Hiring a private engineering firm is expensive and cost prohibitive for many small communities. On the one hand, if the community decides that it's too expensive to get a second opinion, homeowners are forced to pay higher or, in some cases, needless flood insurance premiums. On the other hand, if the community does mount a successful challenge to the original FEMA map, homeowners are spared from having to pay the higher flood insurance premiums, but the town still must pay the costs associated with obtaining that second map.

Now, I've heard of many small communities that are forced into this tough situation, including the town of Holliston, Massachusetts, which is in my district. There is substantial evidence to support the argument that the FEMA map is incorrect, but town officials are struggling to find a way to pay the $30,000 it would cost to conduct a second engineering study.

I feel for these town officials. They want to do the right thing and help their residents, but these small towns are already cash-strapped and are cutting funding left and right for essential services like schools and police and firefighters, not to mention infrastructure. There simply is no money for a legitimate but expensive second opinion map. If FEMA makes a mistake in mapping a flood area, then they should pay for it. So I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is proof that Congress can work in a bipartisan way. Passed out of the House Committee on Financial Services 54-0, this bipartisan bill is timely with hurricane season just around the corner. It is also important to add that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting H.R. 1309 will have no net impact on direct spending over the 2012-2016 or 2012-2021 periods.

I want to commend my colleague from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for her leadership on this and for working in a bipartisan way and producing what, I think, is a good bill. I look forward to working with her to make sure that this is passed.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me, first of all, say that I'm glad the gentleman from Georgia is excited. I'm not quite at that level. I'm okay, but I'm not excited.

This is not an open rule. We had an opportunity to have an open rule. We called for a vote. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle voted against it. But having said that, there are a lot of different amendments in here that represent a lot of different viewpoints, and so I'm okay with it. So I will begin by saying that.

Secondly, I want to share with my colleagues that this is a good bill. And it is not a boondoggle, as the gentlewoman from Michigan referred to it. It is a necessary protection for people.

The question was asked, well, why should the government be involved in flood insurance? Well, one of the reasons why is because the private insurance industry has no interest in providing the kind of coverage at an affordable level to people who need it. If there was money to be made, if they thought they could make money, you could bet the private insurance industry would step up and try to fill in the void. But they haven't, and they won't. And so without this, you will end up dealing with these catastrophes with disaster relief funds that Congress would have to approve. And that's not a very efficient or good way to deal with the issue of floods.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that this is an important bill not only because it is bipartisan in nature, but I think there is also a bipartisan consensus that it is important that we move forward with this.

Again, I want to commend Mrs. Biggert and the members of the Financial Services Committee. I want to commend Congresswoman Maxine Waters who worked together in a bipartisan way, who produced a bill that passed 54-0. You don't see that very much. And this has been a very contentious Congress, and there have been lots of partisan divides when it has come to voting on bills. But in this one area, there is consensus, which I think is an indication that it will win broad bipartisan support in this Congress.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing this rule to the floor. I want to thank all of those who are responsible for the underlying bill and look forward to supporting it. And I hope my colleagues, at a bipartisan level, will support my amendment, which I think is a good amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source