Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose to the flood insurance language that is included in the conference report to accompany H.R. 4348, which the Senate will consider today.

The Senate had been debating a stand-alone bill to reform the National Flood Insurance Program for several days, but we were prevented from voting on amendments to the bill and ultimately passing the legislation. Since agreement on a process for considering flood insurance amendments was blocked, we are now forced into an up-or-down vote on a conference report that contains provisions that will save or create millions of jobs in the transportation sector and keep Federal student loan rates from doubling. I will support the conference report because of those provisions, but I oppose the flood insurance portions.

Last September, I saw firsthand how Hurricane Irene's floods devastated communities in my State of New Jersey. President Obama and I toured the wreckage together. It was heartbreaking. We saw families with their belongings on their front lawns, and much of their homes destroyed. Unfortunately, Hurricane Irene was not the only storm to cause major flooding in New Jersey recently. In just the last 3 years, FEMA has declared five federal disasters that caused major flooding in New Jersey. For many of the people who have been hit by these floods, their homes are all they have. Many of them have owned their homes for generations. They have raised their children and built their lives in them. For these homeowners, it would be wrong to turn our backs on them. But I am afraid the flood insurance language in the conference report could do exactly that.

The flood insurance language we are considering will require major insurance premium increases for people living in certain homes built before FEMA's flood maps were finalized. For years, families who bought homes built before floods maps were available paid lower rates for their flood insurance. We did that because we recognized it would be wrong to charge extremely high premiums on families who did not know their flood risk when they purchased their home. But the flood insurance reform proposals on the table would bring the hammer down on those families. Most families affected by the change would see their premiums double. Some may even see their premiums increase five-fold. In New Jersey, we know of families in over 1,800 homes that would see their premiums increase under these provisions. Residents in other States, including Louisiana, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida, would also face these dramatic rate hikes.

To address some of these concerns, I introduced two amendments on flood insurance this week. One would have prevented premium increases for primary residences built prior to 1974, and the other would have allowed the increases to occur for some homeowners, but provided for a hardship exemption from premium increases for families that cannot afford the higher rates. Let's remember, many of these homeowners rely on fixed incomes, are retired, and have budgeted with the expectation that their premiums would stay steady. We should not change the rules in the middle of the game when homeowners have played by those rules from day one. Many of these families simply do not have the means to raise more money if rates increase.

I also cosponsored an amendment from Senator Pryor to eliminate a requirement in the stand-alone bill that owners of homes behind dams and levees obtain flood insurance. I am pleased that the language in the conference report does not include that requirement.

Flood insurance reform will have real implications for millions of people throughout the United States, including in my home State of New Jersey. Changes to the National Flood Insurance Program should not be taken lightly, and deserve to be debated and amended on the Senate floor. I am disappointed my Republican colleagues have prevented us from considering important flood insurance amendments this week, and I oppose including flood insurance reform in the legislative package we are considering today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source