National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act Of 2009

Floor Speech

National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act Of 2009

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, last year you had extensive hearings on this subject. The bill that was proposed by the House increased the coverage amount since it was a shock to a lot of people who had to rebuild--$250,000 just doesn't buy the kind of house that it used to 10 years ago.

We took the step to end the practice of concurrent causation, where if, according to testimony before the Mississippi Supreme Court, a house was 95 percent destroyed by the wind before the water got there, the insurance companies would bill the Federal Government for 100 percent of the cost of the damage, as testimony before the Mississippi Supreme Court. And then the other thing is the possibility of adding wind insurance to the National Flood Insurance Program so that there isn't any discrepancy. It doesn't matter if the wind destroyed your house or if the water destroyed your house, if you built it to code, if your community built to code and you paid your premiums, that you are going to get paid.

I realize your committee has been very busy with the housing crisis. Everyone is aware of that. But the folks in the affected regions--which is now 52 percent of all Americans--are curious; at what point do you think there will be some talk of these changes to the flood insurance?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, as the gentleman knows, there has been a request from the administration for a longer extension, but the gentleman conferred with the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and expressed his concern that that would put off further any chance to do this, and we agreed with that. That is why this is a 6-month extension. And the answer is, I believe the House remains committed to that. What happens in the Senate will be another issue. But it is certainly our intention, the leadership of the committee on the majority side, once again, to work with the gentleman to extend that protection, and hope that maybe things will change in the Senate.

I yield again to the gentleman.

Mr. TAYLOR. Specifically, does the gentleman envision hearings this fall on the subject?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, it would be very appropriate.

As Members know, we have been a little busy with the financial material, but we are probably not going away for a while this calendar year. And yes, I know the gentlewoman from California, who chairs the subcommittee which has jurisdiction, is very interested in this and does plan to have some hearings.

Mr. TAYLOR. I thank the gentleman.

And to the previous speaker, as someone who lives in a house on stilts and represents a lot of people who live in houses on stilts, they're not all that bad.

Thank you very much.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source