Next Generation Hispanic Serving Institutions

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

(Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the comments that the gentleman from Wisconsin made and particularly highlighting the long-standing contribution of our friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) who I have been privileged to work with the last 6 years on this bill, but I know he has been working on this issue and is a recognized congressional expert, one of the gentleman's many areas of expertise.

I think it is also important to note the cooperation with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Ranking Member Frank) who worked with us as we were maneuvering with our friends in the Senate. I think this is a better bill for the effort.

We have also had a great deal of back and forth from other Members who are from States that have suffered from repetitive-flood loss; and as a result of their efforts, and the work in the Senate, I think we actually have a bill that provides better and broader protections than when we had first begun this work.

Last but not least, I note on the floor the presence of Kyle Gilster, who has done outstanding work staffing this on behalf of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). I note that we also have Janine Benners who has been doing this in my office.

Mr. Speaker, I would insert at this point in the Record the remainder of my comments.

Thank you to Mr. Frank, Senator Bunning, Senator Shelby, and Senator Sarbanes.

I also want to thank the staff of Representative Bereuter, Kyle Gilster, and Representative Frank, Jeff Riley, for their work on this issue.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is crucial and good example of working with local communities to reduce impact of disasters. Benefits economy, environment, and individual property values.

NFIP started in 1968--private insurance companies suffered high losses and stopped offering coverage for flood damage. NFIP helps homeowners deal with flood losses and gives communities tools to prevent future flood damage. Program has already lowered flood damage by 25 percent below the level that would have occurred without the program.

Some problems with the program: in some cases, federal flood control policy encourages floodplain development by financing the construction and repair of levees and underwriting the risk of flooding.

FEMA was concerned about this problem during the Clinton and Bush administrations. Mr. Bereuter and I worked with former FEMA Administrator James Lee Witt to develop our proposal to fix NFIP problems.

The Office of Management and Budget has pointed out that in too many years the program has expenses greater than its revenue from insurance premiums which prevents building long-term reserves to handle the costs of flood insurance.

Twenty-five percent of the policyholders pay substantially subsidized premiums, with the Federal Treasury and other policyholders paying the difference.

Losers of the NFIP are people who live in areas that require flood insurance, even though they do not have their property flood often, pay dramatically high rates.

The program is currently self supporting from premium income. However, in the 1980s federal taxpayers had to make up a shortfall of $1.2 billion when the income from the low premiums was not enough to cover the flood claims. The chances of this happening again are high.

Repetitively flooded properties are a significant strain on the NFIP.

FEMA reports that just 1 percent of the properties account for 25 percent of NFIP flood loss dollars. Many of these properties have received more in flood insurance claims payments than the building's value.

Subsidizing people to live in repetitively flooded areas does not make sense.

It is bad for the federal taxpayer, bad for the environment, and bad for the families that are continually placed in harm's way.

Property owners are trapped in a dangerous and expensive cycle. We do flood victims no favors by rebuilding their homes in harm's way.

The legislation we are considering today will avoid many of the injuries, deaths, and damages before they occur, and give property owners the option of moving to a less hazardous area.

Our approach helps build disaster resistant communities and safe homes by providing mitigation assistance to communities.

This bill has a number of benefits:

Most importantly, it will move people out of harm's way and discourage newcomers from moving there. This bill will save lives by moving people to higher ground.

Often overlooked, it will save the federal government millions of dollars in avoided flood damages. FEMA reports that mitigation and building standards already in place have resulted in over $1 billion annually in reduced flood losses. Our bill will significantly increase these savings by increasing funding for mitigation.

Savings to ratepayers in the National Flood Insurance Program. Mitigating repetitively flooded properties will reduce the pressure to raise flood insurance rates. The Association of State Floodplain Managers estimates that avoiding just one 10 percent rate increase could save the 4.4 million policyholders $175 million each year.

Finally, this bill will significantly benefit the environment. If property-owners choose to relocate, the land will convert to open- space. Non-structural approaches to flood control, such as voluntary buyouts and restoration of natural floodplains, are often much more effective in controlling floods than structural approaches. Natural floodplains also prevent pollution problems from flooding.

As the bill went through the process in the House and Senate, we worked with Members from coastal areas to make the reforms more sensitive to the plight of their constituents.

I would like to highlight one change we were able to make in the Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) program. The bill not specifically provides for use of the ICC program funds as local match monies. This program, created in the 1994 Flood Insurance Reform Act, uses a flood insurance premium surcharge to raise money for mitigation--but it hasn't yet functioned well.

Freeing up these funds for use in mitigation of repetitive loss properties will help the affected property owners by dramatically reducing costs to them and will help all policy holders by stemming the drain on the Flood Insurance Fund from repetitive claims.

I respectfully urge passage of the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 204. This is one of the best fiscal and environmental opportunities for Congress this year.

We can't stop natural hazards from threatening our communities, but we can try to minimize or stop them from becoming disasters, and that's what this bill does.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2238, the Bunning- Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004.

S. 2238 was originally H.R. 253 which was authored by my dear colleague and fellow Nebraskan, Mr. Bereuter of Nebraska, and cosponsored by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon. Both Members have been strong advocates for reforming the National Flood Insurance program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, since the 106th Congress. Mr. Bereuter has been a champion of this legislation for the last 14 years.

The legislation will extend the authorization of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through September 30, 2008, and create a temporary pilot program to address severe repetitive loss properties (SRLPs).

The authorization of the NFIP is set to expire on June 30, 2004.

I support the temporary pilot program included in this important legislation because it will address the problem of severe repetitive loss properties for which many communities in my district are paying increased premiums.

I have numerous communities in my district paying substantial premiums on properties that have not been affected by flooding since the beginning of the program.

One example is North Platte, Nebraska. The community sits between the North and South Platte Rivers. The North and South Platte Rivers merge east of North Platte. While the National Flood Insurance Program has been in place since 1968, North Platte has paid over $1 million in premiums each year, but has not received more than $26 thousand in flood insurance claims during that time. The community has been working diligently with FEMA and the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources to reduce the cost of the National Flood Insurance premiums, but premiums continue to remain high.

That is why I support S. 2238.

S. 2238 authorizes up to $40 million a year to be transferred from the National Flood Insurance Fund for mitigation assistance to reduce the problem of SRLPs. The money in the National Flood Insurance Fund comes from flood insurance premiums from policyholders and would not need an appropriation.

This pilot program, which would expire on September 30, 2009, addresses these properties in a simple, straightforward manner; the owner of a SRLP will be charged a rate closer to the actuarial, risk- based rates for their national flood insurance policy if two conditions prevail.

The first condition is that it is indeed by definition a SRLP. Under this legislation, a severe repetitive loss property must at least meet one of the following two definitions: Four or more separate claims have been made, with the amount of each claim exceeding $5,000, and with the cumulative amount exceeding $20,000; at least two claims have been made which exceed the value of the property.

The second condition which would cause the applicability of closer to actuarial rates to be applied is that the owner of the real property must have refused a mitigation measure from a state or locality, such as the elevation of the structure or a buy-out of the property. If both of these conditions have been met, rates for SRLPs will be increased by 50 percent.

Properties will be subject to additional 50 percent increases for each subsequent flood event where claims payments exceed $1,500. However, flood insurance rates applied cannot be higher than the actuarial based NFIP rates.

I would again like to thank Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Blumenauer for their tireless determination to improve the National Flood Insurance Program to assist those communities that have not had repetitive losses.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2238) to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to reduce losses to properties for which repetitive flood insurance claim payments have been made.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2238.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2238, the Bunning- Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act, legislation to reauthorize and reform the National Flood Insurance Program.

The legislation we are considering here today is a must-do bill. Currently, this program is set to expire on June 30 of this year; and without this program, the ability to close a loan and purchase a new home in literally thousands of communities all across this country will be placed in jeopardy.

The NFIP was established by Congress with the passage of the National Insurance Act of 1968. The NFIP is a Federal program enabling property owners in participating companies to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losses in exchange for State and community floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damages.

Unfortunately, one of the authors of this important legislation, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), is unable to be with us here today. However, we would be remiss if we did not recognize his tireless efforts on this bill. For over 14 years, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) has worked hard to craft legislation that would reduce the cost of this program to the American taxpayer. Today, repetitive- loss properties cost the NFIP about $200 million each year. These properties account for only 1 percent of the currently insured properties across the country; yet they represent 25 to 30 percent of all claims paid.

Under our current program, repetitive loss properties are eligible for subsidized flood insurance at rates far below the actuarial rate they should be paying. With the passage of this legislation, people living in flood-prone areas will be provided assistance to reduce their risk of flooding. If they choose not to reduce their risk of flooding, they will be required to pay higher premiums.

In addition to reauthorizing the existing Flood Mitigation Assistance program through 2008, the bill establishes a new pilot program aimed at reducing the number of severe repetitive-loss properties and provides $40 million to help reach that goal. It is important to note that this fund will not be subject to a Federal appropriation. Instead, this level of funding will come from money that is transferred from the National Flood Insurance Fund, which is composed of policyholder premiums.

S. 2238 is virtually identical to H.R. 253, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2003, authored by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and passed by this House on November 20, 2003. I want to take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his hard work on this legislation and for his exemplary service to this body over the years.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the National Flood Insurance Program is literally a lifeline to thousands of my constituents, restoring their homes and properties after devastating floods that have become too common for Houston and Harris County, Texas, residents. I support S. 2238 on the suspension calendar today.

There are over 172,000 homes and businesses with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in Houston and Harris County, over 37 percent of the 461,000 statewide in Texas. These federally backed NFIP policies are vital to our area because private insurers would not make flood insurance available at any kind of affordable price. H.R. 2238 reassures residents, realtors, insurers, and lending institutions that this Federal backing of the NFIP will be extended by 4 more years until September 2008.

The reform included in this legislation will mean major changes for the Houston area, which has many homes with repeat flood insurance claims. It is important to treat NFIP policy holders fairly because they may now receive FEMA buyout and mitigation offers once they have 4 separate claims of $5,000 each (or 2 claims exceeding the value of the home), and if they refuse, their premiums will increase by 50 percent, and an addition 50 percent after each following claim of $1,500, until the premium equals the ``market'' premium.

These reform provisions have a noble goal of reducing flood premiums for most policy holders and assisting residents who repeatedly flood. But asking someone to leave their home through a government buyout offer can be a traumatic process, especially if the buyout offer does not allow for a smooth relocation of the flood victim.

After Tropical Storm Allison in Harris County in 2001, we had ``fair market'' buyout FEMA offers so low that people would have been unable to purchase another home outside of the floodplain. So after Allison, we had to scramble to find additional Federal, State, and local sources of funding to assist these people, since FEMA's policy would not allow for purchase offers greater than ``fair market value.'' That kind of uncertainty for a homeowner facing 50 percent higher insurance premiums for refusing a government buyout is just not fair.

In response to these experiences, I authored a provision included in this bill to require FEMA to offer additional funds if ``a purchase offer made under [this law] is less than the cost of the homeowner- occupant to purchase a comparable replacement dwelling outside the flood hazard area in the same community, the Director [of FEMA] shall make available an additional relocation payment to the homeowner- occupant to apply to the difference.'' [S. 2238 Section 102(g)(4)].

I wish to extend my thanks to my colleagues who assisted me in this effort, Chairman Oxley, Ranking Member Frank, and Congressman Bereuter. Their willingness to listen to the concerns of my constituents over this legislation is much appreciated. Because of the efforts of Chairman Oxley, Ranking Member Frank, and Congressman Bereuter to ensure that homeowners receive a fair price for their homes, I support this legislation and look forward to working with them on a fair and efficient implementation of a reformed, National Flood Insurance Program.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of S. 2238, the ``Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004.''

The Senate bill, in most respects, is identical to H.R. 253, which passed the House on November 20, 2003. The Senate bill did make some acceptable changes to the House-passed bill, such as a new title which provides new consumer protections for flood insurance policyholders. The Senate bill will extend the authorization of the NFIP through September 30, 2008, and create a temporary pilot program to address severe repetitive loss properties. The authorization of the NFIP is set to expire on June 30, 2004. This legislation, S. 2238, represents a continuation of this chamber's past efforts to reform the National Flood Insurance Program.

Floods have been, and continue to be, one of the most destructive and costly natural hazards to our nation. The National Flood Insurance Program is a valuable tool in addressing the losses incurred throughout this country due to floods. It assures that businesses and families have access to affordable insurance that would not be available on the open market.

The National Flood Insurance Program was established in 1968 with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act. Prior to that time, insurance companies generally did not offer coverage for flood disasters because of the high risks involved. Today, almost 20,000 communities participate in the national flood insurance program. More than 90 insurance companies sell and service flood policies. There are approximately $4.4 million policies covering a total of $620 billion.

In order to participate in the program, communities must agree to abide by certain hazard mitigation provisions. These provisions include adopting building codes that require new floodplain structures to be protected against flooding or elevated above the 100-year floodplain.

The National Flood Insurance program is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It is worth noting that on November 25, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which brought FEMA under the new Department of Homeland Security.

As many of you are aware, the NFIP reauthorization expired on December 31, 2002. Unfortunately, Congress adjourned without extending the flood insurance program. This situation was quickly remedied in the 108th Congress and on January 13, 2003, President Bush signed into law a bill to reauthorize the program for one year, retroactively to January 1, 2003. This one-year reauthorization gave us the time necessary to determine how best to go about reforming the existing program.

This is a good day for the National Flood Insurance Program and is a good day for the American tax-payers. I applaud all members from both chambers for reaching an agreement.

I urge my colleagues to support this initiative.