National Flood Insurance Program Further Enhanced Borrowing Authority Act of 2005

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Georgia's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill, and I rise in support of it. It is a very important initial step that we need to make.

I take modest exception with my friend, the primary sponsor of this legislation, because I do think the range of disasters actually were, in fact, foreseeable and foreseen. I have been talking about this precise situation on the floor of the House for several years. It is one of the reasons why I worked in the previous Congress to deal with the reform of the Flood Insurance Act that was signed by President Bush last summer.

As I mentioned the last time we had an extension on the floor to extend the borrowing authority, this is absolutely critical. We must do it, we should do it, but it is only part of an overall solution.

I deeply appreciate the leadership that has been displayed by Chairman Oxley, Ranking Member Frank and Mr. Ney and Ms. Waters in the hearing that was held today in Financial Services, looking at the long- term consequences of the flood insurance program and where it needs to go.

The simple fact is that what we saw in the gulf region from East Texas to the Florida Panhandle is not something that is unforeseen or something that is not going to occur again. In fact, science tells us that we are seeing coastal erosion. We have seen increases in storm events. Over 70 percent of the American population lives in areas where they are in harm's way to one or more natural disasters, of which flooding is the most frequent and the most damaging. We need to not just extend the borrowing authority. We need to look at the fundamentals of the program as Financial Services did today.

It is time to stop the fiction that somehow a levee protects people and they should not have flood insurance. People behind the levee in the 100-year flood plain absolutely should be mandated to have flood insurance, since we are at the point where the ``flood of the century'' is happening two times a decade. We need to change that definition, and in fact, the proposal to study or even extend flood insurance requirements for people in the 500-year flood plain is probably in order.

We need to be looking consistently at the big picture. We cannot afford to throw more and more taxpayer dollars at people who are going to repeatedly be in harm's way. Our hearts go out to the victims of Katrina and Rita, and I absolutely approve this legislation and extending the borrowing authority and not burying it in the flood insurance rates. That is not fair to everybody else.

However, we do need to make fundamental changes in that program, build on the reforms of last session. We need to make sure that people in repetitive flood loss situations are either moved out of harm's way or they flood proof their property. FEMA must get on the stick in implementing the reforms that we passed last session, and we need to expand the scope of the program itself.

This will make sure that people change their behaviors. It will put more money into the program by people who should be investing in it, and we will be able to have a more coordinated approach to make sure that we are not only fiscally responsible but we are helping people stay out of harm's way in the first place.

Last but by no means least, Mr. Speaker, our attention needs to go beyond the flood insurance program. We have people who are in danger for wind storms, mud slides, wildfires, forest fires. I have already mentioned coastal erosion. This is all part of a big picture, to sort out the limits of where the Federal Government provides relief as a last resort for an unforeseen natural disaster and where the private sector steps in to extend the principle of insurance.

Along the way, we make some changes so that State and local governments are responsible for what happens in their communities. I must say, as I began working on issues related to Katrina recovery, I was stunned to find that there were three Louisiana parishes and seven Mississippi counties that do not even have building codes. I am not talking about comprehensive plans and zoning. I am talking about building codes. It is time that we coordinate what we do on the Federal Government to provide resources, carrots and sticks, to make sure that we have a balanced partnership to save people's lives, limit damage and, of course, be responsible with the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership and the leadership of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) with regard to the National Flood Insurance Program and the willingness of assistance to flood victims throughout the United States.

Mr. Speaker, no one could have anticipated the sheer amount of devastation that was brought upon this Nation in the wake of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. Cities, towns, entire communities along the gulf coast were practically wiped out and off the map due to high flooding, pounding wind and constant driving rain.

Although Congress took immediate action to pass a supplemental relief package to assist the impacted communities along the gulf, one important program in particular remains in need of our attention and of our support, the National Flood Insurance Program.

I am pleased to bring to the floor today H.R. 4133, the National Flood Insurance Program Further Enhanced Borrowing Act of 2005. This important piece of legislation will empower residents of the gulf coast by increasing the National Flood Insurance Program's ability to borrow funds from the U.S. Treasury to cover claims resulting from these recent and devastating hurricanes.

Congress authorized the National Flood Insurance Program in 1968 following a series of historic hurricanes in the mid-1950s and 1960s. At that time, Mr. Speaker, affordable flood insurance was not generally available from the private insurance industry. The concept that gave birth to this program

was the idea that the Federal Government would make flood insurance available to the people if their local governments agreed to adopt and enforce measures to make future construction safer from flooding.

The National Flood Insurance Program provides insurance at actuarial, risk-based rates, including consideration for catastrophic losses. Currently, more than 20,000 communities in all 50 States and U.S. territories voluntarily participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, and the program insures in excess of $800 billion in assets, which breaks down to more than 4.7 million policies for homes, for businesses and other non-residential properties.

Since 1986, the National Flood Insurance Program has been financially self-supporting for the average historic loss year, but during periods of high losses, the NFIP has borrowed from the United States Treasury. Each time the NFIP has had to borrow from the Treasury, the loans have been repaid with interest from policyholder premiums and related fees, and at no cost to this Nation's taxpayers.

However, the impact of Katrina and Rita will place a historic strain on the National Flood Insurance Program. Simply put, the National Flood Insurance Program was not designed to handle a series of events such as those we have experienced throughout the current hurricane season.

For example, Mr. Speaker, and this statistic is staggering, since the program's inception, the National Flood Insurance Program has paid out a total of $15 billion in claims to cover more than 1.3 million reported losses. For this hurricane season, FEMA estimates that more than 225,000 Katrina and Rita NFIP claims are likely to be filed, exceeding $22 billion, a number far surpassing the total amount of claims paid throughout the entire history of the National Flood Insurance Program.

Although the President signed into law H.R. 3669, which increased the borrowing authority by $2 billion, current flood insurance claims projection for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita indicate additional borrowing authority will be necessary. My legislation will temporarily increase FEMA's borrowing authority for flood insurance by $5 billion.

Mr. Speaker, FEMA is quickly running out of money. We need to act now to enable this stopgap measure to cover claims from the gulf coast. We should not think of this as a new obligation. It is not. Instead, it is a necessary step to keep a legal promise that Congress made to homeowners and business owners when Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. We have a moral obligation to honor our commitments and to provide the coverage we have promised to provide and help flood victims who need to rebuild their homes and their lives.

I ask my colleagues for their support and seek passage of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4133) to temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the national flood insurance program.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my support today to Congressman Fitzpatrick's efforts to increase the borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance Program through H.R. 4133, the additional borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance Program.

Last month in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I introduced H.R. 3669, the National Flood Insurance Program Enhanced Borrowing Authority Act of 2005. That piece of legislation increased FEMA's borrowing authority for flood insurance by $2 billion, which went a long way in helping the Department's flood insurance response at that time.

The Fitzpatrick bill would provide an additional $5 billion in borrowing authority to help ensure that the NFIP has sufficient funding on a cash basis in the short term. This bill would allow FEMA to continue payment of the initial claims resulting from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, while the administration further evaluates the extent of the damage and the most potential means to cover all potential claims.

Last month, the Housing Subcommittee received testimony from the director of National Flood Insurance Program, who estimated that Katrina and Rita flood insurance claims could exceed $22 billion. These claims from those whose homes or businesses have been damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, Rita, and now Wilma, are not a new obligation. I would like to stress that it is not a new obligation. They are the result of a legal promise that we, the United States Government, have made to these homeowners and business owners when Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and subsequent revisions.

Homeowners and business owners agreed to pay premiums, communities agreed to adopt building codes to mitigate flood dangers, and the Federal Government agreed to provide insurance coverage to policyholders after a disaster.

Every single one of these claims represents someone who has taken the responsible course of action by purchasing flood insurance and paying premiums to the United States Government. We not only have a legal obligation, Mr. Speaker, to honor our commitments but we have a moral obligation to provide the coverage we have promised to provide to these citizens who have been through so much in their lives.

The Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity already held four hearings this year on this important program, including an August field hearing in rural Ohio.

As the damage assessments and insurance claims begin to come in from the gulf coast region, we will continue our oversight of course of the NFIP. The National Flood Insurance Program is a valuable tool in addressing the losses incurred throughout this country due to floods. It ensures that businesses and families have access to affordable flood insurance that would not be available on the open market.

It is a pleasure to be here today with my friend from Georgia (Mr. Scott). I would like to commend the Members who have supported this bill and give due diligence and a real thank you to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who has stepped up to the plate to carry this bill and do the right thing to help people that are in very severe trauma right now in their lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

(Ms. HART asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, let me again thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) and the staff of the minority and the majority for their fine work on this and, of course, gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) who has shown great interest in these issues, again helping people in his area and across the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, along with the chairman, I have a sense of deja vu. A couple of years ago we agreed, the chairman and I and members of our committee, to support the efforts of our former colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, our current colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), to reform the flood insurance program. We made substantial progress. We did not get everything we wanted; there was some resistance.

Then came Katrina, and suddenly the point we were making about the need both to compensate people but also to be environmentally and fiscally responsible in what we promised became somewhat relevant. Our committee had a good mark-up earlier this week and passed out a bill, not a perfect bill from any one standpoint, but which would continue the process of reforms along with the money. And then the Senate, as it did last time, showed a certain reluctance to go along with the reforms. They sent us a bill which is simply the additional money.

The additional money is needed and the additional money is to compensate people who have already been flooded, so there is no necessary connection between that and going forward. I, therefore, did not object to the request, and I hope we will vote the money that has been asked to compensate the people already hurt.

But it is also important that we reform the program. I appreciate the commitment which the gentleman from Ohio has freely given the House, that we are both going to work hard to try to bring the reform package up early next year.

So we will acknowledge the importance of getting the money in the hands of the people who need it, and I will be yielding to some of my colleagues from the area; but we do want to note that we will go forward with the money now, but we have not lost our interest in further reforming the program; and we will be back on the floor I hope, and I know the gentleman from Ohio will be working diligently on that in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to impose on the House's time except we are killing time anyway while you try to figure out what you are going to do with that foolish resolution of yours.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), who has been at the center of the effort to deal with this tragedy. I will say as the ranking member on our side on the committee, he has been constantly in touch with us and has advised us and impressed us on the importance of action, and I am very grateful for his willingness to work with us in the midst of all the stress that has accrued to his district.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman I agree with him this is a lost opportunity, but like the book ``I Lost It At The Movies,'' we lost it at the Senate. So we are doing the best we can.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who has worked harder in the aftermath of this than I have ever seen any Member work in trying to deal with the desperate situation imposed on the people he represents.

Mr. Speaker, for my remaining 30 seconds, I want to send a message to FEMA.

The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) has called to our attention a delay on the part of FEMA in telling people what elevations are required for new construction or replacement construction in the flooded areas. Until they have those elevations, they cannot proceed with the construction, and the gentleman told me we have been told there is a delay of perhaps up to 2 years. That is clearly unacceptable. So had we been able to bring a substitute bill to the floor, we were going to address that issue.

I hope FEMA will listen. I think I speak for both sides. I know the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) agreed with this when we raised it in committee that FEMA will promptly do the elevations necessary so that construction can proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider a motion to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4133) to temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the national flood insurance program, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur therein, and that the motion be debatable for not to exceed 20 minutes, equally divided between myself and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4133, a bill that would temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency National Flood Insurance Program.

This bill was introduced by our friend and colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) in response to the terrible destruction that has resulted from Hurricane Katrina. The original version of this bill increased the borrowing authority of the National Flood Insurance Program from $3.5 billion to $8.5 billion. However, the extra $5 billion would have only allowed FEMA to make claims and payments through next week.

The Senate amended the bill to increase the borrowing authority to $18.5 billion and designate the funds as emergency spending. That amended version is now before us for consideration.

FEMA has run out of money to pay claims arising from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and has directed the insurance companies to stop paying the estimated 225,000 Katrina and Rita policyholders who have already filed a claim. These homeowners who have a contract with the NFIP to cover flood events could initiate legal action against FEMA and the U.S. Government if we do not act now.

I remain committed to seeing the National Flood Insurance Program implement the reforms begun last year when we passed the Bunning- Bereuter-Blumenauer Act, and I look forward to working during the coming months to ensure greater accountability of the flood insurance program.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my good friend and ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for his support on this. This is critically important for the folks down in the gulf region that they get compensated under their insurance program that they paid premiums into FEMA for. This is an obligation by the Federal Government to make sure that those people are paid. FEMA is out of money as I speak. We need to get this done. I would ask the House's cooperation in this effort.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

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