Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I rise to engage in a brief colloquy with my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) about the issue of energy efficiency in buildings as it relates to funding for the Energy Information Administration. First let me say that I very much appreciate the committee's efforts with respect to the EIA and the overall bill. The EIA is an essential resource for the commercial building sector as they seek to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy costs. I want to clarify the intent of the committee direction for the EIA funding of the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey, also known as CBECS. I recognize that the committee recommended an appropriation of $105 million for EIA in fiscal year 2012, roughly $9 million above fiscal year 2011 levels. Unfortunately, the committee also included limiting language that I'm concerned about. Does the gentleman from New Jersey consider CBECS a priority for EIA?

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman. As you know, I serve as cochair of the High Performance Building Caucus with Representative Russ Carnahan of Missouri. Many members of the High Performance Building Coalition have come to us to express their concern about an updated CBECS since the latest data is nearly a decade old. Substantial investments in the commercial building sector have been made since the last CBECS was published in 2003. The updated data is not only valuable to building owners looking to make improvements, but also necessary to inform the Annual Energy Outlook that we, in Congress, rely on. Finally, I would like to point out that the building renovation sector relies overwhelmingly on American-made goods for its work. In fact, over 90 percent of the manufacturing of furnaces, insulation and ductwork is here in the United States. So by making this data available to commercial buildings through CBECS, we are directly supporting American jobs. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011. I'd like to thank Ms. Waters and all the Members from both sides of the aisle who helped to craft this bill. On May 13, the Financial Services Committee favorably reported the Flood Insurance Reform Act by a unanimous vote of 54-0. This bill is important and reflects the hard work and bipartisan support of the Financial Services Committee. It would reauthorize for 5 years the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP. The bill would enact a series of reforms designed to, number one, improve NFIP's financial stability; two, to reduce the burden on taxpayers; three, restore integrity to the FEMA mapping system; four, to explore ways to increase private market participation; and, five, to help bring certainty to the housing market. For over 40 years, taxpayers have subsidized flood insurance premiums for policyholders. To improve NFIP's financial stability, H.R. 1309 phases in actuarially sound rates for policyholders and phases out taxpayer-subsidized rates. As a result, the Congressional Budget Office stated that the bill generates $4.2 billion; and absent a Katrina-like catastrophe, the bill will actually accelerate NFIP's payments on its $17.75 billion debt to the taxpayer. As it stands, NFIP has already paid back taxpayers about $1.8 billion. But perhaps most importantly, H.R. 1309 eliminates a barrier to the development of a private flood insurance market and puts us on a path towards a responsible, long-term plan that eliminates taxpayer risk. For the first time, policyholders can choose private flood insurance over government flood insurance without the risk of lender rejection; and the bill eliminates taxpayer-subsidized rates so that the private sector can offer consumers increasingly competitive rates as compared to the NFIP. Second, FEMA is required to solicit bids to determine the cost to the private sector, not to the taxpayer, bearing the risk of flood insurance. Third, it requires that GAO and FEMA evaluate the feasibility of voluntary, community-based flood insurance. And, fourth, the bill reiterates FEMA's existing authority to purchase reinsurance from the private sector as an alternative to the U.S. Treasury and taxpayers serving as a backstop to NFIP. Finally, the bill addresses many of the concerns that Members have raised with us about new maps, especially as they relate to the dam and levee decertifications. It allows communities to suspend the requirement to purchase flood insurance while they work to construct or fix their flood protection systems. Madam Chairman, when Congress created NFIP, there was no viable private-sector flood insurance market. Taxpayers were providing increasing amounts of direct assistance through disaster relief to flood victims. Without reforms contained in this bill, taxpayers will never be paid back the debt they are owed; homeowners and businesses will have limited or no access to flood insurance; and Congress will inevitably have to bail out flood disaster victims, as it did prior to 1968. We cannot allow this to happen. This bill is the first significant reform to the program in nearly a decade. The NFIP is too important to let lapse and too in debt to continue without reform. I look forward to today's amendment debate and urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, June 2, 2011. Hon. Spencer Bachus, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Bachus: I am writing concerning H.R. 1309, the ``Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011,'' which is scheduled for floor consideration soon. As a result of your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 1309 that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, we are able to agree to forego action on this bill in order that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration. The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1309 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation, and requests your support for any such request. I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1309, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration. Sincerely, Lamar Smith, Chairman.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco), another great member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time both sides have remaining?

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan, Candice Miller.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg).

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With the NFIP's authorization set to expire on September 30, it's really critical that the House pass the bill and work with the Senate to shape a final commonsense reform measure. We have to avoid a recurrence of what happened in the last Congress when the program lapsed and caused turmoil in a recovering housing market. Houses couldn't be closed if they didn't have insurance and if they had a mortgage. At that time, it was simply extended without any reforms. So if there is no viable private insurance market, we're going to have to pay more. So I would suggest that we really look forward to passing this bill. Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to our distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1309. It's a bill to reform and reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program. I think that we have had a great debate, and it certainly is a pleasure to have a bill that has such bipartisan support. I think it's such an important bill. It's going to enact a series of reforms designed to improve NFIP's financial stability, reduce the burden on taxpayers, restore integrity to the FEMA mapping system, and explore ways to increase the private market participation and help bring certainty to the housing market. It's a $4.2 billion revenue raiser. And I think that that's very important too, that we will really be able to change the scope of this. If we go back to 1968 when this started, there was no private insurance, and this is why this happened. And we have to keep it that way, or we will pay so much more for disaster relief when this happens to so many people who live in floodplains. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I really thank the members of the Financial Services Committee, particularly Ms. Waters and Mr. Frank, and on our side Mr. Bachus, the chairman. SmarterSafer.org, Washington, DC, June 30, 2011. Hon. John A. Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: SmarterSafer.org, a diverse coalition of taxpayer advocates, environmental organizations and insurance interests, urges you to quickly take up comprehensive flood insurance reform, like H.R. 1309, a bill that extends the program for five years and makes meaningful reform to the program. Congress must act quickly to reauthorize the program before it expires in September, and must couple any reauthorization with meaningful reforms. The flood program is almost $18 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury, and that amount will likely grow as a result of recent flooding. To ensure the viability of the program so that those at risk can rebuild after a disaster, to protect taxpayers, and to protect environmentally sensitive areas, Congress must make significant reforms to the flood insurance program. A comprehensive bill, like H.R. 1309, which was the subject of significant hearings and debate, is needed. When you consider this bill, we ask that you look at adopting changes to do the following: phase out all subsidies, extend and streamline the mitigation grants program including making permanent the severe repetitive loss mitigation program; ensure the program is not expanded to additional coverages; and allow for no mapping or mandatory purchase delays. Though we believe that H.R. 1309 is a step in the right direction, with these changes you will be putting the flood program on a sustainable path. Under H.R. 1309 flood maps will be up to date and accurate; subsidies in the program will be phased out; and FEMA is authorized to purchase reinsurance to cover losses and protect taxpayers. We urge you to schedule this bill for consideration. Sincerely, Environmental Organizations--American Rivers, Ceres, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy; Consumer and Taxpayer Advocates--American Conservative Union, Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Center on Risk, Regulation, and Markets--The Heartland Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute. Insurer Interests--Allianz of America, Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers, Chubb, Liberty Mutual Group, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, National Flood Determination Association, Reinsurance Association of America, Swiss Re, USAA; Housing--National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Leased Housing Association; Allied Organizations--American Consumer Institute, Friends of the Earth, International Code Council, National Fire Protection Association, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Zurich.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1309.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 340, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 8 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan package of amendments that we are accepting. I urge my colleagues to support the amendments en bloc. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

Mrs. BIGGERT. I urge support for the amendments en bloc. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would impose penalties against lenders who require borrowers to maintain flood insurance in an amount greater than the outstanding principal balance of the loan. Limiting the amount of coverage to the unpaid principal balance leaves consumers at risk of having to incur the costs of repair on their own and, additionally, is not reflective of the current state of industry practices. In fact, with the exception of VA loans, limiting insurance to the unpaid principal balance is not recommended under existing law. Consumers, not lenders, will bear the financial brunt of a disaster. Limiting flood insurance to the unpaid principal balance may protect the lender's financial interest in the property; however, it doesn't protect the consumer's equity and investment in the property. NFIP establishes the minimum amount of coverage required at the lesser of the outstanding balance of the loan or the maximum available NFIP coverage, which today is $250,000 for residential and $500,000 for commercial properties. The standard NFIP dwelling flood policy requires that one to two family owner-occupied dwellings be insured for the replacement value in order for losses to be paid for the cost to repair or replace the property. If these properties are not insured for at least 80 percent of the replacement value at the time of loss, the policyholder cannot obtain the full benefits of the policy and may not receive sufficient funds to repair or replace the property damaged by flood. Guidelines issued by Federal regulators encourage and authorize lenders to require flood insurance at replacement cost, not to exceed NFIP maximum available coverage. The guidelines also urge lenders to follow the same rules in calculating flood coverage as they do in calculating hazard coverage, where standard industry practice is to require coverage at replacement cost. In the case of condominiums, the guidelines issued by Federal regulators require lenders to ensure that flood protection has been obtained for the replacement value of the property improvements, not to exceed the NFIP maximum limits. I would request a ``no'' vote on the Speier amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.