H5736 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 10, 2012 

Nation’s independence and identity 

took place. 

In my home State of New Jersey, 

there are more sites of military engagements than in any other State. 

More military engagements were 

fought in New Jersey than in any other 

State. New Jersey played an influential 

role in the War for Independence. 

I was pleased to join Representative 

FRELINGHUYSEN and Senator LAUTENBERG, and the rest of the New Jersey 

delegation, in establishing some years 

ago the Crossroads of the American 

Revolution National Heritage Area in 

our State. The Crossroads Association 

has made enormous progress toward 

promoting our State’s rich heritage, 

and the bill before us today, I think, is 

vital for organizations like Crossroads 

in New Jersey and others to perform 

their important work. 

As the Civil War Trust said in their 

letter supporting this legislation: 

Preserving these American historic treasures is essential to remember the sacrifices 

our ancestors made to secure our freedom 

and independence, and to preserve our Republic. 

Historical sites, once lost, are gone 

forever. They exist only on the pages of 

books and in fading memories. We 

must act to preserve these valuable 

sites while we still can. Approving this 

bill will demonstrate that the Members 

of this House can work together. Historic preservation is not a Republican 

issue, not a Democratic issue. Historic 

preservation is an American issue because it is our shared history that we 

are working to preserve and to protect. 

I thank the majority for working 

with me on this bill. During the 111th 

Congress, similar legislation was twice 

approved by this body with near unanimous support. In this Congress, the 

American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act is again enjoying bipartisan support, and I certainly 

hope the other body will act promptly 

so that we can get about the work of 

preserving these sites. 

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 

2489, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, this is good legislation, and I 

urge its adoption. 

With that, I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 

HASTINGS) that the House suspend the 

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2489, as 

amended 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

STUDY OF VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY-BASED FLOOD INSURANCE 

OPTIONS 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I move 

to suspend the rules and pass the bill 

(H.R. 6186) to require a study of voluntary community-based flood insurance options and how such options 

could be incorporated into the national 

flood insurance program, and for other 

purposes. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6186 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. STUDIES OF VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY-BASED FLOOD INSURANCE OPTIONS. 

(a) STUDY.— 

(1) STUDY REQUIRED.—The Administrator of 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

shall conduct a study to assess options, 

methods, and strategies for making available 

voluntary community-based flood insurance 

policies through the National Flood Insurance Program. 

(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—The study conducted 

under paragraph (1) shall— 

(A) take into consideration and analyze 

how voluntary community-based flood insurance policies— 

(i) would affect communities having varying economic bases, geographic locations, 

flood hazard characteristics or classifications, and flood management approaches; 

and 

(ii) could satisfy the applicable requirements under section 102 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a); 

and 

(B) evaluate the advisability of making 

available voluntary community-based flood 

insurance policies to communities, subdivisions of communities, and areas of residual 

risk. 

(3) CONSULTATION.—In conducting the 

study required under paragraph (1), the Administrator may consult with the Comptroller General of the United States, as the 

Administrator determines is appropriate. 

(b) REPORT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.— 

(1) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 18 

months after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Administrator shall submit to the 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 

Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 

Financial Services of the House of Representatives a report that contains the results and conclusions of the study conducted 

under subsection (a). 

(2) CONTENTS.—The report submitted under 

paragraph (1) shall include recommendations 

for— 

(A) the best manner to incorporate voluntary community-based flood insurance 

policies into the National Flood Insurance 

Program; and 

(B) a strategy to implement voluntary 

community-based flood insurance policies 

that would encourage communities to undertake flood mitigation activities, including 

the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of levees, dams, or other flood 

control structures. 

(c) REPORT BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL.— 

Not later than 6 months after the date on 

which the Administrator submits the report 

required under subsection (b), the Comptroller General of the United States shall— 

(1) review the report submitted by the Administrator; and 

(2) submit to the Committee on Banking, 

Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and 

the Committee on Financial Services of the 

House of Representatives a report that contains— 

(A) an analysis of the report submitted by 

the Administrator; 

(B) any comments or recommendations of 

the Comptroller General relating to the report submitted by the Administrator; and 

(C) any other recommendations of the 

Comptroller General relating to communitybased flood insurance policies. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 

Illinois (Mrs. BIGGERT) and the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. MOORE) 

each will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois. 

GENERAL LEAVE

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 to 

add extraneous material on this bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Illinois? 

There was no objection. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 

of H.R. 6186, introduced by my friend 

and colleague on the Financial Services Committee, Congresswoman GWEN

MOORE. 

H.R. 6816 would require the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 

FEMA, the agency which administers 

the National Flood Insurance Program, 

NFIP, to conduct a study on the advantages and disadvantages of providing 

voluntary community-based flood insurance through NFIP and report its 

recommendations for implementation 

to Congress within 18 months. H.R. 6186 

also requires the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to analyze FEMA’s 

report and submit its comments or recommendations on it to Congress within 

6 months. 

Community-based flood insurance is 

an insurance technique where a risk assessment is made for all the buildings 

in a community, and then premiums to 

cover that risk are paid collectively by 

that community rather than the current practice of assessing each building 

individually and having each individual owner pay a premium. This innovative tool may represent a new and 

better way for some communities at 

risk of flooding to take the necessary 

steps to protect their citizens. 

In fact, FEMA has stated in congressional testimony that voluntary community-based flood insurance could 

help the NFIP better account for the 

full cost of flood risk, as well as provide incentives to encourage communities to implement greater flood mitigation measures. Thus, we think it’s 

appropriate to commission this study 

of the community-based flood insurance concept so that FEMA can understand how it could be put to the greatest benefit. 

Congresswoman MOORE’s communitybased flood insurance study provision 

was originally introduced as part of 

H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform 

Act of 2011, the bipartisan, long-term 

NFIP reauthorization measure that 

passed the House with over 400 votes 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5737 

last summer. During the previous year, 

Congresswoman MOORE’s study language was also included as part of longterm NFIP reauthorization efforts that 

passed the House three additional 

times as part of other bills. 

Unfortunately, Congresswoman 

MOORE’s text, which is now H.R. 6186, 

was not included in the bipartisan 

Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act that was signed into law on 

July 6. However, the Financial Services 

Committee remains committed to enacting this provision, and I want to 

commend Congresswoman MOORE for 

all her hard work on this measure, and 

I am a cosponsor. 

With that, I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6186, and I reserve the balance of my time. 

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start out by 

expressing my deepest appreciation to 

the manager of this bill, Representative BIGGERT, and also a cosponsor of 

this legislation, in addition to Representative BACHUS and Representative 

WATERS, a bipartisan initiative. 

b 1640 

As Mrs. BIGGERT has indicated, this 

study was originally included in the 

flood insurance bill that passed the 

House but was later dropped for reasons of expediency. It was not controversial in negotiations with the 

Senate. I believe that a communitybased flood insurance option may eventually provide a wonderful cost-saving 

option for communities within the 

framework of the overall National 

Flood Insurance Program. 

The potential for savings and community empowerment certainly merits 

a study. H.R. 6186 would require FEMA 

to study voluntary community-based 

flood insurance options and examine 

how such options could be incorporated 

into the National Flood Insurance Program. 

The idea is to study group flood insurance policies for a National Flood 

Insurance Program-participating community or a FEMA-designated flood 

plain so that everyone in the community would pay the same rate. Now, 

this approach has merit because it 

means not only potentially lower rates 

due to increased participation, but 

there is also the option of providing 

lower-income households with access 

to vouchers to purchase flood insurance as part of the group. 

The group rating, of course, would 

spread the risk to an affordable extent 

for each individual homeowner. An 

analogy for this concept is group or 

employee health insurance coverage 

versus individual coverage. We all understand that group coverage is less expensive than individual coverage due to 

the economies of scale of streamlined 

underwriting. The difference is, in this 

case, a community, not an individual, 

would be the policy holder. 

Now, this brings me to a very important potential benefit of this approach: 

increased incentives for communities 

to take affirmative actions to mitigate 

the threat from floods in the community. Now, while an individual flood insurance holder has absolutely no incentive or means to, say, build stronger 

levees or dikes, a community policyholder would have the means and incentives to take those kinds of precautions. In theory, under this model, 

the homeowner would pay insurance 

like a utility bill on a monthly or quarterly basis. 

Finally, I want to point out that 

there is precedent for this idea. Under 

current regulations, FEMA could issue 

group flood insurance policies. The program was limited, but it was successful. This bill only adds that FEMA examine the cost and benefits of using 

this approach on an ongoing basis as an 

option for communities. 

I urge all my House colleagues to 

support this legislation, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. 

BIGGERT) that the House suspend the 

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6186. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, on that 

I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

f 

FHA EMERGENCY FISCAL 

SOLVENCY ACT OF 2012 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I move 

to suspend the rules and pass the bill 

(H.R. 4264) to help ensure the fiscal solvency of the FHA mortgage insurance 

programs of the Secretary of Housing 

and Urban Development, and for other 

purposes, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 4264 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as 

the ‘‘FHA Emergency Fiscal Solvency Act of 

2012’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. 

Sec. 2. FHA annual mortgage insurance premiums. 

Sec. 3. Indemnification by FHA mortgagees. 

Sec. 4. Early period delinquencies. 

Sec. 5. Semiannual actuarial studies of 

MMIF during periods of capital 

depletion. 

Sec. 6. Delegation of FHA insuring authority. 

Sec. 7. Authority to terminate FHA mortgagee origination and underwriting approval. 

Sec. 8. Authorization to participate in the 

origination of FHA-insured 

loans. 

Sec. 9. Reporting of mortgagee actions 

taken against other mortgagees. 

Sec. 10. Default and origination information 

by loan servicer and originating 

direct endorsement lender. 

Sec. 11. Deputy Assistant Secretary of FHA 

for Risk Management and Regulatory Affairs. 

Sec. 12. Establishment of Chief Risk Officer 

for GNMA. 

Sec. 13. Report on mortgage servicers. 

Sec. 14. FHA emergency capital plan. 

Sec. 15. FHA safety and soundness review. 

Sec. 16. FHA disclosure standards. 

Sec. 17. Report on streamlining FHA programs. 

Sec. 18. Budget compliance. 

SEC. 2. FHA ANNUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE 

PREMIUMS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (B) of section 203(c)(2) of the National Housing Act (12 

U.S.C. 1709(c)(2)(B)) is amended— 

(1) in the matter preceding clause (i)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘may’’ and inserting 

‘‘shall’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘not exceeding 1.5 percent’’ 

and inserting ‘‘not less than 0.55 percent’’; 

and 

(C) by inserting ‘‘and not exceeding 2.0 percent of such remaining insured principal balance’’ before ‘‘for the following periods:’’; 

and 

(2) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘1.55 percent’’ 

and inserting ‘‘2.05 percent’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by subsection (a) take effect upon the 

expiration of the 6-month period beginning 

on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 3. INDEMNIFICATION BY FHA MORTGAGEES. 

Section 202 of the National Housing Act (12 

U.S.C. 1708) is amended by adding at the end 

the following new subsection: 

‘‘(i) INDEMNIFICATION BY MORTGAGEES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary determines that the mortgagee knew, or should 

have known, of a serious or material violation of the requirements established by the 

Secretary with respect to a mortgage executed by a mortgagee approved by the Secretary under the direct endorsement program or insured by a mortgagee pursuant to 

the delegation of authority under section 256 

such that the mortgage loan should not have 

been approved and endorsed for insurance, 

and the Secretary pays an insurance claim 

with respect to the mortgage within a reasonable period specified by the Secretary, 

the Secretary may require the mortgagee approved by the Secretary under the direct endorsement program or the mortgagee delegated authority under section 256 to indemnify the Secretary for the loss, irrespective 

of whether the violation caused the mortgage default. 

‘‘(2) FRAUD OR MISREPRESENTATION.—If 

fraud or misrepresentation was involved in 

connection with the origination or underwriting and the Secretary determines that 

the mortgagee knew or should have known of 

the fraud or misrepresentation, the Secretary shall require the mortgagee approved 

by the Secretary under the direct endorsement program or the mortgagee delegated 

authority under section 256 to indemnify the 

Secretary for the loss regardless of when an 

insurance claim is paid. 

‘‘(3) APPEALS PROCESS.—The Secretary 

shall, by regulation, establish an appeals 

process for mortgagees to appeal indemnification determinations made pursuant to 

paragraph (1) or (2). 

‘‘(4) REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES.—The 

Secretary shall issue regulations establishing appropriate requirements and procedures governing the indemnification of the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE