Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007--Continued

Floor Speech

FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - May 07, 2008)

AMENDMENT NO. 4731

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I understand the manager for the majority will object to me calling up, but I would like to make some remarks about it, if I might, at this time.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague would yield, I appreciate his recognition of that. Again, our hope is something can be worked out. The objection is not based on the substance of the amendment as much as it is a question of whether the committee of jurisdiction which this matter is being considered under has raised some concerns with our colleague from South Dakota, and my hope is they can be resolved. So I would have to object if he brought up the amendment, but certainly I welcome his opportunity to talk about this amendment, and my hope is that between now and tomorrow sometime, whatever the differences are can be worked out, and we will be able to consider his amendment.

Mr. THUNE. I thank the chairman, the Senator from Connecticut, for those words. Let me, if I might, make a couple of remarks with regard to the amendment and again suggest that if at all possible, we could figure out a way to make it a part of this Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act. I think it is very fitting on this bill. There are some jurisdictional issues that have been raised. But what I would like to point out is that this is a bill which obviously has a lot of important content and legislation that needs to be acted upon by the Congress, by the Senate. The amendment that Senator Johnson and I have offered is directly relevant to the bill because it seeks to reduce the potential impact of FEMA's revised flood map for residents of Sioux Falls, SD, which is the largest city in my State. Above all, this amendment allows the City of Sioux Falls to have the ability to advance the funds associated with the Big Sioux Flood Control Project which was authorized by the Congress in 1996.

Keep in mind, roughly 20 years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined that the original flood control project in Sioux Falls was ineffective due to two significant flood events that occurred in 1957 and in 1969. The city and the Federal Government have been working since 2000 to raise the height of the levees and to construct a dam. However, without the authority contained in this amendment, the completion of the Big Sioux Flood Control Project will languish until the Federal Government's remaining share of the project is appropriated.

Effectively, with roughly $21 million in remaining Federal costs and the fact that the average funding provided by Congress over the past 7 years has been about $2 million per year, the city is at the mercy of the Federal Government to complete this important project. If these flood protection improvements are not made, roughly $750 million in property damage could result in homes and businesses in a major flood event.

Adding to the urgency for completing this important flood control project is the fact that following Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency proposed modifications to the city's 100-year flood plain, just as FEMA has done in other communities across the country, to ensure that homeowners are aware of potential flood risks. As a result of FEMA's proposed flood plain modifications in Sioux Falls, until the Army Corps certifies completion of its project, roughly 1,600 homeowners and businesses will be required to purchase flood insurance. The quickest way to eliminate or reduce the need for flood insurance for the 1,600 homeowners and businesses is to complete construction of the Big Sioux Flood Control Project as soon as possible.

While the city has expressed a willingness to advance fund the Federal Government's remaining portion of the project, this would require Congress to act in a couple of ways. One is to allow the Army Corps to accept advance funding from the city for the Federal Government's portion of the project; second, to authorize the Army Corps to reimburse the city through future appropriations from the Federal Government's portion of the project.

This straightforward amendment doesn't add any costs to the Federal Government. In fact, allowing the city to advance fund the remainder of the project would actually reduce the Federal Government's overall cost because the project would be completed in a much shorter timeframe.

Such authorities have been extended to other Federal flood control projects in the past. Senator Johnson and I are simply seeking additional flexibility that will allow the city to expedite construction of the Big Sioux Flood Control Project. I believe the city's willingness to advance fund this flood control project underscores their commitment to finishing this much needed project.

I look forward to working with the bill managers to try to get this amendment voted on, to get it included in the underlying bill as we work to reform our Nation's flood insurance program.

I hope we can work through this jurisdictional issue because this is an issue of timing. There is another WRDA bill that may come down the road, but the last one took 7 years to get on the floor of the Senate. I don't believe the next one will take that long. In any case, the city of Sioux Falls--the largest community in my State--is looking at 11 years to complete this project.

As soon as FEMA designates this flood plain, 1,600 homeowners will be faced with an insurance bill. All the city is trying to do is take the initiative to complete this project in a more timely way by advance funding it and then allowing the Federal Government, through the Corps, to reimburse through what would be annual appropriations, which could take perhaps 11 or more years to get. I think this is a commonsense, practical solution. The city has stepped forward on this. I hope we can include it in this bill before we get to final passage.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut.

Source