On the recordJuly 12, 2011
I am pleased to present this amendment. This actually was adopted by a voice vote in the Financial Services Committee in 2010; and my good friend and colleague, Congresswoman Biggert, may recall it. It was something that came up in my district where an elderly woman, living on Social Security, had a mortgage balance on her home of $13,000; but because she was being included in a newly mapped flood zone, her bank required her to purchase the full $250,000 in flood insurance at a cost of more than $2,400 per year. I would venture to say that we don't see ourselves as being in the insurance business by choice. We are in the flood insurance business out of necessity, and it would seem to me that it doesn't make a lot of sense to impose an obligation on homeowners to purchase insurance that exceeds the actual cost of their mortgage, especially when we note that the average flood damage claims are anywhere from $25,000 to $35,000. So to require someone who has a $13,000 loan balance to purchase flood insurance for $250,000 and pay a fee, a yearly premium of $2,400, is just, I think, unacceptable; and I would think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would like to do something for those people who have been responsible, pay down their mortgages, and have small balances.…
