On the recordJanuary 29, 2014
the State of Michigan has traditionally been a donor State with regard to the National Flood Insurance Program. Over the life of the program, Michigan residents have paid far more in premiums than they have received in benefits. It was my understanding that the flood insurance reform measure that was passed last year was designed to make the program more appropriately reflect the true flood risks for insured properties. With the phaseout of subsidies for some high-risk properties, many Michigan residents expected last year's reforms to lead to a better balance between donor and recipient States and potentially lower rates for Michigan residents whose properties are lower risk. I ask, is it correct that the bill before us, S. 1926, if passed, would not prevent rates from decreasing if that rate would have decreased under current law?





