On the recordJune 5, 2013
I thank you for yielding the time, and I'll be very short. Let me say to my colleagues who oppose this bill that this does not repeal the entire law. This just repeals that portion which is not actuarially sound. We did vote for an insurance program, but we voted for one that was functional and, again, actuarially sound. I'll make it clear: this does not repeal section 205. Those that built below code or in flood zones, knowingly violating local code, will still pay the penalty. This is for 207 for folks who have never flooded, who've done it right, who've built behind flood protection, to code, and yet in some cases, because of actuarially flawed methodology, they will be paying up to $20,000. By the way, I did vote for this bill, but not to force an inaccurate, dysfunctional system which the GAO has criticized homeowners that are trying to live their life. There should be sanity and fairness. But that sanity and fairness should be addressed to having something which is actuarially sound. One of my colleagues said, Wait a second, some will pay less and some will pay more. Actually, some may pay less, next year pay more, and then pay less again. Because they're being judged by systems which, again, are not sound. We speak so often here of bringing certainty to business. Let's allow business to know what is going on. Why not have that same principle with homeowners?…





