House passes bill to renew the flood insurance program, Hiking premiums

in the vicinity

New calls to privatize flood insurance, according to Harvey

Report: Up to 80 percent of the homeowners affected by the hurricane Harvey no flood insurance can

WASHINGTON – The house on Tuesday backed legislation, the increase in flood insurance, to help the premiums for many property owners of the company, is a program under stress, becoming more and more frequent and severe storms.

The bill’s passage was secured when the sponsors to protect a variety of changes to accommodate lawmakers determined, the components of even steeper increases in interest rates, or from, the program is started. The vote was 237-189.

Just last month, the insurance, the program requires a $16 billion rescue package to continue to pay claims of people that hard from hurricane Harvey. Critics have said that they have emphasised the need for an overhaul of how Congress as a long-term extension.

The program is the only flood insurance available to most Americans. Homeowners who live in areas that have a 1 percent chance of being inundated by the flood in a given year to purchase flood insurance as a condition for a federally backed mortgage.

But the premiums of insured are not keeping up with the cost of flood claims. Massive storms such as hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy creates a huge cost, and with climate change, the extent of the flooding seems to be worse.

The House Financial Services Committee passed legislation in June reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program for five years. Some of the changes sought had written in strong support of both parties, such as the clarification that flood insurance by the private sector, the government’s requirements, when it comes to obtaining a government-backed mortgage.

However, other aspects of the bill, the increased costs, which could accept some of the Republicans.

Behind the scenes, Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the Republican Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, negotiated with majority whip Steve Scalise, R-La., on a compromise. The last legislation is the provision that would have prohibited the program from the insurance to newly constructed structures to 2021, as well as provision of non-insurance for homes with a replacement value of more than $1 million.

The legislature also decided that the program would account for often properties flooded by the increase in the tariffs is based on future high water demands, rather than on the past flood claims.

“This law is important. It has really good reforms for the taxpayer. There is real security for the policyholder,” said Scalise, whose constituency includes most of Southeast Louisiana was devastated by hurricane Katrina.

“I’m still very proud of the fact that when we done this, will it represent, in many respects, the greatest reform in the history of the program,” said Hensarling.

Opposition largely came from the Democratic legislators.

“In the Wake of one of the most devastating hurricane seasons in history, this law, flood insurance would be more expensive, less available and less fair for millions of Americans,” said California Rep. Maxine Waters, the top Democrat on the financial services Committee.

Yet, like the legislature, the bill considered had to do more often to the regional differences as a political party.

Rep Garret Graves, R-La., the higher premium called a tax increase.

“You can’t ask for things over which they have no control. You can not said to desire to do whenever you stepped in and did exactly what the government told you, as you built a house or a business has established,” Graves.

Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N. J., said he understood the program has problems, but he is “sick and tired of defending the people of my district and the people in the North-East of the policy, that my not be the right one for us.”

“I’m angry and I’m disappointed to have to fight I have with his own party on these issues,” LoBiondo.

Under The Liberal Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., Spoke in favor of the bill. He said he has sympathy with those who expect higher costs, but the answer was not to follow guidelines, he said, to bring people in danger and to encourage them to rebuild in areas that your property and family in danger.

“It is important not to change that, we lose the opportunity,” Blumenauer said.

Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular