Hill Heat

The rapid rise of the Green New Deal onto the political agenda has provided new hope that the U.S. might develop a policy response worthy of the climate crisis. However, there remain crucial questions about what a Green New Deal would actually entail. There is no shortage of technical work on decarbonization by economists and engineers. However, this knowledge needs to be integrated with historical and political perspectives that can place policies in a broader perspective.

In an effective policy program, evidence-based technical details must be supported by savvy political messaging and organizational implementation. This event will bring together academics, civil society groups, and policymakers for a day-long workshop on the politics and implementation of Green New Deal legislation. The central question for the day will be, what form should the Green New Deal take so as to maximize political sustainability and institutional effectiveness?

• 9:00-9:30 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks
• 9:30-10:30 a.m. Opening Keynotes: The Original New Deal and Green Growth in the U.S. Today
• 10:45-12:15 p.m. Panel 1: The Problem: Inequality, Racism, and Energy Systems
  • Darrick Hamilton, Ohio State
  • David Hart, George Mason
  • Diana Hernández, Columbia
• 12:15-1:15 p.m. Lunch Break
• 1:15-2:45 p.m. Panel 2: Political Strategies for Implementing the Green New Deal
  • Nina Kelsey, George Washington
  • Jonas Nahm, Johns Hopkins
  • Leah Stokes, UC Santa Barbara
• 3:00-4:45 p.m. Panel 3: Strategies for Implementing the Green New Deal
  • Daniel Aldana Cohen, University of Pennsylvania
  • Cara Horowitz, UCLA
  • Myles Lennon, Yale
  • Michael Neblo, Ohio State
• 4:45-5:00 p.m. Wrap-up session

RSVP

Witnesses

• Kurt Nagle, President, American Association of Port Authorities
• Dale Krapf, Chairman, Krapf Group Incorporated
• Timothy Johnson, Consultant, Corning Incorporated

Background

Prior to 1950, flood insurance was a peril often included in standard homeowners’ insurance policies. However, in response to an increasing frequency and severity in flood-related losses in the 1950s, insurance companies began excluding flood insurance coverage and selling it separately. By the 1960s, widespread flooding along the Mississippi River caused most private insurers to flee the business of flood insurance altogether, leaving many consumers with virtually no access to private flood insurance. The lack of availability of flood insurance for consumers left them vulnerable in the event of a flood, and also left taxpayers vulnerable to bearing the costs of flood damage through post-disaster relief in the case of a flood event.

In direct response to this private market failure, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was created in 1968 with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA). In doing so, Congress determined that “as a matter of national policy, a reasonable method of sharing the risk of flood losses is through a program of flood insurance which can complement and encourage preventive and protective measures” and that transferring the costs of private property flood losses from the general taxpayer to individuals in the floodplains through premiums would ease the strain on the nation’s limited disaster resources. Congress also passed the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (FDPA) that requires most property owners in a designated Special Flood Hazard Area to purchase flood insurance.

The last long-term reauthorization of the NFIP occurred when Congress passed the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (BW-12), which was subsequently amended by the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 (HFIAA). Since the end of fiscal year (FY) 2017, the NFIP has been reauthorized ten times and has experienced brief lapses. According to the National Association of Realtors, an estimated 40,000 home sales are lost or interrupted every month that the NFIP’s authority lapses. The NFIP’s authorization is currently set to expire on May 31, 2019. In the event of a lapse, NFIP will be unable to enter into new flood insurance contracts, which will lead to widespread market instability due to the stalling of mortgage processing for homes that are statutorily required to have flood insurance.

Several Members of Congress have put forward legislative proposals to reauthorize the NFIP and make programmatic reforms to promote affordability, protect policyholders, and improve flood mapping and floodplain management.

Overview of the NFIP

The NFIP is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through its Federal Insurance & Mitigation Administration (FIMA). The NFIP was designed to serve two interrelated goals: (1) provide access to primary flood insurance and (2) reduce flood risk through the adoption of floodplain management standards. The NFIP advances these goals by offering primary flood insurance exclusively for properties in communities that adopt minimum floodplain management standards under FEMA regulations. The NFIP also administers the Community Rating System (CRS), which is a voluntary incentive program that recognizes communities for implementing floodplain management practices that exceed the NFIP’s minimum requirements and, in exchange, FIMA offers reduced flood insurance premiums to policyholders.

Today, the NFIP is the principal provider of primary flood insurance in the U.S., covering over 5 million households and businesses across the country for a total of over $1.3 trillion in flood insurance coverage. As of the end of FY 2018, approximately 22,324 communities participate in the NFIP, covering an estimated 93 percent of the U.S. population. According to FEMA, the NFIP saves the nation an estimated $1.87 billion annually in flood losses avoided because of the NFIP’s building and floodplain management regulations.

In 1983, FEMA created the Write Your Own (WYO) Program in an effort to: increase the NFIP’s policy base and geographic distribution of policies; improve service to NFIP policyholders through infusion of insurance industry knowledge and capacity; and, provide the insurance industry with direct operating experience with flood insurance. This WYO Program operates as a partnership between FEMA and participating property and casualty insurance companies that are compensated to write and service NFIP policies. The WYOs assume none of the risk by participating in this program. FEMA retains all of the insurance risk and underwrites any losses. Currently, approximately 60 different companies administer about 87 percent of NFIP policies through the WYO Program. The remainder of NFIP’s policies are provided through the Direct Program, which is operated by a government contractor and performs the same basic functions as a WYO company.

The NFIP offers a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) for properties in participating communities within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). By virtue of the mandatory purchase required by law, most property owners within the SFHA are required to purchase flood insurance. Many of the SFIP’s policy terms are set in statute. The maximum coverage amount for building coverage is $250,000 for single-family homes, and $500,000 for multi-family residential properties, and non-residential properties including commercial properties. The maximum coverage amount for contents only is $100,000. If the SFIP’s maximum coverage amounts are insufficient to cover the full value of the property, policyholders may have the option of obtaining excess flood insurance in the private market.

The NFIP also offers coverage for properties that are not within a SFHA, usually as a Preferred Risk Policy (PRP). PRPs include similar coverage but at discounted rates in accordance with their lower risk profile. If a property has a significant loss history, that policyholder may become ineligible for a PRP and would need to purchase a SFIP that is commensurate with the flood risk.

The NFIP’s Financial Status

The NFIP is largely self-funded through insurance premiums collected from policy holders. Policyholders are also assessed a number of surcharges and other fees. In FY 2018, policyholders paid $382 million in surcharges, $188.162 million in federal policy fees, and $496.82 million in reserve fund assessments. A portion of these premiums, fees, surcharges, and assessments goes towards the cost of flood mapping and floodplain management. A large portion also goes to paying interest on debt of the NFIP.

Congress designed the NFIP as a program that would operate on a cash flow basis, borrowing from the Treasury in bad years and returning funds to the Treasury in good years. The NFIP was largely self-supporting in this way from 1986 until 2005, but due to extraordinary losses incurred as a result of hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005, and then Superstorm Sandy in 2012 and Hurricane Matthew in 2016, the program currently carries a debt of $20.5 billion. It is also important to note that a significant portion of the NFIP’s debt accrued as a result of Hurricane Katrina ($19 billion) could not possibly have been properly accounted for in NFIP’s risk modeling; specifically, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers took responsibility for engineering and design failures in the levees that should have been able to provide far better protection for New Orleans in the face of Katrina.

Taxpayers are not on the hook for this debt and receive millions of dollars in interest payments every year (currently approximately $400 million annually or a total of $4.2 billion since 2005) at the expense of policyholders. In 2017, following a proposal submitted by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney, Congress passed legislation to partially forgive $16 billion of the NFIP’s debt of $30.4 billion, after the NFIP’s debt ballooned following Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria and other historic flooding that year.

Affordability Challenges

In 2018, FEMA submitted its congressionally mandated Affordability Framework demonstrating, among other things, that low-income homeowners and renters face significant affordability challenges. The report documents that those that are least able to afford higher premiums tend to live in the highest flood hazard areas writing, “generally, incomes are higher outside the SFHA than they are inside the SFHA. The median household income for residential policyholders is $82,000, although it is substantially lower in the SFHA than outside the SFHA.” Further, FEMA found that “the combination of higher premiums and lower incomes in the SFHA creates affordability pressure on households.”

Draft Legislation

• Waters_009 is a discussion draft that would reauthorize the NFIP through September 30, 2024 and address a number of affordability issues such as: 1) forgiving the NFIP’s debt; 2) creating a 5-year demonstration for means-tested assistance to low-income policyholders; 3) reducing fees and surcharges; 4) revising the NFIP’s coverage limits; 5) enabling policyholders to pay premiums in monthly installments; and 6) creating a state revolving loan fund modeled after legislation previously introduced by Rep. Crist.

• Maj_Mitigation is a discussion draft that would make several improvements to floodplain management and mitigation such as: 1) raising the amount of funds available under Increased Cost of Compliance program and expanding the eligible mitigation activities to include the cost of acquisitions, among others; 2) granting the Administrator discretion to consider the extent to which communities are working to remedy problems with repeatedly flooded areas when administering mitigation assistance; 3) granting credits for alternative forms of mitigation, allowing coverage for coops and community-based policies; and 5) authorizing and flood plain management activities.

• Maj_Mapping is a discussion draft that would reauthorize the flood mapping program and provide funding to support flood mapping. It would also make several improvements to the mapping program such as: 1) requiring the most up-to-date technology, and more advanced and granular flood maps; 2) improving the process for policyholders and communities to appeal FEMA’s mapping decisions; and 3) creating new flood map zones for levee-impacted and for agricultural areas.

• Velazq_035 is a bill that would make numerous improvements to the claims process drawing on the lessons learned from Superstorm Sandy. The bill would ensure that policyholders better understand the terms of their flood insurance policies and improve the appeals and litigation process for consumers

Witnesses

Panel one

• Rep. Sean P. Duffy
• Rep. Garret Graves
• Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer
• Rep. Frank Pallone
• Rep. Bill Pascrell
• Rep. Steve Scalise

Panel two

• Maria Cox Lamm, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, on behalf of Association of State Flood Plain Managers
• Christopher Heidrick, Heidrick & Company Insurance and Risk Management Services, LLC, on behalf of Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America
• Velma Smith, Senior Officer, Government Relations, The Pew Charitable Trusts
• Mabél Guzmán, Broker, @properties, on behalf of National Association of Realtors
• Collin O’Mara, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Wildlife Federation, on behalf of SmarterSafer Coalition
• Raymond J. Lehmann, Director of Finance, Insurance and Trade Policy, R Street Institute

Chair Jared Huffman opening statement:

Welcome to the Water, Oceans, and Wildlife subcommittee 101 hearing on the state of wildlife. So far, we’ve talked about the state of our water supplies, the state of our oceans, and now it’s time to talk about wildlife.

Our topic today is especially fitting because it is National Wildlife Week. This week celebrates the anniversaries of several important events in the preservation of our nation’s wildlife, including the establishment of the first National Wildlife Refuge, Pelican Island, in 1903; the Duck Stamp Act of 1934; and the founding of the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 1940. For over a century, Americans have expected that their representatives work together to protect wildlife. And that’s because our experiences with nature and wildlife are fundamental to our cultures, our families, and our way of life. Maybe you go hunting or fishing with your family, maybe your kids watch the birdfeeder in the backyard, or maybe you’ve visited our national parks and wildlife refuges and seen all the wild beauty that our country has to offer. I, for one, get out as much as possible in my district to fish. There are few things better than a relaxing day spent fishing at a quiet spot on the North Coast of California.

I think it’s safe to say that we all want to protect native wildlife, both for the sake of wildlife itself and for us and future generations to enjoy. In fact, 4 out of 5 Americans support the Endangered Species Act and protecting species. We also share the goal of helping endangered wildlife around the globe, whether it is elephants, rhinos, tigers, polar bears, whales, or pandas.

Although we come from different states, with different landscapes and regional issues, the goal of today’s hearing is to get a clear and fact-based overview of the state of wildlife. Unfortunately, what I know so far, and what our expert witnesses will likely tell you, is that the state of many species in this country and across the globe is dire. In the history of the planet, there have been 5 major extinctions of life on Earth, including the time a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs. While you may not see a meteor falling from outer space or volcanoes filling the skies with ash right now, scientists have determined that we are in the middle of a sixth mass extinction.

And the truth is, it’s because of us. Human activity has destroyed all kinds of habitat, polluted our water and air, and is changing the climate in ways that many species of wildlife are struggling to keep up with. If we don’t do something about climate change, scientists predict that 1 in 6 species could face extinction.

However, it’s completely in our ability to solve these problems. There are several legislative proposals to protect wildlife that have been put forward by members of this Congress. We plan to hold legislative hearings soon to get many of these bills moving. We will also be conducting oversight of this administration, which we’ve seen place industry interests above those of the American people over and over again, including protecting wildlife and outdoor recreation.

Just last week, we held a hearing on the many threats facing one of the most endangered whales alive today, the North Atlantic right whale. Catering to oil and gas companies, the Trump administration has decided to increase the stressors facing this already imperiled species, even in the face of opposition from local communities and states.

The Endangered Species Act is another top target for the Trump administration. The administration is currently finalizing rules that would create loopholes in the law, putting more species at risk of extinction and giving more leeway to industry. We expect the administration to release the final rules any day now. The Trump administration is also undermining protections for wildlife in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the last remaining pristine habitats on Earth, by opening it up to oil and gas drilling. Over 700 species of plants and animals call the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge home, including polar bears, wolves, and the Porcupine caribou herd, which the Gwich’in people have relied on for time immemorial. I introduced the Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act to restore protections for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and urge my colleagues to join over one hundred other Members of Congress in supporting the bill.

The Trump administration announced last year that “incidental take” under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act would no longer be interpreted as prohibiting the incidental killing of birds. And guess who benefits? You guessed it: oil and gas companies. Finally, the quality of key habitats that promote recreation, hunting, and fishing, as well as access to these habitats, are being eroded by the administration’s energy-dominance policy. As you can see, there is a clear pattern here. And unfortunately, the list goes far beyond these few instances I’ve described today. So this Congress, this committee has a lot of work to do – making sure we hold this administration accountable for decisions that further threaten wildlife and putting new, innovative ideas forward to address the sixth mass extinction. We’re going to hear from a great panel of wildlife experts today. Thank you all for being here. I now invite the Ranking Member for his remarks, and then we will welcome and introduce our witnesses.

Majority witnesses

• Jamie Rappaport Clark, President and Chief, Executive Officer, Defenders of Wildlife
• Dan Ashe, President and Chief Executive, Officer, Association of Zoos & Aquariums
• Christy Plumer, Chief Conservation Officer, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Minority witnesses

• Valerie Covey, Commissioner, Precinct Three, Williamson County Commissioner’s Court, Georgetown, TX
• Rodger D. Huffman, President, Union County, Oregon Cattlemen’s Association

Administration Witness

• Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator, NOAA Fisheries

Majority Witnesses

• Dr. Scott Kraus, Vice President and Senior Science Advisor, Chief Scientist, Marine Mammal Conservation, Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life at the New England Aquarium
• Dr. Chris Clark, Senior Scientist, Research Professor, Cornell University

Minority Witness

• Dr. H. Sterling Burnett, Senior Fellow and Managing Editor, Environment & Climate News, The Heartland Institute

Witness List

• Dr. Walter Cruickshank, Acting Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
• Doug Morris, Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

The hearing will focus on our current infrastructure needs and how small businesses can stand to benefit from a comprehensive plan that includes surface, broadband, and water, among others. The hearing will give Members an opportunity to hear from a variety of witnesses regarding the importance of updating our nation’s infrastructure, while discussing the opportunities and challenges that exist for small businesses.

Witnesses

• Terri Williams, Director, SBDC Procurement Technical Assistance Center, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX
• Tim Donovan, Senior Vice President, Legislative Affairs, Competitive Carriers Association, Washington, DC
• Roseline Bougher, President, A.D. Marble, King of Prussia, PA, Testifying on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies
• Kris Knochelmann, Judge Executive, President, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, Kenton County, KY

The hearing will discuss GA O’s 2019 High Risk List and findings with respect to high-risk areas covered by the report. The hearing will address high-risk areas that were added to or removed from the list this year, areas that GAO identifies as needing significant attention, and other high-risk areas.

Witnesses

• Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Member of Congress, Washington D.C.
• Daniel T. Kildee, Member of Congress, Washington D.C.
• Dave Ross, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Maureen Sullivan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Environment, U.S. Department of Defense

Witnesses:

Panel 1:

• Rep. Peter A. DeFazio, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
• Rep. Sam Graves, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Panel 2:

• Richard Trumka, President, AFL-CIO
• Thomas Donohue, President and CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
• Gregory E. DiLoreto, P.E., 2013 ASCE Past-President, Chair of the Committee for America’s Infrastructure
• Chris Spear, President and CEO, American Trucking Associations
• Marc Scribner, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute