Taxpayer Exposure Mitigation Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2874, legislation that will make flood insurance more expensive, less available, and less fair for consumers.

At the outset, let me just say that I appreciate the time and effort that Chairman Hensarling and Mr. Duffy spent in responding to my calls for bipartisanship. We sat down multiple times to discuss areas where we could find compromise and a path forward.

Although our discussions were ultimately not successful and I strongly oppose this bill, I continue to believe that flood insurance really can be a bipartisan issue. In fact, I have a long history of working across the aisle on the National Flood Insurance Program.

In 2012, I coauthored the Biggert-Waters Act with former Representative Judy Biggert, and in 2014, when FEMA's botched implementation of the premium increases called for in that law led to unintended consequences, lawmakers from across the aisle joined me once again to pass the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act.

Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of Members from both sides of the aisle, I cannot support H.R. 2874 because it contains many provisions that will harm American families and businesses.

First and most importantly, the bill makes flood insurance more expensive. This bill will punish low and middle class Americans with increased premiums, surcharges, and reserve fund assessments. In the wake of a historic hurricane season that devastated so many communities, it is unconscionable that we are considering a bill that would make flood insurance less affordable. We should be focussing on providing additional disaster relief and recovery after these devastating storms, not punishing these communities with higher premiums and surcharges.

It is clear that there are those who choose to live near the coast as a luxury, but there are also those who live in floodplains who are low- and middle-income families with modest homes, including some neighborhoods that are predominantly minority. This is because of the sad history of government-endorsed racism in access to credit and in neighborhood planning that pushed minorities into the bad parts of town, which, in some cases, were bad because they were prone to flooding.

These communities also often lack the resources to make upgrades to their homes and infrastructure to guard against future flood risk and are the least able to recover after a flood. The Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans is a prime example.

Another example is Greenspoint, a business district in Houston that was one of the hardest hit by Harvey. One in three residents in Greenspoint lives below the poverty line. Families in Greenspoint were still living in water-damaged and moldy units from flooding last year when they were hit again by Harvey.

There is no simple answer to our Nation's flooding problems, but I do know that raising the premiums and racking these up on policyholders will only hurt families as well as our economy.

Second, the bill makes flood insurance less available by allowing businesses to opt out of the requirement to purchase flood insurance, even if they are a high-risk property in a flood zone.

What is more, the bill kicks out certain low-value homes from the NFIP by prohibiting coverage for any home with claims that, over the entire history of the property, following enactment, even if it changes hands, exceed three times the replacement value of the structure.

This provision is so ill-conceived that the American Bankers Association wrote: ``Cutting off such properties from NFIP coverage will likely lead to significant hardship for homeowners, lenders, and communities. As borrowers lose NFIP coverage, and especially if alternative private coverage is not available or affordable, these properties will lose value, and the risk of abandonment and/or foreclosure increases dramatically. In some flood-prone communities, this could lead to a local or regional foreclosure crisis.''

Third, the bill makes flood insurance less fair for policyholders. In the wake of this historic hurricane season, it is astounding to me that the bill does nothing to fund flood maps so that we can better protect families. Oftentimes, communities are unaware of their true flood risk; and by not providing any funding for flood maps, building in areas with no information about flood risk will only continue.

Climate change will only make these storms more frequent, stronger, and more devastating than ever before, and we must make sure that the NFIP remains available and affordable to all Americans, not make it worse.

For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2874, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), the ranking member of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), the ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist), a leading voice on flood insurance and climate issues and a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond), the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and a long time leader on flood insurance issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), a senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and someone who has been working hard to try and have a bipartisan effort on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the

gentleman from New York (Mr. King), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee who has worked a long time for bipartisanship on reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a senior member of the Committee on Financial Services and a strong progressive leader.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, my chairmen, Mr. Hensarling and Mr. Duffy, we did work very hard to try and get a bipartisan bill.

As I negotiated with them, every time I reached an impasse, I thought about Sandy and how hard Democrats had to work to provide support for an area that should have gotten the support of everyone in the Congress of the United States. However, there was a demand from the opposite side of the aisle that it had to be paid for. We worked very hard to give them assistance, and they still have not been made whole.

Every time I reached an impasse, I thought about Louisiana and the work that I had done after Katrina and the visits that I have made there, the people that I got to know, and what I really have learned to understand about affordability.

Every time I reached an impasse, I thought about Florida, I thought about Texas and what has happened recently with these storms.

Having worked in this way and having been a coauthor of Biggert- Waters and having been the author of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, I think I know something about storms, something about the devastation that has been caused to families and communities, and I insist on affordability.

Mr. Speaker, as Democrats and some Republicans have made clear, this is a comprehensively bad bill that is harmful for families and businesses. In the wake of one of the most disastrous hurricane seasons in history, this bill would make flood insurance more expensive, less available, and less fair for millions of Americans.

I have repeatedly stated that affordability is my top priority, which is made worse by this bill. Even with the slight revisions that the chairman has made, coverage would still be less available, and cherry- picking by the private sector would be encouraged, putting the government on the hook for the riskiest of policies.

It is important to note that the biggest challenge to the National Flood Insurance Program is its massive debt, which the bill only addresses by charging hardworking Americans more for their flood insurance. That is just not fair.

We have comprehensive support for this bill from both the private sector and from our nonprofits. I don't know about any consumer organizations that support this bill, but I do know this. I know that I worked very hard to talk about mitigation and how I thought it could be a program that the locals could be involved in with the Federal Government. I know I worked very hard talking about the repetitive occurrences that the chairman was concerned about, but I also offered alternatives to what he is advocating.

I talked about outreach and education to them, about a buyout program that they may join with and accept voluntarily. I know that I tried everything that I could. I listened to Members from both sides of the aisle, and I know that we both wanted to have a comprehensive bill that was bipartisan.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we end up with this bad bill. I ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 616, I call up the bill (H.R. 2874) to achieve reforms to improve the financial stability of the National Flood Insurance Program, to enhance the development of more accurate estimates of flood risk through new technology and better maps, to increase the role of private markets in the management of flood insurance risks, and to provide for alternative methods to insure against flood peril, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria: the images of the human misery and the economic devastation are still clearly imprinted on our minds.

Unfortunately, we know that part of this is a result of a failed National Flood Insurance Program, which, Mr. Speaker, faced three important challenges.

First, it is a bankrupt program. It is unsustainable. Taxpayers are on the hook for $1.2 trillion, running an annual actuarial deficit of $1.5 billion. It has already received two different bailouts, for a combined total of about $25 billion.

Also, it incents and subsidizes people to actually live in harm's way.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is a government monopoly that, notwithstanding subsidized rates, still, unfortunately, has unaffordable premiums for many.

Today is a good day, Mr. Speaker, because today the House gets to vote on the 21st Century Flood Reform Act.

I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) for his leadership on the mapping reforms and reinsurance. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross) for his reforms on opening up the market. I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) for his tireless effort and leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.

There are a lot of good reforms in this bill, Mr. Speaker, for both taxpayers and ratepayers. Let me just briefly touch upon two.

It is an absolutely revolutionary reform, Mr. Speaker, that we can break open the government monopoly and bring in market competition, innovation competition, and more affordable rates for so many.

Milliman, one of the actuarial experts within the marketplace, released a study a couple of months ago talking about the market competition, saying: ``Based on our estimates, this would hold for 77 percent of all single families in Florida, 69 percent in Louisiana, and 92 percent in Texas,'' who all would see cheaper premiums.

We know that is not theory. It is actually happening in the market today. In the nascent part of the market that is open, people are getting hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars of savings.

One of the great tragedies that I saw in my native State of Texas, in Houston, was how few people actually took up flood insurance. Think, Mr. Speaker, if we had competition, if we had advertising, if people could roll that into their homeowner rates, how many more people would have been protected by the ravages of these hurricanes.

One more reform, briefly. We have these repetitive loss properties where people live in areas that flood over and over and over. I met a couple of families in Houston. They had three floods in 8 years. We have got to help them.

This bill provides more money for relocation, for flood-proofing, and for mitigation, than any other flood reform bill, all by 25 percent. We would prioritize these areas.

We also have to realize that if we are going to make this program sustainable, we cannot have 1 percent of the properties causing 25 percent of the losses.

Ultimately, if all we do is rebuild the same properties in the same fashion in the same location, that is neither wise nor compassionate. We have an opportunity to enact historic reforms. We should do it today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and respected member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee and one of the coauthors of H.R. 2874.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), the vice chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee and the author of the pro-consumer competition title of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chairman of our Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip, who has a slightly different message.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), another respected member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a senior Democrat and leader on environmental issues in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee, and the sponsor of the legislation, the 21st Century Flood Reform Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of horrific images from Hurricane Harvey. We should never forget them. We should look at this image and say: Never again.

Yet I hear from my colleagues: Let's preserve the status quo. Let's again subsidize people to live i harm's way.

I say no, Mr. Speaker. It is time to get these people out of these neighborhoods. Let's help them. That is why

this bill has more money for mitigation and relocation than has ever been in any flood insurance reform bill.

I hear my ranking member say that she cares about affordability. Then let's give people options.

I hear from people who say: NFIP would have cost me $2,700 a year, but I was able to find private coverage for $718.

Here is another one: I have benefited from switching to private market flood insurance from FEMA. I save about $1,000 a year.

Let's save money. Let's save premiums. Let's save lives. Let's vote ``aye'' on the 21st Century Flood Reform Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, first, I have some good news for my friend on the other side of the aisle. I would have him pay very careful attention to title VI of the 21st Century Flood Reform Act. It has everything to do with the whole Sandy appeals process. We have 25 pages of reforms dealing with what the gentleman was describing, including Section 601, Penalties for Fraud and False Statements in the National Flood Insurance Program.

And, indeed, after Sandy, many of the policyholders were wronged and there was much that we learned from that experience, and we tried to listen very carefully to a number of our colleagues from New Jersey and New York and, indeed, took many of the provisions which they have suggested.

The gentleman from New Jersey, indeed, has some very legitimate issues and concerns. Many of them, I hope and trust, have been addressed in this

bill. It is not too late. I would urge the gentleman to look at that title IV of the bill and perhaps he would be encouraged to support it.

Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I must urge rejection of the motion to recommit because, as you heard from the gentleman from New Jersey, he says it is all about delay. We can't delay getting people out of harm's way. We can't delay getting people out of neighborhoods that have flooded four, five, six, seven times in the last 8 years.

For those who can't afford flood insurance, we can't delay getting them market alternatives, where, in the 2 percent of the market that exists today, particularly in Pennsylvania, there are people that are not just saving hundreds of dollars, Mr. Speaker, but even thousands of dollars. We can't delay.

We know that this is a program that is unsustainable. It is a bankrupt program that is being funded, regrettably, by a bankrupt nation. Taxpayers are on the hook for $1.2 trillion and an annual deficit of $1.5 billion of actuarial deficit a year.

This thing isn't just broke, Mr. Speaker, it is bailout broke. We can't delay. We can't delay trying to put this back on a path of sustainability so the next time we have a serious storm or superstorm, we want there to be funds available to actually pay claims.

So, no, Mr. Speaker, we cannot delay. We cannot delay, and we cannot continue to do what we have done in the past in these repetitive loss areas and have our hands unclean by putting people back in the exact same neighborhoods that haven't just caused the loss of their property, but one day may very well cost the loss of their lives. We cannot delay.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a rejection of the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill sponsored by my friend, Representative Sean Duffy.

He has worked tirelessly in crafting a solution here, along with Representative Luetkemeyer, Representative Ross, and our full committee chairman, Mr. Hensarling.

While the National Flood Insurance Program provides needed insurance coverage, it has numerous problems as currently constructed, and the 21st Century Flood Reform Act seeks to implement much-needed reforms in this program.

In addition to reauthorizing the flood program for 5 years, this bill provides increased transparency to the public, provides more information to people living in harm's way about past damages and the risk of flooding, ensures mapping is timely and accurate, ties rates to risk, gives consumers greater choice in flood insurance options, and incentivizes mitigation and risk reduction.

Currently, in Arkansas, we have one private insurer that offers flood insurance. A second underwriter is near approval by our Insurance Commissioner Allen Kerr.

The benefits to the consumer through private insurance are significant, as noted by the Milliman study.

For example, one private insurer in Arkansas covers up to $2 million in coverage per occurrence, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to the NFIP, which limits coverage to $250,000, across all rating categories at premiums substantially below the NFIP.

Further, this private insurer can offer replacement value, reimbursement for living expenses if an individual or family is displaced by a flood. The NFIP does not.

For almost 50 years, the experiment in government-provided flood insurance has proven to be ineffective, inefficient, and indisputably costly to hardworking taxpayers. The time for action is now.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, and Chicago Tribune articles.

[From the USA Today, Sept. 7, 2017]

Make Flood Insurance Reflect Actual Risk

after hurricanes, taxpayers can't absorb ever increasing tabs: Our view

In 1968, in the wake of Hurricane Betsy, Congress decided

it had enough. Flooding was destroying too many homes,

leaving financial and physical devastation in its wake.

So lawmakers created the National Flood Insurance Program,

a government-run insurance fund for homeowners in flood-prone

areas.

And that's when things got really bad.

The NFIP has been losing money ever since. The program is

nearly $25 billion in the red and is running annual deficits

in the range of $1.4 billion. That's because it's a creation

of Congress and therefore sets its premiums according to what

is politically convenient rather than what is actuarially

sound.

With Hurricane Harvey devastating the Houston area, and

Hurricane Irma bearing down on the Southeast coast, the

program is certain to take a massive loss this year.

What's worse, the NFIP's woes are self-generating. Because

the premiums are well below what should be charged, this

effectively subsidizes construction in flood-prone areas. And

that means its losses grow as more flood-prone land is

developed.

Hurricane Katrina, which ravaged the Gulf Coast in 2005,

exposed just how costly and counterproductive the program had

become. In 2012, after years of debate, Congress enacted a

law that made flood insurance rates more reflective of actual

risks and expanded the areas considered flood-prone.

This generated Category 3 blowback from homeowners and the

real estate lobby, and in 2014 Congress passed another law

undoing much of the first.

Now, with catastrophic losses mounting and sea levels

rising, it's time to revisit the issue.

Making federal flood insurance more reflective of reality

would only go so far in dealing with the problem of building

in flood-prone areas. That's because many homeowners don't

have flood insurance and because much of the damage that the

government eventually pays for is not covered by the program.

(Private insurance typically covers damage from wind but not

water.)

With Katrina, for instance, the flood insurance payout was

$16.3 billion. But Congress passed supplementary spending of

more than $100 billion to provide intensive relief and

temporary housing, as well as fix broken levies.

With Harvey and Irma, the federal tab beyond of flood

insurance is likely to be even higher. Only an estimated 20%

of homeowners in the area affected by Harvey even bothered

with flood insurance, a number that has been dropping in

recent years. But making flood insurance reflect actual risks

is a vital first step in coming to grips with reality.

In the past several decades, Americans have flocked to

coastal communities, many of them in parts of the country

prone to hurricanes. With the hit to taxpayers growing and

the danger increasing, restraint--even some reversal--of this

trend is needed.

While people in the hurricane zones deserve disaster

assistance and the nation's sympathy, taxpayers can't simply

absorb ever increasing tabs for flood losses. The government

needs policies that encourage people to build their homes in

safer places. Harvey and Irma are just the latest sobering

wake-up calls with that message.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill. We must get flood insurance right, and that starts with affordability. If families can't afford insurance, they simply will not buy it.

In my home State of Florida, the number of NFIP policies has dropped 15 percent since 2012, when Congress started raising premiums. If you don't think the government should be involved in flood insurance, maybe that is good news, maybe that is the goal here, but not for the good of the taxpayer, when families who can't afford coverage must turn to FEMA after a disaster.

The bottom line is that unaffordable insurance will fail. This bill makes flood insurance less affordable, hiking premiums, surcharges, as well as fees. Beyond that, this bill would decrease access to coverage for vulnerable families, forcing them into a private market that does not exist.

Yes, we absolutely need 21st century flood reform. Our climate is changing, sea levels are rising, floods are getting worse, and sticking our heads in the sand will only make solutions that much more difficult.

This bill leaves behind the best reform ideas from both political parties, like better mapping, as well as mitigation.

Those who have lived through natural disasters know you can't stop the catastrophic force of Mother Nature, but you can prepare.

I urge my colleagues to reject this ideological exercise and put people over politics. Let us come together and pass real, sustainable reform for a strong, affordable National Flood Insurance Program.

Mr. Speaker, I include letters of opposition in the Record from the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners and the City of Clearwater.

Pinellas County,

Board of County Commissioners,

Clearwater, FL, November 8, 2017.

Hon. Charlie Crist,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Charlie: On behalf of Pinellas County, Florida, we

urge you to oppose the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, H.R.

2874. This bill, which is the compilation of the seven-bill

package approved by the House Financial Services Committee

this summer, is detrimental to Pinellas County residents and

local governments. Despite the minor changes proposed in the

amendment, the bill will increase costs for National Flood

Insurance Program (NFIP) policyholders, create unfunded

mandates by increasing regulatory burdens and

responsibilities for local governments, and lead to fewer

participants in the NFIP, which will undermine the integrity

of the program. We strongly urge you to oppose the bill.

The bill would increase premiums on homes built prior to

the first flood map by a minimum of 6.5% each year, with

properties that have made two or more claims subject to even

higher rate increases. In addition to this increase, all

policy holders would be assessed new and increased fees and

surcharges with some of these fees, such as the reserve fund

fee, increasing each year. As these increased costs are

passed on to policyholders, the bill acknowledges that an

affordability assistance program is needed, however it

delegates that authority to states and requires it to be

financed through additional charges on the other

policyholders in the state, creating an even greater

financial burden. These increased costs along with the new

restrictions in the bill on types of properties that can

obtain coverage through the NFIP will undermine participation

in the program, further destabilizing it. The bill does

nothing to invest in new flood mapping and technology, which

would result in more accurate maps and does not sufficiently

invest in mitigation. We ask for your continued assistance in

ensuring that this bill does not become law.

Additionally, we want to thank you for cosponsoring H.R.

3285, the Sustainable, Affordable, Fair and Efficient (SAFE)

NFIP Act. The legislation is significantly more consumer-

friendly than the House Financial Services Committee

approach. The SAFE NFIP Act includes provisions to limit

premium rate increases, create means-tested mitigation and

affordability provisions, expand the Increased Cost of

Compliance program, develop accurate flood maps, and

emphasize pre-disaster mitigation programs.

Again, thank you for your continued assistance in ensuring

that legislative efforts detrimental to Pinellas County's

over 130,000 policyholders are not enacted into law. We value

your support and thank you for cosponsoring H.R. 3285. Please

do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide additional

information or answer questions.

Sincerely,

Janet C. Long,

Chair, Pinellas County Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, in this form, yes.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to the committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would require the FEMA Administrator and the DHS inspector general to certify that all claims for victims of Superstorm Sandy are addressed before this bill takes effect.

Many in this Chamber should recall 5 years ago Superstorm Sandy caused widespread destruction throughout New Jersey and many States in the Northeast. Superstorm Sandy barreled up the East Coast, bringing death and destruction. Over 200 people in the United States and the Caribbean died, and the storm caused more than $71 billion in damage. Sandy swamped coastline communities. It knocked out power for millions of people and businesses, flooded public transit systems, and set neighborhoods ablaze.

Many Sandy victims have begun down the long road of recovery, but 5 years later, many victims and communities are still waiting for relief. They are still struggling to rebuild their homes and their businesses. It took years for the hardest hit communities in my district, Little Ferry and Moonachie, to receive the relief to build key pieces of public infrastructure.

In New Jersey, over 1,200 property owners are still moving through the recovery programs. Approximately 900 are still not back in their homes. Of all Sandy victims, there are over 2,000 people still awaiting final review of their flood insurance claims.

After victims faced delay after delay to start the claims process with FEMA, they then struggled with insurance companies which were and continue to be a major source of strife for Sandy victims.

Many of the residents of New York and New Jersey saw insurers intentionally paying out too little on their claims, which in many cases was not enough to cover the cost of repairing the damage. We heard stories of insurance adjusters making significant errors on reports because they misunderstood technical definitions, underestimated the extent of the damage done, or intentionally misrepresented the cause of the damage.

This is all documented.

The problems were so significant, we had to force FEMA to reopen the claims process for thousands of homeowners. Some ended up getting additional money. I have heard from many who say that it is still not enough to cover their recovery costs.

Mr. Speaker, on the heels of Hurricanes Harvey and Maria, we are now tasked with reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program. To ensure these victims do not face the same troubles as those in my State, we need to apply the lessons we learned from Superstorm Sandy in this reauthorization. Tragically, this bill does not.

We should not allow companies who profited off Superstorm Sandy victims while committing widespread fraud and failing to meet their basic obligations under the National Flood Insurance Program to sell their own flood insurance.

We should not reauthorize the program without reforming the claims process to ensure technical definitions of ``earth movement,'' ``basement,'' and ``mold damage'' do not cause delay for victims receiving their fair share.

This bill should ensure that victims have the time they need to file an appeal and require FEMA to respond so victims are able to move the claims process forward.

I submitted several amendments to the Rules Committee with my colleague Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey to address these issues and the lessons we learned from Sandy. We were denied a vote.

At the very least, Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that FEMA certifies that all victims from Superstorm Sandy have had action taken on their case before we make more changes to the National Flood Insurance Program. That is what a vote in favor of this recommit would do. Simply put, it would delay the implementation of the bill until the FEMA Administrator and the DHS inspector general certified that all claims for Superstorm Sandy have been addressed.

In order to support Superstorm Sandy victims, I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this recommit, because a ``no'' vote is a vote against the victims of Superstorm Sandy, no doubt about it, who, for 5 years have still not been made whole.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.