National Flood Insurance Program Competition and Extension Act of 2018

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7388) to extend the National Flood Insurance Program, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the National Flood Insurance Program is a program that has a number of challenges, but it is also a vital program for Americans who live in flood-prone areas.

The challenges in the program are well-known. Regrettably, it is going bankrupt. Regrettably, it incents people to live in areas that are repeatedly flooded. Regrettably, it is a program that protects a government monopoly; that is why the House, earlier this year, acted with a comprehensive reform bill. Unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the Capitol have yet to act.

We do not wish to have the current program lapse; thus, we are on the floor at this very moment.

This is a very simple bill. It would provide a temporary, short-term authorization through the end of May of 2019, regrettably, I believe now, the ninth extension since the House has acted.

And it also ensures that we provide certainty, certainty to the market of what the policies of the National Flood Insurance Program are.

I was there in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey. And one of the great tragedies--there were many tragedies, but one of the great tragedies was how few people actually had flood insurance. So what we want is a system that, hopefully, will see more people have flood coverage written into their homeowners' insurance policy.

So the NFIP wisely had moved in the direction of what they call allowing insurance companies to not have to have a non-compete. This is a current policy of the program, but too many insurance companies don't believe that policy will stay. So we will ensure that that policy stays through this bill, so that more people in a tragic situation will be covered by flood insurance.

So, again, this ensures that current policy is at least extended through May of 2019. It adds certainty to current policy.

I know in discussions with the ranking member--who has a lot of expertise in the subject of flood--we negotiated in good faith. We didn't quite get there on the comprehensive bill, but she agrees that we need this bill, right now, to ensure that current policy is extended, at least through May of 2019.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out again, all this bill does is extend for 6 months the current policies of the NFIP. Not one single policy of the NFIP is changed in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority whip for his kind words and our ability to work together to put together a product that we are both proud of and that the House passed. Again, we regret that those on the other side of the Capitol have not seen the wisdom to put forth any plan.

What we have before us is something that is quite simple. If you believe that you want to create at least 6 months of certainty for the market, for the real estate market, residential market, particularly in flood-prone areas, then you will pass this bill, because this is the one that creates certainty that every single current policy of the NFIP is extended for 6 months. That is what it does.

It codifies one particular policy of the NFIP, and this creates more certainty. This is what people have come to the floor to say they want.

Again, I lament the fact we are not doing a 5-year reauthorization. I lament the fact we are not dealing with many of the challenges that I mentioned earlier, but at least, today, we can create certainty for 6 months as negotiations continue in the next Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, allow me to try and explain exactly what is happening with this proposal by my chairman, Mr. Hensarling. Mr. Hensarling came to me and indicated that he wanted to add language to the reauthorization, the short-term reauthorization of the flood insurance program.

I explained to him that I had an agreement with Mr. Scalise, and our agreement was that this would be a short-term reauthorization that was clean; that it would be added to the continuing resolution; and that we would see to it that the flood insurance program would not lapse.

So Mr. Hensarling went to Mr. Scalise and Mr. Scalise agreed to it and, because he agreed to it, Mr. Hensarling moved forward.

Following that, staff members pointed out that if the language is added that Mr. Hensarling would like to add, it was going to create a problem. It was going to create a confrontation; that we would endanger the ability to have short-term reauthorization and, if we do that, homeowners are going to be disadvantaged because they would not have access to the insurance that they need to satisfy the mortgages that they were trying to get.

So we have had a long discussion and a long debate about what the Senate is going to do and, of course, our understanding now is that the Senate will not support the language that is going to be put in that is headed by Mr. Hensarling; and this was going to endanger the ability for us to get the short-term reauthorization.

So, given all of that, and understanding all of that, yes, I made an agreement with Mr. Hensarling that, if Mr. Scalise agreed, that I would agree, but I want--and I have said to Mr. Hensarling, as we had a long discussion on the floor with some of the leadership, et cetera, that one of the things we want is, we want this short-term reauthorization until May, until we can get to work on long-term reauthorization for the National Flood Insurance Program.

Yes, Mr. Hensarling is correct that we do have the possibility now for private insurers who write insurance for the national flood insurance, to do both, to be able to write insurance. But we do know that even if they are able to do it now, we are not saying that we should do anything to codify that in existing law. They are saying you should not do anything to codify that in existing law, simply because it endangers the ability for the support for the National Flood Insurance Program to be reauthorized through the short-term.

So it is complicated and it presents a dilemma for everybody. But in the final analysis, no matter what, the real question becomes: Is it important for a short-term reauthorization of the national flood insurance; or do we allow it to get caught up in these agreements so that we don't have it, and then the real estate market is going to go crazy; homeowners who are trying to purchase insurance, because they can't get a mortgage without it, all of this will be absolutely undermined. And that is the essence of what is going on.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that what Mr. Scalise said is the significant question about this issue, and that is: What do we do today to make sure that we have short-term reauthorization?

If we have thoughts other than that, are we reexamining those thoughts in any way, or do we understand the danger that may be imposed upon our ability to get short-term reauthorization with any efforts that we are making to codify or place into law the ability for private insurers to participate in the program, along with the way that they participate for the National Flood Insurance Program?

I think the significant question is what Mr. Scalise has said: Will we be able to support short-term reauthorization with whatever we do today? That becomes the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding time to talk about this important program.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her consistent commitment to making sure that the National Flood Insurance Program is there for families who need it, families all around the country, not just families, by the way, Mr. Speaker, in coastal areas. This is a program that affects every community in our country. It is a program that affects millions of people throughout the country, hundreds of thousands in my home State of Louisiana, but people from all around. It is an important program.

Mr. Speaker, I would love for this to be a private program, where there were great options all around for people to buy private flood insurance. Unfortunately, today there aren't; and so because there aren't those private options, the only game in town is NFIP. So it is incumbent upon us to make sure that this program works. And it has got to be a program that is fair for ratepayers and fair for taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, over the years, we have had many different long-term and short-term reauthorizations. It is well-documented. It has been one of the frustrations of trying to get consistency in the program, but, in the meantime, it is important that this program move forward.

Too many people are counting on NFIP to be there for them that have a closing on a home this week; maybe somebody's buying a new house for Christmas and they have to have flood insurance. We need to make sure that that program is there for them.

So it is important that we continue to keep this going, while negotiations will go on to see if we can get a long-term solution. The House came together and figured out a way to get a 5-year reauthorization, but the Senate wasn't able to put it together. I have no doubt in the future we are going to have those negotiations and find a way to get a long-term reauthorization for the program. I appreciate all the efforts that are being made.

But, in the meantime, people know that you can't just have this program expire as those negotiations go on.

So, with that said, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the parties involved who are negotiating in good faith to try to get this done.

Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her continued efforts to make sure that people, millions of people all across this country have that program.

I want to thank the chairman for his years of service. It has been a long time. We have worked together, both former chairmen of the RSC, and I know he is going to have brighter days ahead. I am sure he is glad that he will have a few more days to live out his current career, but I appreciate the gentleman from Texas' service over these years to our country in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote today on the enrollment correction to H.R. 4174, the Foundations for Evidence- Based Policymaking Act of 2017 (Roll no. 483), I would have voted ``aye.''

On concurring in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4174, the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2017 (Roll no. 484), I would have voted ``aye.''

On S. 3277, the Space Frontier Act of 2018 (Roll no. 485), I would have voted ``no.''

On the House Amendment to S. 3661, the 75th Anniversary of World War II Commemoration Act (Roll no. 486), I would have voted ``aye.''

On concurring in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2200, the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Roll no. 487), I would have voted ``aye.''

On S. 1023, the Tropical Forest Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Roll no. 488), I would have voted ``aye.''

On S. 1158, the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018 (Roll no. 489), I would have voted ``aye.''

On S. 1580, the Protecting Girls' Access to Education in Vulnerable Settings Act (Roll no. 490), I would have voted ``aye.''

On S. 1862 the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2017, as amended (Roll no.491), I would have voted ``aye.''

On S. 3247, the Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act of 2018 (Roll no.492), I would have voted ``aye.''

On S. 512, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (Roll no. 493), I would have voted ``aye.''

On S. 1934, the Alaska Remote Generator Reliability and Protection Act (Roll no. 494), I would have voted ``no.''

On concurring in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 6287, the 9/11 Memorial Act (Roll no. 495), I would have voted ``aye.''

On S. 3456, a bill to redesignate Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge as the Nathaniel P. Reed Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge, and for other purposes (Roll no. 496), I would have voted ``aye.''

On H.R. 7388, a bill to extend the National Flood Insurance Program, and for other purposes, (Roll call no. 497) I would have voted ``no.''

On the Motion to Fix the Convening Time (Roll call. no 498) I would have voted ``no.''

On H. Con. Res. 148, the enrollment correction to S. 3628, a bill to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program (Roll call. no 499) I would have voted ``aye.''

Additionally, had I been present for the vote on S. 3628, a bill to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program (Roll call. no 500) I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this last-ditch effort to attach harmful policy riders to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) reauthorization. While H.R. 7388 reauthorizes the NFIP through May 31, 2019, House Republicans have attached controversial policy reforms that have been rejected several times by the House and Senate to a bill that would keep the NFIP's doors open. This harmful policy change was recently implemented administratively by the Trump administration.

This policy reverses the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) ``Write Your Own'' non-compete clause and would allow private insurance companies partnering with and servicing NFIP policies to sell their own competing private policies to unsuspecting consumers. We should not allow private insurers to cherry-pick the best risk policies for their own private businesses and force taxpayers to pick up the rest.

The Senate has already unanimously passed a clean extension that does not include this toxic rider. The House should ensure that flood insurance remains available to millions of homeowners, businesses, and renters across the country that rely on it and pass a clean extension.