National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2018

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1182) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint commemorative coins in recognition of the 100th anniversary of The American Legion, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to do something I do not often do, and that is: I have asked my leadership to put a bill on the floor that I do not support.

I am talking about the bill that would provide for a non-reform reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program through the end of November. To make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, I believe this program needs to be reauthorized, and the House has done its work. The House passed a bill with reforms last November. Never underestimate the Senate's capacity to do nothing.

Unfortunately, the Senate has done nothing. But this is a program, Mr. Speaker, that continues to be in dire need of reform. And now, we have reauthorized it without reforms, not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times, but six times since the Financial Services Committee first reported this bill out. Enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, in America, we lost 116 lives last year to flooding, with billions and billions of dollars of property loss, and, yet, we have a program unreformed that incents people to live in harm's way. We should not be doing this, Mr. Speaker.

I went and I visited with those who survived Hurricane Harvey, people that were close to your district, people whose homes had flooded three times in the last 8 years, and I heard harrowing tales of survival. And, yet, we have a program that says, you know what? We are going to help rebuild your same home in the same fashion in the same place. Hope you survive next time. That is just wrong, Mr. Speaker.

And, yes, we need more mitigation money. We need better flood control projects. The House bill had more flood mitigation money than any other reform bill, but this bill before us has no reforms.

Finances: This is a program that the taxpayer has subsidized so far by $40 billion. Some of the debt has been forgiven, but it runs a billion-and-a-half dollar deficit every single year, Mr. Speaker. It is unsustainable. The Congressional Budget Office says it, the GAO says it, the OMB says it. It is an unsustainable program. The finances do not work.

And then last, but not least, Mr. Speaker, it is a government monopoly. It is a government monopoly when people could, through a competitive marketplace, actually get more affordable flood insurance. And that is just not a theory. That is happening as we speak.

In the small little bit of the marketplace that is open to competition, people are saving hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in places like Pennsylvania, and in places like Florida. We had testimony in our committee. And so it is just rather disappointing that, again, we face the seventh time of not reforming a program that has no market competition, and that is fiscally unsustainable, and, yet, we continue to see premiums skyrocket in the government monopoly.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon. They tried to put together a reform package with the most minimal level of reforms, and, unfortunately, it did not appear to carry the day.

I suspect we will soon cast, with an overwhelming vote, a clean reauthorization, but I don't think they are going to take it up in the Senate. Maybe I am wrong, in which case, we will have to deal with this. And I would just simply again ask, particularly for the people on my side of the aisle--I think it helps maybe once or twice a month if we ask ourselves Ronald Reagan's eternal question: ``If not us, who? If not now, when?''

Mr. Speaker, I invite somebody to answer that question for me, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), who is the chairman of our Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who is the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a very senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of our Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), who is also the author of the legislation for the reauthorization bill before us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chairman of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance and the author of the real flood reform bill.

I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker. I think I have the right to close.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, deja vu all over again. This House has been here many times before. In fact, we have had 41 reauthorizations of this program, 38 with no reforms.

So, a vote for S. 1182 is a vote for the status quo. And what is the status quo? The status quo is people in harm's way who have homes that flood five, six, seven, and eight times, putting their lives in danger and burdening the taxpayer at the same time.

A vote for S. 1182 is a vote to ensure that we continue to have more red ink as far as the eye can see. Mr. Speaker, $40 billion of taxpayer subsidies to the program already. A vote for S. 1182 is a vote to protect a government monopoly.

The ranking member spoke about affordability. Well, the irony is, if we had market competition, we would have more affordable flood insurance, but we don't have market competition.

When is enough enough? When do we finally act? If we can vote down this, we can vote in favor of reforms, which is what we should have done in the first place. For us to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result, we all know, Mr. Speaker, is the very definition of insanity.

I have no doubt this thing will be voted ``aye,'' but it shouldn't be, and it is a sad day for the House.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, since the National Flood Insurance Program's multiyear authorization expired on September 30, 2017, ideological differences have led Congress to pass six short-term extensions, and have even allowed the program to briefly lapse twice since the government shutdowns.

More than 5 million families rely on the NFIP for affordable flood insurance coverage. Communities rely on the NFIP for flood maps and mitigation assistance, and small businesses rely on the NFIP to pick up the pieces when the inevitable storm hits. Yet, the long-term stability of this critical program continues to fall victim to partisan politics.

Mr. Speaker, 2017 was an absolutely catastrophic year in terms of hurricanes and other national disasters. In 2017, for the first time on record, three Category 4 hurricanes made landfall in the United States, serving as painful reminders of the importance of affordable and accessible flood insurance.

While Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria may be a distant memory for some, families affected by these storms are still just beginning their long road to recovery, and we continue to learn about the challenges that families in Puerto Rico face with no signs of leadership from the Trump administration.

We are here today in the midst of the 2018 hurricane season with no credible plan to do anything differently from the partisan gamesmanship that has brought the NFIP to the brink of a lapse several times already this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that Congress continues to miss opportunities to responsibly help homeowners, businesses, and renters who all need access to affordable flood insurance by taking sensible steps to stabilize flood insurance premiums, deal with the NFIP's debt and invest in up-to-date and accurate flood maps.

Instead, the House has passed controversial and ideological reforms that make flood insurance more expensive, less available, and less fair, which is, obviously, going nowhere in the Senate.

Given the critical importance of the NFIP to our housing market, I am pleased that we are taking the small step today of reauthorizing the program for 4 months to at least provide some level of certainty to businesses and families, but let us not be fooled into thinking that our work is done. I have led the effort for years to provide long-term reauthorizations of the NFIP that also ensure the affordability and the availability of flood insurance, and I will continue to do so when this latest short-term extension expires in November.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), who is the ranking member of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Missouri an additional 1 minute.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who has long pushed for reducing flood risk in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), who has been a true leader on the National Flood Insurance Program. He comes with a very, very important background. He was chairman of Louisiana's Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. So I am pleased to have worked with him, to have talked with him, and to understand that we need him when we are working on the reforms that we will work on after we pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo), continuing in this bipartisan effort to pass a clean bill. He has long been a champion of the National Flood Insurance Program.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to hear that some of my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are going to cooperate in a reauthorization bill, taking into consideration many of the concerns.

I do want you to know that I sent a letter out just July 18, Mr. Speaker, 61

Members signed this letter for reauthorization. I want you to know that I understand that we have differences, and I understand that I am focused on affordability as one of the important aspects of any reauthorization bill.

I do know that some on the other side are concerned about how many times flooding will take place where people will have to be reestablished, the homes rebuilt, repairs done, how many times. I know all of that. We know all of that. But we are here now, and we have no choice. We have got to pass this bill this evening. A clear bill that will reauthorize for 4 months, and then let's have Mr. Duffy have another shout out loud about how we are going to do a long-term reauthorization bill when we take up the bill after the 4 months.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, partisan gamesmanship and harmful reforms passed out of the house stalled the NFIP's long-term reauthorization for long enough. While I would prefer a longer term reauthorization of this important program, I strongly support today's 4-month extension to provide homeowners, businesses, renters, and communities with the certainty they deserve.

But make no mistake. This short-term reauthorization does not absolve Congress of its responsibility to reauthorize the flood insurance program for the long term. It is past time for Congress to do its job and pass a long-term reauthorization that will ensure Americans are protected this and every hurricane season to come.

Mr. Speaker, flooding is truly a humbling and equalizing force. It brings out the best of America during the worst of times, with everyone putting aside their differences to come together to help one another in our time of need.

Now it is time for Congress to do the same thing. We must put partisanship and ideology aside and ensure the continued affordability and availability of coverage for millions of Americans. The long-term reauthorization of the NFIP that ensures affordable flood insurance continues to be available to communities across our country must be Congress' priority when we return from the August recess.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this discussion needs to have a reset. It needs to have a reset because I keep hearing people sit here talking about repetitive floods and how there is a certain set of these flood victims who are costing this program all sorts of problems and money.

Mr. Speaker, do you really believe people want to be flooded? Do you think people want to have everything they own underwater and have to throw it all out?

Anybody who believes that has obviously never stepped foot in a flooded home, never spoken to a flood victim.

Do you really think people intentionally want to build their home in a place that is going to flood so all their family heirlooms are flooded and lost? That whole concept is irrational.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that all of us want this program to be solvent. We all want to have a solution. We all want to have reforms. The things that are being pushed aren't the reforms that are going to result in solvency. The reforms that are being pushed are strictly a defense. You don't go out on the field and just play defense.

We need to lean forward. We need to integrate some of our efforts on mitigation, some of our Corps of Engineers levee projects, some of our hazard mitigation grant program funds through FEMA, look where we can protect areas and where that is the most cost-effective solution, and not tell everyone: You are out of your house, or we are going to charge you unaffordable rates.

Mr. Speaker, think about this for just a minute. I represent the State of Louisiana. We drain from Montana to two Canadian provinces to New York. All that water comes and drains down through our State. It is one of the largest watersheds in the world. More water is coming to us now.

So, yes, we are more vulnerable. But the people who live in these homes and businesses are innocent. Folks are trying to charge them more for something they have no control over. That is not American. That is not okay.

We are in hurricane season right now, Mr. Speaker. We are in hurricane season, where we need to provide people certainty. Let's be crystal clear on what this bill is and what it is not. A ``yes'' vote provides people certainty during hurricane season. It provides certainty to Realtors, homeowners, and homebuilders. A ``no'' vote kills the National Flood Insurance Program and leaves people with complete uncertainty and in limbo.

I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for proposing this bill and for bringing it up, because this is so important. We have had 220 disasters, each costing more than $1 billion since 1980. In total, we spent approximately $1.5 trillion responding to these disasters.

Mr. Speaker, there are similar programs that exist. Right now, there is Price-Anderson for nuclear power plants and TRIA for terrorism risk insurance, where the government provides a safety net. I agree that we nee to reform these programs, but we need to do it in a way that does not penalize the innocent. Until we get to that point, we need to do an extension to provide certainty and to ensure we make it through hurricane season, and we have a rational debate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and I really want to thank my colleague, Mr. MacArthur from New Jersey, for his leadership in bringing this amendment forward, which would reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program on a short-term basis through hurricane season.

Why are we here, Mr. Speaker? We are here because, first of all, the House did take strong action to pass a 5-year reauthorization of NFIP that included really important reforms, reforms that I was happy to work with the chairman on to pass through the House.

But, ultimately, as the bill went over to the Senate, we kept hearing story after story that the Senate was going to pass something, and then a month would go by and another month would go by, and, ultimately, the Senate still hasn't passed anything to reauthorize this program. So it leaves us here literally days before the program expires.

Mr. Speaker, we can't play some game of chicken with the lives of millions of families that represent, by the way, all 50 States. All 50 States participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. This isn't something that just applies to coastal communities. You have got every inland State as well that have families that rely on this program to work.

Mr. Speaker, what kind of program would we like to see? I would love to see a vibrant marketplace with private sector company after private sector company that would offer options to families just like we have with car insurance or homeowners insurance. But we don't have that today. So what we need to do is usher in reforms like the Ross-Castor legislation, Mr. Speaker, that I am a cosponsor of. Ross-Castor, by the way, was included in the House-passed bill.

There are other important reforms that encourage communities to get better mapping from FEMA. Some of those reforms were included in the Royce-Blumenauer legislation which, was also in the House-passed bill.

So we could talk about the reforms that are needed, and I encourage us to get those kind of reforms done. But at the midnight hour, let's at least keep this program going for a few more months while we continue negotiating, and let's get a long-term deal that actually has the reforms that will make this a sustainable program with private sector involvement for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with deep hesitation in supporting another clean extension of the National Flood Insurance Program through November of this year. While I completely agree that letting this program lapse in the middle of hurricane season is deeply problematic, it is inconceivable to me that even extremely modest reforms to this troubled program are not included in this legislation.

The House amendment to S. 1182 is a simple piece of legislation with a simple extension. What is notable, however, is the fact that the legislation contains none of the reforms passed by this House in a bipartisan manner in November, nor does the legislation contain any of the more modest reforms recently introduced by my colleagues from California and Oregon, Representatives Royce and Blumenauer.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Missouri said, this will be extension number 7 in less than a year. This is even after Congress forgave that $16 billion in NFIP debt, all while fewer than 2 percent of the 5 million policies that are out there have absorbed more than $8 billion in payments.

These numbers are staggering. Instead of passing clean extension after clean extension, the Senate should--no, wait a minute--the Senate must do its job and take up bipartisan reform that we passed in November.

I urge my colleagues to be responsible and work toward crafting a long-term reauthorization of this, a program that needs to shift towards risk-based rates, increasing private sector involvement in the program, and to address repetitive loss properties, all of which will put the program on a more sustainable financial path.

I grew up in a floodplain in Michigan right along Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes. This is real for those of us in west Michigan. But at the end of the day, with this legislation, a ``no'' vote is not a lack of willingness or interest to address this issue, as it may be portrayed; but, equally, a ``yes'' vote should not be acceptance of the status quo. Hopefully, by this bill moving forward, there may be action in the Senate.

Frankly, at the end of the day, Members are being put in an impossible no-win situation; not for us, Mr. Speaker, but for our constituents, the taxpayers, it is a no-win situation.