[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 188 (Thursday, November 29, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H9710-H9714]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FURTHER EXTENSION ACT OF 2018

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 7187) to extend the National Flood Insurance Program until 
December 7, 2018.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 7187

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Flood Insurance 
     Program Further Extension Act of 2018''.

     SEC. 2. PROGRAM EXTENSION.

       (a) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``November 30, 2018'' and inserting ``December 7, 
     2018''.
       (b) Program Expiration.--Section 1319 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking 
     ``November 30, 2018'' and inserting ``December 7, 2018''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine 
Waters) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HENSARLING. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of the Housing and Insurance 
Subcommittee. He is also the author of the 21st Century Flood Reform 
Act, which was passed by this body over a year ago, and we still await 
the Senate to take up this version.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and for his 
great work as the chairman of the Financial Services Committee and on 
flood insurance reform.
  There are a lot of things we could talk about today in regard to 
flood insurance:
  We could talk about the fact that repetitive loss properties make up 
2 percent of all the policies but account for 25 percent of all of the 
claims.
  We could talk about the fact that the NFIP is $30 billion in debt, 
and that is after last year when we forgave $16 billion in debt. Again, 
we forgave $16 billion. We are still $25 billion in debt and actually 
racked up $10 billion of new debt in this program over the last year.
  I have got to tell you I am frustrated. We passed a bipartisan bill 
in this Chamber. We actively and aggressively negotiated it. This is a 
big issue for families back home, for constituents of our Members. We 
have listened to them. We heard them. We modified, we tweaked a bill, 
and we passed it--and the Senate won't take it up.
  Mr. Hensarling and I have worked across the aisle with Members not 
just in the Democratic Party, but also in the Senate. I have come to 
the opinion that there are very powerful players in this Chamber and in 
the Chamber next door that don't want anything done with flood 
insurance.
  It is a sick and broken program that goes deeper and deeper in debt, 
that incentivizes people to build in dangerous places. And they say: 
No, no, no. We don't want any reform. Let's march on with a program 
that doesn't work.
  I listened to all the conservatives in this Chamber. They throw out: 
Who is more conservative? Who is less?
  You have some really great conservatives who absolutely refuse to 
deal with a program that is burning billions of dollars in our Federal 
budget.
  My question is: Why don't we start looking out not just for the 
Federal budget, but also have a program that will work for our people?
  We were willing to make one offer of reform for a long-term 
extension. We said: Let's let the private market work. Let's let the 
private sector come in and take up some of the policies that are paying 
more than what the market would bear, let people get a lower rate and 
reduce the risk to the Federal taxpayer.
  And guess what. No one said yes. We couldn't get a ``yes'' from the 
opposition to flood insurance reform.
  I guess I thought conservatives wanted a free market. They like 
markets to work. In flood insurance, the NFIP, the Federal program, is 
the only program in town. We are saying: Let it open. Let the private 
sector come in.
  That is the one thing it would have taken for a long-term extension, 
and the answer to that from the conservatives and some of the liberals 
was no.
  I think that is a sad shame. I think we owe better to our 
constituents, and we owe better to the Federal debt and deficit on a 
program that doesn't work.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's leadership.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take some of my time to tell Mr. Duffy: 
Just calm down. This is easy. We are all together on this. I want to 
make sure he doesn't damage himself in all of the display that he is 
doing today.
  It is disappointing that we find ourselves on the House floor yet 
again to temporarily extend the National Flood Insurance Program's 
authorization.
  The NFIP provides flood insurance coverage to more than 5 million 
families across the country. Communities rely on 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 our 
inability to agree on a number of items.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans across the country are experiencing natural 
disasters of an absolutely catastrophic magnitude. Just this month, the 
Camp fire devastated California, amounting to the deadliest and most 
destructive wildfire in California history. Current estimates are that 
88 individuals have lost their lives and tens of thousands of 
structures, including over 13,000 single-family homes, have been 
destroyed.
  2017 was an absolutely catastrophic year in terms of hurricanes. In 
2017, for the first time on record, three Category 4 hurricanes made 
landfall in the United States. Hurricane Maria decimated Puerto Rico.
  Meanwhile, the administration's National Climate Assessment, which is 
a report prepared by 13 Federal agencies and more than 3,000 
scientists, recently documented the numerous impacts of our warming 
climate. According to the report, climate change is costing billions of 
dollars in property damage from sea level rise. High tide flooding has 
increased by factors as high as 10 in some communities, and fire season 
is now over 80 days longer than a couple of decades ago.
  Faced with these realities, we stand here today still lacking a 
credible plan to end the partisan problems that we have that has 
brought the NFIP to the brink of a lapse several times already in this 
Congress.

  I, too, and others, are disappointed that we have missed 
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

[[Page H9711]]

debt, and invest in up-to-date and accurate flood maps.
  Thankfully, the American people have demanded a change in Washington; 
and I am sure that, if we continue to concentrate on this issue, we can 
find bipartisanship and get something done.
  Given the critical importance of the NFIP to our housing market, I am 
pleased that we are taking this small step today of reauthorizing the 
program through December 7 to at least avoid its doors from shuttering. 
But our work is far from done.
  I have led the effort for years to provide long-term reauthorizations 
of the NFIP so that we could ensure the affordability and availability 
of flood insurance. I will continue to do so in the Financial Services 
Committee next Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the chairwoman of the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise because today we are voting on a 1-
week extension of the National Flood Insurance Program. This will be 
the eighth short-term extension since fiscal year 2017, and it is 
unacceptable.
  My district floods every year, and it is imminently clear that we 
must reform our flood insurance program, not just repeatedly extend it. 
Requiring taxpayers to fund construction projects in severe flood zones 
over and over again is extremely expensive, and it isn't a sustainable 
solution. The numbers prove it: NFIP is currently operating on a $1.4 
billion annual deficit, with no end in sight.
  As Chairman Hensarling knows all too well, I have personally spent 
the better part of a year, along with the ranking member, Mr. Al Green, 
working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to root out 
waste, fraud, and abuse in other disaster recovery programs. We must 
ensure that funds go to the people who truly need them, like the 
disaster recovery program. The current flood insurance is broken, and 
we must fix it once and for all.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been 1 year since the House passed a reform 
package that would have vastly improved the National Flood Insurance 
Program. It has been 1 year since the Senate has refused to act. I urge 
my colleagues to support the serious structural reforms that the 
Committee on Financial Services passed last November.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Financial Services 
Committee and someone who has been extremely active in monitoring the 
aftermath of the devastation from Hurricane Harvey.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
allowing the time and commend her for her many years of service and her 
efforts, in a bipartisan way, to establish the NFIP program such that 
it would be responsible, such that it would take care of the needs of 
the many people across the length and breadth of our country.
  I also thank the chairperson of the committee for his years of 
service. I know this is not the last time that he and I will be on the 
floor together, but I do want to thank him now for his years of 
service.
  Mr. Speaker, the NFIP is important to families because if the family 
cannot get the flood insurance, they cannot purchase the home. It is 
important to Realtors because if the home can't be purchased, the 
Realtors, obviously, cannot sell the home. It is important to the 
builders because the builders are the people who rely on home sales to 
make determinations as to what the market will bear and whether they 
should construct homes in a given area.
  So this really is about people in terms of their families, but it is 
also about people and the economy. It is about whether this economy 
will continue to grow. It is about whether or not we will provide a 
program that will give builders some sense of stability such that they 
can move forward with their construction projects.
  My hope is that this 1-week extension will be granted. I pray that my 
colleagues join us and vote for the extension. But my hope also is that 
we will have a long-term program developed, because the Realtors are 
depending on us; the contractors are depending on us; the families are 
depending on us; and the country is depending on us.
  The National Association of Realtors estimated that, if the program 
lapses for 1 month, about 40,000 home sales might not close nationwide. 
This is a significant number of homes in a market that currently needs 
an additional shot in the arm.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here for the families, the builders, the 
Realtors, and the economy.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, the headlines are pretty clear:
  ``Hurricanes Bigger and Costlier than Ever Before'';
  ``2.3 Billion People Affected by Flooding Disasters in 20 Years'';
  ``Rising Sea Levels Could Cost the U.S. Trillions.''
  Yet, somehow, Congress fails to act.
  I share with you that Mr. Duffy has articulated this problem very 
well. We are here again for the 40th time. Forty times since 1998 we 
have passed an extension of the National Flood Insurance Program, but 
without the needed reforms. Four months have passed since the last 
vote. We still have nothing to show for it.
  No one has been a greater advocate for reform than our colleague, Mr. 
Blumenauer of Oregon. Together, he and I have authored a number of 
bills that would better prepare Americans for rising floodwaters, as 
had Mr. Duffy, reforms that would address the fact that fewer than 2 
percent of 5 million policies have absorbed more than $80 billion in 
payments.
  So, are we here today to talk about reforms? No. We are here to 
support a program that tells Americans that, if you buy flood insurance 
from Uncle Sam, no matter how many times your house floods, we will 
give you money to rebuild it without requiring mitigation; a program 
that currently makes it more difficult for people to move than to 
rebuild, that fails to encourage communities to mitigate flood risk, 
that promotes continued construction in the highest risk areas.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this 1-week extension absent reforms, and I 
encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist), a member of the Financial 
Services Committee and long-time supporter of affordable flood 
insurance coverage.
  Mr. CRIST. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ranking Member Waters for her 
tireless leadership for a strong, affordable National Flood Insurance 
Program.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill. More than 5 
million middle class and working Americans rely on the National Flood 
Insurance Program for economic security and peace of mind.
  Congress cannot allow this program to expire. A lapse would leave 
countless families unable to renew their policies, putting them in 
financial peril if disaster were to strike. It would also upend the 
housing market, with closings coming to a full stop due to the 
inability to secure required coverage.
  While I wish this bill included a much longer term extension, 
providing American families with another week of coverage is far 
preferable to a damaging lapse.
  But, my colleagues, we must do better than 1 week. The people have 
endured seven stopgap extensions, including two brief lapses, since 
September 2017--7 extensions, 14 months. The bill before us is number 
eight.
  While almost everyone can agree that flood insurance is long overdue 
for reform, particularly to address the affordability challenges that 
plague policyholders, we should not allow that goal to threaten the 
program's very existence.
  I urge my colleagues to not only support today's bill but to work 
together in the coming days to reach agreement on a longer term 
extension.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

[[Page H9712]]

Florida (Mr. Ross), the vice chairman of the Housing and Insurance 
Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee and the true author of 
competitive flood insurance.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the subcommittee 
chairman, Mr. Duffy, for his efforts, too, in trying to provide 
significant reforms. I support their efforts in opposing this 
additional reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program.
  We have done this eight times in just over the year, and what have we 
gotten in return? Some would say nothing. I would say, no, it has been 
worse than nothing. You see, we forgave $16 billion in debt and got no 
reforms in response to that.

  Now the NFIP is $20 billion in debt again, yet we look at: Oh, but it 
is just $20 billion.
  In over 13 years, the interest on that is $5 billion. When are we 
going to stop this insanity?
  More disturbing, however, Mr. Speaker, is this House's failure to 
stand up to even the most modest technical reforms that would benefit 
the program.
  During my time in this body, I have been proud to champion one such 
bill, the Private Flood Insurance Market Development Act.
  To me, it defies logic that this coequal Chamber would pass a bill 
unanimously through the authorizing committee this Congress and then 
unanimously through the whole House in the last Congress and, yet, 
abandon its opportunities every time thereafter.
  My legislation is simple. It is a technical correction that will 
facilitate the growth of a private market alternative to the drowning 
national program that we have today. It is bipartisan. It is 
desperately needed.
  Yet, here we are again with a clean reauthorization that makes no 
progress and no promises that tomorrow will be any different. That, Mr. 
Speaker, is a shame. It is a shame that we have once again folded in 
the face of unjustified inaction.
  When does it end? When do we say enough is enough?
  Mr. Speaker, I do not want to shut down the NFIP. We don't need to. 
All we need to do is for the Senate to accept just one of the many 
eminently reasonable pieces of legislation that the House has passed, 
to be included alongside the short-term extension. Even the simplest 
reform would indicate that the Senate is serious about coming to the 
table to negotiate a long-term reauthorization.
  Anything would be better than the hollow promises this clean 
extension puts before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), a friend from the opposite 
side of the aisle who is a true expert on flood insurance issues.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk about this program. We have 
heard a lot about affordability, folks talking about being fiscally 
conservative and making sure that this program is financially solvent, 
hearing numbers like $20 billion in debt.
  Mr. Speaker, let me give you another number: $1.5 trillion. $1.5 
trillion, that is the amount of money we have spent on just 120 
disasters since 1980, billion-dollar-plus disasters.
  If we are fiscally conservative, then we need to address the $1.5 
trillion, not focus on this small component of disasters.
  How do you do that? You do that by making your communities more 
resilient.
  The Congressional Budget Office, FEMA, Corps of Engineers, and many 
other organizations have come out and said that the way that you do 
this is by being proactive and making investments in community 
resiliency, in ecosystem resiliency. That is what you do.
  If we are fiscal conservatives, if we are concerned about solvency 
and the debt, why are we just focused on this one small program?
  Mr. Speaker, here is the reality: Under the proposals that have been 
put forth, it charges people for things they have no responsibility 
over. That is called a tax. That is a tax.
  The people in my home State of Louisiana are at the bottom of one of 
the largest watersheds in the world. More water is being sent to us 
because of development in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Because of 
the Federal Government's actions on our coast, we have lost 2,000 
square miles of our coast.
  You are going to charge these people higher premiums because of what 
people above us are doing in other States and because of what our own 
Federal Government did to us with the river? That is not a premium. 
That is a tax. You are charging people for things they have no control 
over.
  We have structures and homes that have been in these places for 300 
years, and you are suddenly going to charge them unaffordable rates?
  This program does need reforms. It absolutely needs reforms. Those 
reforms should include, as the chairman has stated, buyouts for 
repetitive-flood-loss properties--absolutely--because that is the 
fiscally appropriate, fiscally conservative thing to do. Not to 
mention, no one wants their house to be flooded over and over again.
  We have to make reforms, but this is not the right approach.
  Let me be clear: I don't like a 7-day extension either. I don't. We 
need to do a year extension where we can sit down and talk about the 
right reforms to put us on the right trajectory to sustainably manage 
this program and, importantly, in the face of changing disasters and 
rising seas, so that we can prepare our Nation for the future.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Williams), the vice chairman on the Monetary Policy and 
Trade Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program.
  Mr. Speaker, for 20 years, Congress has been putting off making 
meaningful reforms to this problematic program. Taxpayers continue to 
pay the price for our failure to act. With every year that passes, the 
NFIP goes further and further into debt.
  The unsustainability of this program has even caused Congress to 
cancel $16 billion in NFIP debt last year.
  Without meaningful reform like what this body approved when we passed 
the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, what protections do taxpayers have?

  Mr. Speaker, the reauthorization before us today is not reform. By 
simply changing the date of the NFIP expiration, this body is tacitly 
stating that reform can't be done.
  Enough is enough. We can't continue to pass our problems along to 
those in the future. The time to fix this problem is now. I will oppose 
extensions of the NFIP as long as this body continues to ignore 
meaningful reforms.
  Mr. Speaker, I invite all my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' 
on this legislation.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who serves on the 
Judiciary Committee, the Homeland Security Committee, and the Committee 
on the Budget.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
for her unceasing--unceasing--commitment to the National Flood 
Insurance Program. I can't thank her enough.
  I know that my colleagues and I are from different States, but how 
many have walked through gutted homes and seen families full of sorrow 
and tears? Hurricane Harvey was the singular largest flood next to, of 
course, Hurricane Michael. Mr. Speaker, 51 trillion gallons of water in 
2017. How many have walked in Puerto Rico to see the devastation, as I 
have, or walked in the U.S. Virgin Islands and seen homes and hotels 
and places for home and for business devastated?
  The National Flood Insurance Program is a necessity. I wish this was 
a longer extension. But I have seen the desperation of those who have 
suffered. They need flood insurance. And those of us who have felt the 
pain of the fires in California driven by the Camp fire know that they 
need aid as well.

                              {time}  1700

  If you want to know a number, what about $1 trillion plus in the tax 
scam bill that was passed where my constituents say they have not seen 
one dime from the tax bill, and here we are going to be on the floor 
tomorrow with a tax extender.

[[Page H9713]]

  So I ask the question: Can we help desperate families by ensuring 
that this program goes for a week and that we can do better? Yes, we 
can do better. But let's stop the pain now with homes that are about to 
close. With real estate, builders, and others, the economic engine has 
been, in many instances, the buying and selling of homes.
  This is an important extension, but let's be truthful. You can't 
match up billions to a trillion, and you can't match up the pain of 
families looking at gutted homes versus fat cats filling their pockets 
with a tax scam. I ask for the support of this bill.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the Financial Services Committee majority whip.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I thank the ranking 
member of the committee as well for her work on this issue over the 
years. I appreciate Mr. Duffy's leadership, and I appreciate Mr. 
MacArthur, Mr. Graves, and their work on this issue because the House 
has done its job, Mr. Speaker.
  We painfully passed this bill over a year ago. We have done our work. 
We have a bill that represents a compromise of coastal States and not 
coastal States. We have taken into account all these issues about 
climate change and floods and hurricanes. We have taken all that into 
account, but we have had no action from the Senate.
  What we are here for today is because the Senate has not taken one 
step to constructive reform of the National Flood Insurance Program. 
That is why we are here.
  So I think we should be working together. We need the ranking member 
and the chairman down the hall in the Senate asking them, why can't 
they get their act together? Where is Senator Crapo, where is Senator 
Kennedy to read this bill and take into account the incredible work 
that we have done on a bipartisan basis here?
  So it is very hard for me, Mr. Speaker, to support a 7-day 
reauthorization status quo for the eighth time. It is just very hard to 
do that because it is not right. We need the reforms that are in this 
bill. We need the pressure on the Senate to come up with their own 
reforms if they don't like our reforms.
  I happen to like our reforms. I like the fact that I see more of what 
is happening in Arkansas where we have two private insurers now, Mr. 
Speaker, for floods. They cover $2 million instead of $250,000. They 
cover replacement cost instead of actual cost. That is the kind of 
reforms and progress we can make if we take account of the hard work of 
this House and get the Senate to join us in significant flood reform.
  So, it is with a lot of regret, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the 
reauthorization of this program for 7 days. We need the Senate to wake 
up and take action.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve 
the balance of my time
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a hardworking member of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Mr. BUDD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to yet another short-term extension 
of the National Flood Insurance Program, or the NFIP. This is our 
eighth one--our eighth one since fiscal year 2017 began.
  I think we owe it to the taxpayers and I owe it to the residents of 
North Carolina's 13th District to fight for reform. We cannot support 
another short-term renewal, especially considering the program is $20 
billion--and I have even heard that it is even upwards of that--$20 
billion in the hole. It is hemorrhaging money, Mr. Speaker. And it is 
concerning that folks cannot even agree to or even support modest 
reforms to one of the most flawed government programs we have ever 
seen.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition of this extension and believe this 
continuous kicking of the can down the road cannot go on forever. There 
is still time to adopt even modest reforms, and I sure hope that we do 
so.
  I think Senator Mike Lee of Utah said it best when he gave his 
description of a ``yes'' vote to extend the NFIP yet again with no 
reforms back in the summer. He said: ``This is terribly discouraging. 
It's not just this program; it's all that it represents. If we aren't 
willing to adopt even modest reforms to a minor program like NFIP, how 
will we ever address any of the far more vexing problems facing our 
government?''
  This Senator from Utah gets it, and, Mr. Speaker, I wish others would 
as well.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, while I would prefer a longer term reauthorization of 
the National Flood Insurance Program, I strongly support today's 
extension to provide homeowners, businesses, renters, and communities 
with the certainty they deserve. Let me just say that I think we are 
all aware that for those people who are trying to obtain homeownership 
that live in flood zones, they won't be able to do it if they cannot 
get the insurance that is provided by the National Flood Insurance 
Program. And just think what that is going to do to the real estate 
market. So we have to do this in order to deal with the fact that this 
program literally shuts down at the end of November.
  And let me just say that I have been in cities and towns that have 
been devastated by floods and by storms, and I want you to know the 
time that I spent after Katrina, helping to get people who were 
abandoned on highways, putting them in buses, and traveling down 
through the various cities, was heartbreaking. I want you to know that 
I went up to Baton Rouge and I was in Mississippi, and I understand the 
pain and the destruction that is caused by these storms.
  And I am absolutely committed, make no mistake, I remain committed to 
putting partisanship aside and working with my colleagues on the 
opposite side of the aisle to come together on commonsense reforms that 
protect the continued affordability and availability of coverage, a 
long-term reauthorization of the NFIP that ensures that affordable 
flood insurance continues to be available to communities across our 
country. It must be Congress' priority when we start the 116th 
Congress.

  And let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that despite the fact that my 
colleague and chairman of the committee and I worked very hard to try 
and deal with some of our concerns and even differences, we not only 
both have demonstrated our commitment to long-term NFIP, and while we 
did not get exactly where we wanted to go, we were able to provide 
protection for those families who were in desperate need of insurance 
and to continue, even though we have had to do it on a short-term 
basis.
  So I would like to take this moment to just thank him for the 
opportunity that I have had to work with him. Now, everybody knows we 
didn't always agree, but they didn't know what we were laughing about 
as we sat next to each other exchanging a few jokes every now and then. 
So I am going to miss him as our chairman. I don't know if this is his 
last time on the floor and whether or not we are going to be able to 
put flood insurance reauthorization into the continuing resolution.
  If we are not, perhaps I will see him again, but I don't know. I just 
wanted him to know that his presence here in the Congress of the United 
States has been noted in the history of the Congress of the United 
States, and whether or not he was agreeing or disagreeing, he had a 
powerful voice on a powerful committee, and I am going to miss the 
times that I have spent with him, good times and bad times, and I just 
wish him well on his future. Thank you very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bacon). The gentleman from Texas has 7 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, first, I return the kind words of the ranking member. 
One, she very much negotiated in good faith on the flood program, 
something she has a lot of passion and expertise on. We didn't get 
quite there as we did on a few other items, but, again, she negotiated 
in good faith. She has a lot of

[[Page H9714]]

expertise on the matter. If we don't get it in this Congress, I have no 
doubt that she will play a key leadership role in the next in order to 
effectuate long-term flood reform.
  And I appreciate the kind words. Although, I must admit, I have 
learned many things in the 16 years I have served in Congress, and one 
is, the best way to get people to say kind words about you is to 
announce your retirement. I have never had kinder words spoken, but I 
know they were sincere, of the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, November 14, 2017, was a proud day for the United States 
House of Representatives, because that is the day, on a bipartisan 
basis, we passed the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, and I negotiated 
with the House majority whip, Mr. Scalise, this bill, among others.
  And here we are, over a year later, and no action from the Senate. 
And, today, November 29, 2018, is a sad and embarrassing day for the 
United States House of Representatives. And I must say, as a 
Republican, it is a sad and embarrassing day for something we call 
regular order, something that my party ran on.
  And now we have a bill coming to the floor, within the jurisdiction 
of the House Financial Services Committee; regular order says the 
committee of jurisdiction first works their will before the House works 
their will. The committee didn't work its will on this bill. And, in 
fact, I have yet to find anybody in the Republican leadership who will 
own up to how this came to the floor in the first place.
  So, unfortunately, because my party lost at the ballot box, we are 
going to soon be out of the regular order business and apparently we 
have forgotten how to do it. So it is a sad day in that regard. It is 
also a sad day because what we see here with this bill is a 
perpetuation of the status quo.
  Now, let me tell you what the status quo is, Mr. Speaker. The status 
quo is 100 different people are dying in America every year from 
floods. At least a part of that tragedy--a part of that tragedy is a 
failure to reform the National Flood Insurance Program.
  Status quo is that we continue to pay people to build the same homes 
in the same fashion in the same places that flood over and over and 
over and somehow expect a different result. We are not helping them. We 
are not helping them at all. We are helping put them in harm's way. 
That is what the status quo is, and if you vote for this extension, you 
are voting for the status quo.
  Status quo is a government monopoly--a government monopoly with no 
competition, no innovation, and, by the way, it is subsidized, and it 
is still not affordable. We are seeing average premium increases of 7 
percent a year. You know, on the Republican side of the aisle, why 
don't we give free enterprise a chance? Why don't we allow competition 
to bring in innovation, to bring down rates as opposed to, again, 
making taxpayers subsidize it and still have unaffordability? Only 
government can bring about that insane result.
  What else is the status quo? The status quo is $35 billion of debt--
$35 billion of debt with $1\1/2\ billion actual actuarial annual 
deficit a year. Totally unsustainable. Totally unsustainable
  The status quo is that taxpayers, hardworking factory workers in 
Mesquite, Texas, are having to subsidize millionaires' beach condos. 
That is the status quo. That is the bill that is on the floor right 
now.
  The last several tragic hurricanes we have seen, 80 to 90 percent of 
the affected flooded homes didn't even have flood insurance. Why? 
Because it is not part of the homeowner's insurance policy due to the 
government monopoly. That is the status quo. And we are paying on the 
back end because we are not allowing market competition on the front 
end. That is the status quo.
  The status quo is, we are taking environmentally sensitive areas, and 
they are getting paved. They are getting paved in flood-prone areas.

                              {time}  1715

  That is the status quo, and so that is really the debate that is 
before us today.
  We know what the classic definition of insanity is: doing the same 
thing over and over and over and expecting a different result. Eight 
times--this will be the eighth time since the House passed the 21st 
Century Flood Reform Act on a bipartisan basis that there will be yet 
another vote for status quo.
  Here is a radical idea. Why don't we do something different? Why 
don't we tell the Senate it is time, after a year, that they do their 
business?
  I have got to tell you, once again, Mr. Speaker, I have learned a 
number of things in my 16 years of service in this body. One is never 
underestimate the Senate's capacity to do nothing.
  Why do we allow them to do nothing? Let them bring a bill.
  I don't believe we are through negotiating, Mr. Speaker, but the 
House shouldn't negotiate with itself after we have made a House 
position on a bipartisan basis known. There is no reason to do this.
  There can be a better day. There is hope. I imagine a day when we 
have a flood insurance program with affordable premiums that is brought 
about by competition, that is brought about by innovation. I can 
imagine a day where every American remotely placed in a flood-prone 
area has flood as part of their homeowners insurance so that when one 
of these great tragedies occurs, at least they had insurance on the 
front end. So I dream about and I imagine greater take-up rates.
  I also imagine a day where, for the people in flood-prone areas, we 
either help move them up or we help move them out so that they don't 
continue to be in harm's way.
  I went to Hurricane Harvey. I met with the survivors. I heard the 
tragic stories. I saw the tragedy of the lost homes. And yet here we 
are, voting on status quo to put them right back where they were again.
  This is a sad and embarrassing day for the House. We need to vote 
``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 7187.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________