[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.
____________________