Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MULVANEY. I rise today to speak against the amendment. And I think there's one thing that has been overlooked in this debate so far, Mr. Chairman, which is not only was this provision in the bill originally in order to bring sustainability to the flood program, it was also designed to bring fairness to the flood program.

What do I mean by that?

Yes, the original bill was designed to raise flood rates on some people. It was also designed to lower them on other people. You heard the gentleman from Louisiana properly state that this amendment would have no score, have no impact. The CBO scored it at zero. No impact on the deficit; no impact on spending. Absolutely true.

The underlying language in the bill was scored the exact same way. When we passed this bill last year, that provision scored out at zero because the CBO assumed, on its own--it's not required by statute to do this, but it did this on its own. The CBO assumed that when rates went up on some people, they would go down on others. That seems to make a lot of sense; doesn't it? That we would have an insurance program that would actually charge folks more who are in riskier areas, but also seek to charge people less who are in less risky areas. I think that's important. I think it bears stating that if this amendment passes, yes, folks who live in high-risk areas will see lower premiums, but the folks who live in low-risk areas will see higher premiums.

We have a chance here to bring some sanity to something in a government program. We have a chance to bring reason and rational thought to this government program by saying people who are in riskier areas should pay more. Are there protections there? Yes. Are they necessary? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, this program was designed to bring some sanity to this flood program, which is why so many people, myself included, voted for this originally.

I absolutely think this is well-intentioned. I disagree with the impression that these are unintended consequences. These are the exact intended consequences of the underlying bill, that we would simply charge folks who are in risky areas more.

If you live 7 feet below sea level in New Orleans, your rates probably should go up. If you live 600 feet above someplace else, your rates possibly should go down.

I think it's important to know that, yes, there are people in my State who will pay more because of this law. There are also people in my district who will pay less, and that will be turned on its ear if this amendment passes.

So I would encourage us to consider that what we did last year was accurate and correct and brought some much-needed sanity to this program.

With that, I yield the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source