What They’re Saying About The House Flood Bill…


What They’re Saying About The House Flood Bill…

Club for Growth: “Rather than continue this unfair program that is hostile to liberty and limited government, Congress should end the NFIP and return the flood insurance industry back to the private sector.”

Heritage Foundation: “To abandon reforms means saddling taxpayers with the cost of insurance for private development. Maintaining the subsidies would also prevent private insurers from freeing property owners who are currently captive to the government’s flood insurance monopoly.”

Heritage Action: “The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 increases financial accountability among homeowners and removes an undue burden on taxpayers. Its reforms should not be delayed or undone.”

Cato Institute: “Subsidized flood insurance is one of the many federal programs that is counter to both sound economic policy and sound environmental policy…the program undermines constitutional federalism by prompting the federal government to reach its regulatory tentacles into local zoning issues.”

Taxpayers for Common Sense: “Any changes to flood insurance reforms must be fair to not only policyholders but also the vast majority of taxpayers who are stuck with the tab for the program’s massive and growing debt…Congress should develop policy solutions that ease the impact on policyholders while protecting taxpayers.”

National Taxpayers Union: “NTU urges all Representatives to vote “NO” on H.R. 3370, the misnamed ‘Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act.’ Despite its title, this bill would actually hurt many homeowners financially, endanger the evolution of private alternative markets for disaster coverage, and increase the prospects for another costly taxpayer bailout of the National Flood Insurance Program.”

R Street Institute: “For most NFIP policyholders, both the House and Senate bills will result in higher rates than they would otherwise pay, as increases for remapped properties that were paying insufficient rates would be offset by reductions for other properties in the program. This bill represents a fundamental betrayal of the free-market principles and fiscal responsibility the House leadership claims to embrace.”

Natural Resources Defense Council: “Rolling back the earlier Biggert-Waters reforms and reinstating insurance subsidies is bad public policy. It sets back efforts to prepare for the impacts of climate change and is an over-correction for legitimate concerns about the affordability of flood insurance for people of limited means.”

National Wildlife Federation: “A program that encourages communities to better prepare for the impacts of climate change and extreme weather by communicating risk using market signals is vitally important…we urge targeted and meaningful changes to Biggert-Waters and oppose the blanket and sweeping provisions in this bill.”

Union of Concerned Scientists: “Rolling back insurance rates will do nothing to address the underlying causes of growing risks and costs of flooding: sea level rise and development in the floodplain…Gutting flood insurance reforms is bad for homeowners, taxpayers, and for climate resilience.”

Conservatives & Liberals Are Speaking With ONE Voice: