On the recordJuly 24, 2018
We stand here doing what we have done, I guess, 38 times now since 1998, and that is passing an extension of the National Flood Insurance Program without the much- needed reforms that should be in that program. This is unacceptable. Subsidized flood insurance represents what economists call a moral hazard, and let me tell you why. We tell 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. We haven't worked to decrease that moral hazard through reform; rather, we have embraced and refueled it, and we make it more difficult for people to move than rebuild. We fail to encourage communities to mitigate flood risk. We continue to build in high-risk areas. The clearest sign of moral hazard is the number of repeatedly flooded properties that are rebuilt with little deference to mitigation. I will give you some examples: A $90,000 home in Missouri has been flooded, now, 34 times, at a cost of more than $600,000; A $56,000 home in Louisiana flooded more than 40 times at a cost of $430,000; A $72,000 home in Texas that flooded again last year cost taxpayers over $1 million in payouts. I came to the floor today hoping to support a bill that Mr.…





