On the recordNovember 14, 2017
Mr. Speaker, I don't even know if I need 2 minutes. Look, this bill has some good things in it. Everybody admits that. It does. Like every bill I have ever voted on, there is some good, there is some bad. But this bill has more bad in it than good. It has some good philosophy that I won't agree with the details. I agree we should do something about repetitive loss properties. I think everybody agrees with that, but not the draconian measures taken in this bill. We all agree that we need to help make it a stable fiscal platform, but not what this bill does. That is the problem here. This is not a--I have seen worse bills. As a matter of fact, I have seen worse flood insurance bills, so this, I will have to admit, is an improvement over the last horrendous flood insurance bill. But it is not even close yet. And the problem here, this is a missed opportunity. Flood insurance doesn't need to be partisan. It doesn't need to be based on philosophical purity. This is a necessity to many Americans, many middle class Americans, and there is no doubt, without winning or losing any votes at home, we could work this out if the majority wanted to. But you don't. You don't want any Democratic votes. Apparently, you don't want all the Republican votes. Why? I don't know. Maybe lighting candles at the altar of certain philosophies.…





