I am open to finding ways to help current, low-income owners afford flood insurance.

We should not interrupt that progress.

I think you said this in your opening statement, but is it your view that implementing Risk Rating 2.0 is a step in the right direction?

Finding a consensus on reauthorization will be challenging, and time is tight.

I think these property-based subsidies should be phased out over time.

I am hopeful we can find the common ground necessary to avoid a 17th short-term reauthorization.

I am ready to work, and I hope we can reach an agreement on the long-term reauthorization that improves the program.

It helps move the discussion to data and science and away from what are local politics, in many cases.

It is a transformational leap forward.

I think the 2.0 reforms are a step in the right direction.

I think the current system of NFIP is not working properly, it is problematic for taxpayers who have to bail it out, year in and year out.

Frustratingly, the policies of Congress--not FEMA--are the root causes of NFIP challenges.

Clearly the NFIP systematically underprices flood insurance, and frustratingly, it is the policies of Congress that are the root cause of this, not FEMA.

I would strongly push back on the idea that we should leave the 232 trade policy as the status quo.

the statute requires that the additional need must be a result of COVID-19.

Unfortunately, what he has delivered is classic tax and spend liberalism.

This is a reasonable request that I have made, as a Member of the Committee that has jurisdiction and oversight.

The Biden administration is now proposing almost a quarter of a trillion dollars more for housing.

The Democrats' March spending bill was not about providing COVID relief.

But the Democrats' March spending bill was not about providing COVID relief.

I hope you will keep that past history in mind.

It is my view that the Obama-era rule, which was, you know, we will call it the AFFH, was overly complex and it placed undue burdens on HUD grant recipients.

I just would like for you to commit to ensuring that that $2.2 trillion, in fact, goes, as the law requires.

Unfortunately, what he has delivered is a really partisan, classic, tax-and-spend liberal agenda.

it is my hope that it will keep its focus on actual infrastructure and not simply an expansion of the welfare State, as has been proposed.