Pat Toomey

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

It is a transformational leap forward.

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

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.

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?

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

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

Put simply, NFIP is broken.

When homeowners and communities are protected from the financial loss of flooding, all else being equal they have less of an incentive to manage and mitigate that risk.

But I would think the taxpayers are the people who should support that and not lower-risk policyholders within the NFIP.

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

The NFIP really should not be considered an insurance program at all.

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

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

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

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

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

I hope you will keep that past history in mind.

I want to talk a little bit about the downpayment assistance in FHA loans.

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

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

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.

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

He has pushed wasteful spending plans to achieve liberal wish lists, and he has proposed raising taxes to pay for these plans.