Sen. Toomey Says Flood Insurance Reauthorization Should Protect Taxpayers From Losses
In his opening statement at today's
Ranking Member Toomey's opening remarks, as prepared for delivery:
The National Flood Insurance Program--or NFIP--was last reauthorized on a long-term basis in 2012. That reauthorization expired in 2017.
Let me take a moment to remind everyone the scope of NFIP's challenges. Since 2000, NFIP has borrowed from the
Today, NFIP's current debt to the
Some of my colleagues have argued that NFIP policyholders are incapable of repaying this debt, so even the rest should be forgiven. Before considering such drastic action, we should ask ourselves, how did we end up in this scenario in the first place?
Well, the answer is simple: this broken, subsidization program systemically underprices flood insurance. And it is the policies of
23% of policyholders, over a million families, were overpaying for flood insurance. These families will now see a decrease in their monthly premiums.
During last week's hearing on NFIP, I discussed several of my priorities for reauthorization. First, we should encourage more private capital in the form of private policies and private reinsurance. My top priority for reauthorization is to eliminate any barriers that exist to obtaining private flood insurance.
Second, "do no harm." We should be protecting the transition to actuarially sound premiums. Any effort to slow or interrupt that progress must be rejected.
Third, if subsidies persist, they must be better targeted.
However, any means-tested subsidy should replace existing cross-subsidies within NFIP. Adding another subsidy on top of existing cross-subsidies moves us further away from actuarially sound premiums.
And fourth, we should improve communication with homeowners and homebuyers so that they understand the flood risk of properties.
One proposal would prohibit coverage for a new category of excessive loss properties, which are properties that have flooded multiple times. This is an inherently good policy that is worthy of consideration.
As a general principle, we should not provide flood insurance subsidies that encourage people to live in flood prone areas. While excessive loss properties are not the majority of homes in NFIP, they do constitute a highly disproportionate share of losses. And it's unfair and senseless to force taxpayers to continuously foot the bill to bailout properties in these risky areas.
Another promising
One important NFIP reform not included in
Previously,
Now a pro-rata refund is available only in very limited circumstances. This effectively locks in all but the most diligent policyholders into their NFIP policy.
While there are improvements that can be made to
A long-term reauthorization must continue to move NFIP in a positive direction to protect taxpayers who currently bail it out year after year. I recognize that we can't fix NFIP overnight, but we should use reauthorization as an opportunity to move it in the right direction.
I stand ready to work with the Chairman and my colleagues to achieve that goal. And I look forward to discussing
* * *
Original text here: https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/minority/toomey-says-flood-insurance-reauthorization-should-protect-taxpayers-from-losses
You may – or may not – need travel insurance for your next trip
Sen. Kennedy to Maurstad: Why Won't FEMA Share Its Algorithm With American People?
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News