2017: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Emergency Hurricane And Wildfire Appropriations, Which Included Canceling $16 Billion In NFIB Debt. In October 2017, Schweikert effectively voted against legislation that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "make available $36.5 billion in emergency supplemental funding for fiscal 2018 to partially cover the costs of responding to multiple natural disasters, including hurricanes and wildfires. The measure would include $18.7 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund - $4.9 billion of which would be used for disaster relief loans to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It would also cancel $16 billion of the Treasury debt incurred by FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, would release $1.2 billion in contingency reserves from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for use in Puerto Rico would provide $577 million in funding to fight wildfires." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and agree to a resolution that would have effectively concurred in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2266 with a House amendment. The House agreed to the motion, thereby effectively passing the legislation, by a vote of 353 to 69. The Senate later passed the legislation and the president later signed it into law. [House Vote 566, 10/12/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/12/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2266; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 569]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Legislation That Would Slow Or Eliminate National Flood Insurance Program Rate Increases Caused By 2012 Flood Insurance Reform Act. In March 2014, Schweikert voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "slow[ed] the rate at which subsidized insurance premiums under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) must be raised to actuarial rates that reflect the most recently estimated flood risk, as required by the 2012 Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act; it repeal[ed] the requirement that flood insurance premiums for homes that are sold be increased immediately to full actuarial rates; and it restore[d] the prior 'grandfathering' of properties that were paying rates applicable to their initial flood risk rating (thereby allowing them to pay premiums at the rates set for that original risk zone, rather than updated flood risk zones). The costs of these provisions [were] offset by imposing annual surcharges on all flood insurance policies. The measure require[d] the certification of flood maps and require[d] the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), when evaluating an area's flood risk for flood zone mapping, to gather input from the local community and account for local, non-structural flood mitigation features. It also require[d] FEMA to conduct affordability and alternative flood insurance studies, and it ma[de] additional changes to flood insurance policy, administration and flood mapping." The House passed the bill by a vote of 306 to 91, and, following the Senate's approval of the bill, the president signed it into law. [House Vote 91, 3/4/14; Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3370]
Although Solvent Before 2005, Claims From Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma Forced The NFIP To Borrow $19 Billion, And It Is Expected That, Paying All Superstorm Sandy Claims Will Leave The Program Over $30 Billion In Debt. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Until hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma hit in 2005, the NFIP was solvent; however, those events forced the program to borrow $19 billion from the Treasury to cover flood insurance claims. Hurricanes Ike in 2008 and Irene in 2011 only made matters worse, and once the claims from Superstorm Sandy that hit in 2012 are paid, the program could be more than $30 billion in debt." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
2012 Flood Insurance Reform Act Required Actuarially-Sound Premiums Based On Updated Flood Insurance Maps That Incorporated Future Risks, Including Risks Associated With Climate Change, Leading To New, Unaffordable Premiums For Homeowners. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (PL 112-141) was enacted in an effort to make the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) actuarially sound. While the act addressed many aspects of the NFIP, two policy changes have been at the center of recent controversy. The act requires that insurance premium rates be actuarially sound and account for costs associated with future risk. When premium rates are established, they must include in the calculation years where catastrophic loss may be expected. In association with this requirement, most property owners who were receiving subsidies when the law was enacted would see their subsidies reduced and their premiums raised over five years to full actuarial levels. [...] The act also established a new flood mapping council charged with improving flood maps and the mapping process, assessing future flood risk based on climate change modeling and projected sea level rise, and updating and maintaining the flood premium rate maps --- which are expected to redesignate many areas with a higher level of risk. As a result of these changes, many homeowners have seen their flood insurance rates skyrocket to unaffordable levels, and others have been notified that their homes are in redesignated areas that will require higher premiums or, for the first time, require the purchase of flood insurance. And because of those rate increases, not only have the properties become unaffordable for many existing homeowners, but it has also made it difficult or impossible for owners to sell their homes." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
Bill Slowed Down Transition To Higher, Actuarially Sound Premiums On Primary Residences By Lowering The Amount Rates Were Allowed To Increase Each Year. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Biggert-Waters Act requires that the insurance rates for all subsidized federal flood insurance policies be increased to the current actuarial risk of flooding to the property --- generally requiring policy premiums to be increased such that the average rate increase for any single risk classification is not more than 20% per year for five years or until it reaches the actuarial rate. The bill reduces the required annual increases, specifying that, in general, no primary residential property can have an individual insurance premium increase of more than 18% per year, and within any given risk classification the average premium increase could not exceed 15%. However, rates within a risk classification must be increased by an average of at least 5% until the insurance premiums are actuarially sound. [...] The measure does not change the requirement under Biggert-Waters that the policy premiums for secondary homes and non-residential properties be increased by an average for each risk category of up to 25% a year until they are actuarially sound" (underline omitted). [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
Bill Restored Grandfather Provisions, Repealed In 2012, Under Which Current And Future Owners Pay Flood Insurance Premiums Based On Historical Flood Maps In Which The Property Is In A Lower Flood Risk Zone, Or Is Not In A Flood Zone. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Biggert-Waters repealed a provision of prior law that had grandfathered the applicable flood risk zones of certain properties --- in particular, properties that were built before federal flood maps designated them as being in a flood zone, or properties in areas that were later designated as being a higher flood risk zone. Under that prior law, those property owners paid flood insurance premiums corresponding to their original designation, even if the actual flooding risk to the property had increased (which would otherwise require the payment of higher insurance premiums). The bill restores those grandfathered flood risk zones for those properties, thereby allowing those property owners to pay lower premiums based on the earlier assessed flood risk, rather than the current risk. However, those rates --- like all subsidized rates --- would be subject to annual increases as required by the bill until the rate is actuarially sound for the property's grandfathered flood risk (not the actual flood risk). This grandfathered status would be passed on if the property is sold, so the new owners also would pay premiums based on the property's earlier flood risk." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
Bill Offset Increased Costs With A Yearly Surcharge On All Primary Residence Flood Insurance Policies Of $25 For Primary Residences And $250 For Second Homes And Non-Residential Properties. According to Congressional Quarterly, "To offset the cost of slowing flood insurance rate increases, allowing the buyers of homes to assume subsidized policies, restoring grandfathered flood risk zones and allowing newly mapped flood hazard zones to receive premium subsidies, the measure establishes an annual surcharge that would have to be paid by all flood insurance policyholders on all flood insurance policies issued or renewed after enactment. For an insured's primary residence, the surcharge would be $25 a year. For all second homes (including vacation homes), businesses and other non-residential properties, the surcharge would be $250 a year. Under the measure, these surcharges would continue until most premium rates under the program are actuarially sound." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
Bill's Supporters Said It Provided Needed Relief From Reform-Caused Rapid Increases In Flood Insurance Premiums, Which Have Made It Impossible For Many Homeowners To Maintain Their Mortgages Or To Sell It. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Bill supporters argue that it is necessary to provide relief to homeowners whose flood insurance premium costs have exploded. The sudden and extreme increases to their premiums caused by the 2012 law have made it difficult or impossible for many homeowners to sell, rebuild or even maintain mortgage payments on some properties. Supporters point out that these problems are occurring nationwide, not just in coastal areas but also in the Appalachians and along major rivers. They say that because it maintains the premium increases required by the law for vacation homes, the bill balances rapidly increasing rates on non-essential properties while helping keep people in their homes and eventually achieving actuarial soundness. And the surcharges on all policyholders to offset the bill's costs, they say, will ensure that taxpayers don't have to pick up the tab." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
Bill's Opponents Argued Bill Effectively Ends Effort To Make NFIP Solvent Again, And, By Returning To Practice Of Shielding Some Areas From Costs Of Current Flood Risks, Requires Everyone Else To Subsidize Their Choice Of Location. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Many [House] members remain opposed to the bill, saying the NFIP must be made actuarially sound and that this bill fails to do so in an expeditious manner, delaying that goal for an indefinite period for some properties and forever for others. They argue that restoring the grandfathered flood risk zones means that any such property that the program insures would forever pay rates based on the property's designated flood zone when it was built, even if later flood-plain mapping determines that the property is in a higher risk category than before. This not only continues the drain of taxpayer money to this program, opponents say, but also encourages the poor choices in home location that have been made in the past. They argue that continuing to subsidize flood insurance premiums socializes loss and risk while allowing the benefits to accrue to a small, private subset of the population." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
2018: Schweikert Voted To Extend The Authorization For The NFIP Through May 31, 2019 While Also Prohibiting FEMA From Restricting The Sale Of Private Flood Insurance. In December 2018, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "extend[ed] the authorization and authorities under the National Flood Insurance Program through through [sic] May 31, 2019. The program is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and offers federally-backed flood insurance to individuals and entities in communities that adopt certain flood plain management standards. It would also [have] state[d] that FEMA may not restrict organizations from selling private flood insurance as a condition of participating in program activities.' The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The House rejected the motion, thereby defeating the bill by a vote of 148 to 226. [House Vote 497, 12/21/18; Congressional Quarterly, 12/21/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7388]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against A Continuing Appropriations Bill For All But Homeland Security That Would End That Partial Government Shutdown As Well As Extend The NFIP Through The End Of FY 2019. In January 2019, Schweikert voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] $271.8 billion for full-year fiscal 2019 funding for six of the seven spending bills that reached a conference agreement, but that lack enacted appropriations (all except Homeland Security) and would [have] extend[ed] authorization for several expiring programs including the National Flood Insurance Program and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families." The vote was on a passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 234 to 180. [House Vote 49, 1/23/19; Congressional Quarterly, 1/23/19; Congressional Actions, H.R. 648]
2018: Schweikert Voted Against Reauthorizing The NFIP Through May 31, 2019. In December 2018, Schweikert voted against a bill that, would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "extend[ed] the authorization and authorities under the National Flood Insurance Program through through [sic] May 31, 2019. The program is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and offers federally-backed flood insurance to individuals and entities in communities that adopt certain flood plain management standards." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 315 to 48. The bill was already agreed to by the Senate, meaning the bill went to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 500, 12/21/18; Congressional Quarterly, 12/21/18; Congressional Actions, S. 3628]
2018: Schweikert Voted To Extend The Authorization For The NFIP Through December 7, 2018. In November 2018, Schweikert voted for legislation that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "extend the authorization and authorities under the National Flood Insurance Program for one week, through Dec. 7, 2018. The program is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and offers federally-backed flood insurance to individuals and entities in communities that adopt certain flood plain management standards." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The House agreed to the motion, thereby passing a bill, by a vote of 350 to 46. The Senate then agreed to the motion and the president signed it into law. [House Vote 424, 11/29/18; Congressional Quarterly, 11/29/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7187]
2018: Schweikert Voted Against The $1.3 Trillion FY 2018 Omnibus Spending Deal Which Raised Spending By $138 Billion Over FY 2017 Levels; Legislation Reauthorized The NFIB. In March 2018, Schweikert voted against the FY 2018 Omnibus spending bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Combined, the spending measures would provide about $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending, with $1.2 trillion subject to discretionary spending caps, and $78.1 billion designated as Overseas Contingency Operations funds. The measure's spending levels are consistent with the increased defense and non-defense budget caps set by the two-year budget deal agreed to last month. That agreement increased the FY 2018 defense cap by $80 billion and the non-defense cap by $63 billion. Given that the previous caps were set to reduce overall discretionary spending by $5 billion, the net increase provided by the omnibus is $138 billion over the FY 2017 level." The vote was on the motion to concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment. The House agreed to the motion, thereby passing the bill, by a vote of 256 to 167. The Senate later agreed to the legislation, sending it to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 127, 3/22/18; Congressional Quarterly, 3/22/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1625]
2017: Schweikert Voted For A Republican Plan To Reauthorize The NFIB For Five Years. In November 2015, Schweikert voted for legislation that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program through fiscal 2022 and would make modifications to the program, including: raise annual surcharges and reserve fund assessments on federal flood insurance policyholders, raise rates on properties that incur multiple losses, establish an annual deductible for severe and extreme repetitive loss properties and end the requirement that flood insurance be purchased for commercial and multifamily properties located in flood risk zones. It would also require that flood insurance provided by private sector carriers be accepted by Federal Emergency Management Agency and considered as meeting the National Flood Insurance Program's mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements, and would allow private insurers and any other interested party to review FEMA information regarding its assessments of flood risk." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 237 to 189. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 630, 11/14/17; Congressional Quarterly, 11/14/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2874]
Democrats Claimed That The Bill Would Increase Premiums For Policy Holders. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill, primarily Democrats, say that 2012 Biggert-Waters law inadvertently led to skyrocketing premiums for homeowners and businesses across the country, and that the bill will once again increase flood insurance costs for all policyholders while also making the program unstable." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/10/17]
Democrats Also Claimed That The Bill's Allowance OF Private Insurance Would Lead To Increased Government Costs And That The Bill Would Place Larger Costs For Certain Poorer Americans. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In particular, the bill's private flood insurance provisions they say will encourage cherry-picking by private insurers, which would put the government on the hook for the riskiest and ultimately costliest policies. They say that the biggest challenge to the NFIP is its massive debt and the money being spent on interest to service that debt, which the bill only addresses by charging policyholders more for flood insurance. They also say that basing metrics for determining excessive claims and terminating insurance on the replacement value of a home will have a disproportionate impact on homes with lower values, and on homeowners with fewer means." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/10/17]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against Requiring FEMA To Continue Using Grandfathered Rates For Flood Insurance Premiums. In June 2013, Schweikert voted against an amendment by Rep. Cassidy (R-LA) to the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill for FY2014, which, according to CQ.com, "would bar the use of funds provided in the bill to implement, carry out, administer or enforce a provision of current law that ends grandfathered National Flood Insurance Program rates for certain policy holders." The amendment would effectively prohibit charging homeowners' rates during the coming fiscal year based on revised flood maps that, in some cases, had led to multi-thousand dollar increases in a homeowners' yearly flood insurance premium. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 281 to 146. The underlying bill later passed the House, but while the Senate Appropriations Committee has reported its version of the legislation, the bill has not been taken up yet on the Senate floor. [House Vote 203, 6/5/13; Congressional Record, 6/5/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/5/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 121; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2217]
Supporters Said Amendment Held Off Unintended Consequence Of 2012 Flood Insurance Reform Until Fixed. Supporters said the increases were an unintended consequence of reforms to the flood insurance program passed the previous year, caused, in part, by deficiencies in FEMA's ability to make updated flood maps, and that homeowners should not be forced to pay while Congress sorted out the problem. [Congressional Record, 6/5/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/5/13]
Opponents Said Increases Were Intended And Any Changes Should Be Considered By Relevant Committee. Opponents said that premium changes reflecting actual flood danger were an expected consequence of the prior year's legislation; and that the issue should be not be handled in an appropriations bill, but rather by the House Financial Services Committee, which has substantive jurisdiction over the flood insurance program. [Congressional Record, 6/5/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/5/13]