National Flood Insurance Program Automatic Extension Act of 2025
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]
ID: C001075
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative legerdemain, courtesy of the esteemed Senator Cassidy and his cohorts in Congress. Let's dissect this monstrosity, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The National Flood Insurance Program Automatic Extension Act of 2025 is a desperate attempt to kick the can down the road, avoiding any meaningful reform or accountability. Its primary objective is to automatically extend the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) without actually addressing its deep-seated problems.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 1319 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide for an automatic contingent extension of the NFIP. This means that, unless Congress explicitly acts to extend or repeal the program, it will continue to operate in a state of limbo, with all its existing authorities and limitations intact.
The bill's cleverly crafted language ensures that any limitations on the Administrator's authority, including funding availability, will remain frozen at their pre-termination levels. This is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak, designed to obscure the fact that the program remains fundamentally broken.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:
1. The NFIP itself, which will continue to hemorrhage money and provide inadequate coverage to those who need it most. 2. Homeowners and businesses in flood-prone areas, who will remain at risk due to the program's outdated maps, inadequate rates, and lack of meaningful reform. 3. Taxpayers, who will foot the bill for this perpetually insolvent program. 4. Insurance companies, which will continue to reap profits from a system that prioritizes their interests over those of policyholders.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a symptom of a deeper disease: Congressional cowardice and corruption. By avoiding meaningful reform, lawmakers are ensuring that the NFIP remains a ticking time bomb, waiting to unleash its full fury on unsuspecting taxpayers and policyholders.
The consequences will be dire:
1. Continued program insolvency, with the NFIP's debt likely to balloon further. 2. Increased risk for homeowners and businesses in flood-prone areas, as they remain exposed to catastrophic losses without adequate coverage or support. 3. A perpetuation of the status quo, where insurance companies reap profits while policyholders suffer.
In short, this bill is a cynical exercise in legislative malpractice, designed to maintain the illusion of action while doing nothing to address the underlying problems. It's a classic case of "extend and pretend," where politicians prioritize their own interests over those of the people they're supposed to serve.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this farce unfold.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
No campaign finance data available for Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 154 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise insurance at prices lower than the actuarially fair rate, thereby subsidizing flood insurance. Then, when flood costs exceed NFIP’s revenue, FEMA seeks taxpay- er-funded bailouts. Current NFIP debt is $20.5 billion, and in 2017, Congress canceled $16 billion in debt when FEMA reached its borrowing authority limit. These subsidies and bailouts only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both NFIP and the taxpayer. The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program. Budget Issues FEMA manages all grants for DHS, and these grants have become pork for states, localities, and special-interest groups. Since 2002, DHS/FEMA have provided more than $56 billion in preparedness grants for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. For FY 2023, President Biden requested more than $3.5 billion for federal assistance grants.13 Funds provided under these programs do not provide measurable gains for preparedness or resiliency. Rather, more than any objective needs, political interests appear to direct the flow of nondisaster funds. The principles of federalism should be upheld; these indicate that states better understand their unique needs and should bear the costs of their particularized programs. FEMA employees in Washington, D.C., should not determine how bil- lions of federal tax dollars should be awarded to train local law enforcement officers in Texas, harden cybersecurity infrastructure in Utah, or supplement migrant shelters in Arizona. DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated. Accomplishing this, however, will require action by Members of Congress who repeatedly vote to fund grants for political reasons. The transition should focus on building resilience and return on investment in line with real threats. Personnel FEMA currently has four Senate-confirmed positions. Only the Administrator should be confirmed by the Senate; other political leadership need not be con- firmed by the Senate. Additionally, FEMA’s “springing Cabinet position” should be eliminated, as this creates significant unnecessary challenges to the functioning of the whole of DHS at points in time when coordinated responses are most needed. CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY (CISA) Needed Reforms CISA is supposed to have two key roles: (1) protection of the federal civilian government networks (.gov) while coordinating the execution of national cyber defense and sharing information with non-federal and private-sector partners — 155 — Department of Homeland Security and (2) national coordination of critical infrastructure security and resilience. Yet CISA has rapidly expanded its scope into lanes where it does not belong, the most recent and most glaring example being censorship of so-called misinformation and disinformation. CISA’s funding and resources should align narrowly with the foregoing two mission requirements. The component’s emergency communications and Chem- ical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) roles should be moved to FEMA; its school security functions should be transferred to state homeland security offices; and CISA should refrain from duplicating cybersecurity functions done elsewhere at the Department of Defense, FBI, National Security Agency, and U.S. Secret Service. Of the utmost urgency is immediately ending CISA’s counter-mis/disinforma- tion efforts. The federal government cannot be the arbiter of truth. CISA began this work because of alleged Russian misinformation in the 2016 election, which in fact turned out to be a Clinton campaign “dirty trick.” The Intelligence Commu- nity, including the NSA or DOD, should counter foreign actors. At the time of this writing, release of the Twitter Files has demonstrated that CISA has devolved into an unconstitutional censoring and election engineering apparatus of the political Left. In any event, the entirety of the CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee should be dismissed on Day One. For election security, CISA should help states and localities assess whether they have good cyber hygiene in their hardware and software in preparation for an election—but nothing more. This is of value to smaller localities, particularly by flagging who is attacking their websites. CISA should not be significantly involved closer to an election. Nor should it participate in messaging or propaganda. U.S. COAST GUARD (USCG) Needed Reforms The U.S. Coast Guard fleet should be sized to the needs of great-power compe- tition, specifically focusing efforts and investment on protecting U.S. waters, all while seeking to find (where feasible) more economical ways to perform USCG missions. The scope of the Coast Guard’s mission needs to be focused on protecting U.S. resources and interests in its home waters, specifically its Exclusive Economic Zone (200 miles from shore). USCG’s budget should address the growing demand for it to address the increasing threat from the Chinese fishing fleet in home waters as well as narcotics and migrant flows in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. Doing this will require reversing years of shortfalls in shipbuilding, maintenance, and upgrades of shore facilities as well as seeking more cost-effective ship and facility designs. In wartime, the USCG supports the Navy, but it has limited capability and capacity to support wartime missions outside home waters.
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.