“Committed to reform the National Flood Insurance Program through bipartisan legislation to make the program affordable, accountable, and sustainable.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Verified: Cassidy demonstrably LED bipartisan NFIP reform, not merely voted for it. Two PRIMARY Senate press releases confirm he is a lead co-author/co-introducer of the comprehensive, bipartisan and bicameral National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization and Reform Act (the NFIP-RE Act, reintroduced across Congresses), named among the three lead introducers alongside Van Hollen and Menendez and first among the introducers in the Cassidy-office release. The bill mirrors the promise's three pillars: affordability (caps annual premium increases at 9%, means-tested vouchers for low/middle-income policyholders and renters), accountability (new oversight of insurers/vendors, FEMA authority to terminate contractors), and sustainability (freezes/forbears NFIP debt interest and reinvests up to ~$620M into mitigation). This is authorship/leadership well beyond a vote, satisfying CHAMPIONED. It is not FULL because the comprehensive reform has not been enacted into law — NFIP continues on short-term extensions — but the promise was a commitment to pursue bipartisan reform legislation toward those goals, which he authored and repeatedly drove.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.