Louisiana senators push FEMA to halt Risk Rating 2.0 program

BATON ROUGE, La. (Louisiana First) — Sens. Bill Cassidy and John Kennedy ask the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to stop the Risk Rating 2.0 program.
According to FEMA, Risk Rating 2.0 was created under the Biden administration as a new approach to flood risk assessment through new data. The system checks factors such as flood frequency, flood types, and proximity to flood sources.
Cassidy, Kennedy, and other Republicans are asking that the program end due to the increase in premiums under the National Flood Insurance Program.
'Since the Biden Administration's rollout of Risk Rating 2.0, premiums under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) increased in every state. By FEMA's own estimates, 77 percent of all NFIP policies now pay more than under the old system,' the senators wrote.
The letter states that Louisiana saw a 234% increase in premiums in 2023, forcing over 52,000 residents out of the program. Other states impacted include Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and West Virginia.
'Each month that Risk Rating 2.0 continues unchecked, more families are forced to abandon their insurance coverage, neighborhoods face economic strain, and entire communities risk collapse after the next disaster,' the lawmakers added.
In March 2025, Cassidy and Kennedy introduced legislation to extend the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through Dec. 31, 2026, which would give homeowners long-term stability.
Read the full letter below.
Senate-Letter-to-FEMA-Risk-Rating-2.0Download
Amite River Basin Commission approves regional flood prevention plan
LSU students create life-saving car seat alert system
VIDEO: Nexstar reporter carjacked at gunpoint in Memphis
These 10 restaurant chains have the happiest workers, study finds
Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' gets boost from LA immigration protests
Police: 3 men charged after drug, gun trafficking investigation in Baton Rouge
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Chicago Tribune

an hour ago

• Chicago Tribune

How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill

WASHINGTON — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.

CNBC

2 hours ago

• CNBC

GOP's food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It's the latest setback for Trump's big bill

In another blow to the Republicans' tax and spending cut bill, the Senate parliamentarian has advised that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states — a centerpiece of GOP savings efforts — would violate the chamber's rules. While the parliamentarian's rulings are advisory, they are rarely, if ever, ignored. The Republican leadership scrambled on Saturday, days before voting is expected to begin on President Donald Trump's package that he wants to be passed into law by the Fourth of July. The loss is expected to be costly to Republicans. They have been counting on some tens of billions of potential savings from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, to help offset the costs of the $4.5 trillion tax breaks plan. The parliamentarian let stand for now a provision that would impose new work requirements for older Americans, up to age 65, to receive food stamp aid. "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which handles the SNAP program. "The Parliamentarian has made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts," she said. The parliamentarian's ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as staff works through the weekend, often toward midnight, to assess the 1,000-page proposal. It all points to serious trouble ahead for the bill, which was approved by the House on a party-line vote last month over unified opposition from Democrats and is now undergoing revisions in the Senate. At its core, the goal of the multitrillion-dollar package is to extend tax cuts from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire if Congress fails to act. It also adds new ones, including no taxes on tips and or overtime pay. To help offset the costs of lost tax revenue, the Republicans are proposing cutbacks to federal Medicaid, health care and food programs — some $1 trillion. Additionally, the package boosts national security spending by about $350 billion, including to pay for Trump's mass deportations, which are running into protests nationwide. Trump has implored Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to deliver on his top domestic priority, but the details of the package, with its hodge-podge of priorities, are drawing deeper scrutiny. All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package, as approved by the House, would add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation's red ink over the decade and leave 10.9 million more people without health care coverage. Additionally, it would reduce or eliminate food stamps for more than 3 million people. The parliamentarian's office is tasked with scrutinizing the bill to ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, which is named after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and bars many policy matters in the budget reconciliation process now being used. Late Friday, the parliamentarian issued its latest findings. It determined that Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's proposal to have the states pick up more of the tab for covering food stamps — what Republicans call a new cost-sharing arrangement — would violate the Byrd Rule. Many lawmakers said the states would not be able to absorb the new requirement on food aid, which the federal government has long provided. They warned many would lose access to SNAP benefits used by more than 40 million people. Initially, the CBO estimated savings of about $128 billion under the House's proposal to shift SNAP food aid costs to the states. Cost estimates for the Senate's version, which made changes to the House approach, have not been publicly available. The parliamentarian's office rulings leave GOP leaders with several options. They can revise the proposals to try to comply with Senate rules or strip them from the package altogether. They can also risk a challenge during floor voting, which would require the 60-vote threshold to overcome. That would be unlikely in the split chamber with Democrats opposing the overall package. The parliamentarian's latest advice also said the committee's provision to make certain immigrants ineligible for food stamps would violate the rule. It found several provisions from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be in violation. They include one to provide $250 million to Coast Guard stations damaged by fire in 2025, namely one on South Padre Island in Texas. Some of the most critical rulings from parliamentarians are still to come. One will assess the GOP's approach that relies on "current policy" rather than "current law" as the baseline for determining whether the bill will add to the nation's deficits. Already, the parliamentarian delivered a serious setback Thursday, finding that the GOP plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was a core proposal coming from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, would violate the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian has also advised of violations over provisions from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would roll back Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards on certain vehicles and from the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the Defense secretary to provide a plan on how the Pentagon intends to spend the tens of billions of new funds. The new work requirements in the package would require many of those receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits to work 80 hours a month or engage in other community or educational services.

Politico

2 hours ago

• Politico

Republicans' loan plan presents new obstacles for low-income students

A series of changes to long-running federal student loan programs tucked into the Republican tax plan has doctors panicked and struggling to find GOP allies. The Senate education committee's portion of President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill includes a new cap on how much people can borrow for medical school and other professional programs that is well below the sticker price most students are facing. Lawmakers are also proposing to nix a class of federal loans graduate students use to cover housing and other non-tuition expenses. For low-income and first-generation college students with aspirations of becoming physicians, these plans, if enacted, could squash their dreams, according to medical college leaders. As the full Senate irons out the bill and Trump rattles school finances with funding freezes, doctors' groups are asking Congress to preserve the more generous loan options or risk a sharp drop in who's studying medicine — a profession that's already facing a shortage. While part of the stress on poorer students comes from the ever-increasing cost of higher education, the bill would likely push more of them toward private loans that require a co-signer, which are out of reach for many, and come with steeper interest rates. 'A lot of our medical schools, mine included, have a lot of first-generation college students. When they come into medical education, more times than not, they don't have co-signers,' said John L. Hummer, president of Burrell College of Osteopathic Medicine, a school with campuses in New Mexico and Florida for which 81 percent of students depend on the federal Grad PLUS program Republicans are looking to eliminate. The Senate education tax bill establishes a $200,000 ceiling on federal student loans for professional degrees, like medicine. But the median cost of attending four years of medical school for the class of 2025 is $286,454 for public institutions and $390,848 for private schools, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. It's a range that exceeds the costs many doctors now serving in Congress paid when they earned their degrees. Many did not respond to inquiries from POLITICO about how the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would affect medical school enrollment — and those that did were not sympathetic about student debt. 'You're looking at a person, a first-generation college student, who went to medical school, and didn't borrow money,' Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), who sits on the Senate HELP Committee, said. 'I worked my tail off. Anyone who is paying more than $100,000 to go to school is making a huge mistake.' Marshall graduated from the University of Kansas School of Medicine in 1987, when the average in-state tuition for a public medical school nationally was around $4,696. That sum in today's dollars is about $13,300 — far less than what the Kansas program costs in 2025. Members of the medical community believe limits on federal loans or steering students to borrow from private lenders will exacerbate a long-running national physician shortage the Association of American Medical Colleges projects could be as high as 86,000 doctors by 2036. David Bergman, senior vice president of government relations and health affairs at the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, said students at medical schools his group represents have said it's been difficult to access private loans. Some lenders, like PNC Bank, hold student debt for which about 90 percent of private loans have a co-signer, while others had interest rates as high as 16 percent — nearly twice that of a Grad PLUS loan. 'The consequence of all this, of course, is that it's the low-income students who are going to suffer the most,' Bergman said. 'They may not have great credit, so then they may not be able to get the loans. Or they may get higher rate loans that put them further in debt.' One former Trump administration official shares this concern. 'I do worry about the assumption that the private sector is going to step in,' said Diane Jones, a former Education Department official from Trump's first term. 'Maybe they would, but I'm not sure they would step in to make loans available to low-income students.' Even some people in the lending business are skeptical the industry's bigger players will change their rules around co-signers. 'It just takes a lot more energy because it's riskier. Period. Banks aren't in the business of doing riskier products,' said Ken Ruggiero, co-founder and CEO of Ascent, a private loan company that will lend to applicants without a co-signer. 'They are in the business of talking to a person who has a very good income and credit score and letting the student sign the agreement.' The House version of the bill would also shut down Grad PLUS and put a cap on lending to graduate students for professional programs, putting pressure on the Senate to change course. But HELP Committee Chair Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said there needs to be more accountability for the high tuition prices writ large that aren't exclusive to medical schools. 'There should be some ratio between earning potential and what it costs,' Cassidy said. 'I met with neurosurgeons and cosmetologists and they had the same discussion about the cost of education.' Jason Goldman, president of the American College of Physicians, which represents internal medicine doctors, related specialists and medical students, is skeptical that capping loan amounts would force medical schools to immediately lower tuition. Over the span of 21 years, medical school tuition has gone up 81 percent, outpacing inflation, according to AAMC. 'The reality is it's very expensive to train a physician — the amount of hours that go into lectures, labs, professors and housing and everything it takes to graduate is expensive,' Goldman said. He fears that some students may be dissuaded from becoming primary care doctors, a specialty where shortages are profound, especially in rural areas. Some in Congress have pushed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to address proposed limits to federal lending for student borrowers pursuing health care-related degrees. During a House Appropriations Committee hearing in May, Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) asked McMahon to take a look at aid programs that help students complete their degrees. 'We do know we have a shortage of nurses and doctors,' McMahon said. 'I think there are a lot of programs we can look at to train nurse technicians to get them into the marketplace faster.' Other Congress members have proposed student loan changes outside of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to address health care shortages. Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Jackie Rosen (D-Nev.) introduced legislation in April that would create a student loan repayment program for specialists within medical professions who practice in rural areas. They also introduced the Specialty Physicians Advancing Rural Care Act in previous legislative sessions citing a dearth of providers in rural communities. 'The entire nation is dealing with a physician shortage, and rural communities in Mississippi have been particularly affected,' Wicker said in a statement. 'Congress can help provide a solution.' Jones, the official from Trump's first term, also worries that some students may have to forgo medical school because they won't be able to secure financial assistance. She attended medical school in the 1980s when the loan program she was using was suspended, ultimately leading her to drop out because she could no longer afford the program. 'I didn't have a parent who could co-sign for a private loan, and I didn't have access to any other resources,' she said. 'I personally lost the opportunity to pursue the career that I wanted, that I had earned the right to pursue.'