Multiple Peril Insurance Act of 2007

Mr. Chairman, preliminarily, I recognize myself for 1 minute just to say that I want to be very clear that I regret the decision not to allow a number of amendments offered by members of the minority to this bill. And I will give them my word that as this legislative process goes forward, I intend to seek out opportunities to give them fair consideration.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, I'm never happy when I see my colleagues on the Republican side being a little obstreperous, but when they're being obstreperous with good reason, I really find that hard to tolerate. So I did want to make clear my view and my hope that we can deal with that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Housing, from which this bill came forward, who has done a great job all year on this legislation, the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I agree that we should have had an amendment that would have allowed us to debate whether or not to strike the wind addition. I would have vigorously defended it as I will do now.

The problem is that we now give the insured and the people who administer insurance an impossible task. It is to evacuate a home on the notice of a hurricane and to return to that home some period of time later after there has been devastation from a hurricane and decide with some degree of certainty what damage was caused by water and what by wind, because the Federal Flood Insurance Program protects against water damage. Wind damage is under the auspices of private companies. In some cases, of course, the same company would be involved, and some of the adjusters would have an interest in whether or not it was water versus wind. The more it was water, the less they would have to pay. But even aside from that conflict of interest, it is inherently difficult, in fact impossible, to decide, if you go back and there is all this devastation, was it the wind that blew the roof off? Was it the flood that did it? Was the window broken by a wind-driven projectile? It is impossible to tell. We give people this impossible decision.

Now, the way the wind program works under the bill, in the first place, it is not a complete expansion. You only would be eligible to buy wind insurance if you already have flood insurance. It will lead to no new insureds. That has to be very clear. No one who is not now taking out insurance, not just eligible, but taking out insurance, will be allowed to take this out, because it can only be an adjunct to your water policy. It is aimed at trying to avoid having this impossible arbitration between wind and water damage.

Secondly, and CBO scores it this way, it is subject to PAYGO. The mandate in the legislation is that it has to be actuarially sound. And people have said, well, the previous flood insurance program wasn't actuarially sound. True. It wasn't subjected to that statutory mandate. It wasn't subject to PAYGO.

We have in here language that mandates that the wind coverage be actuarially sound. CBO has certified, and as Members know, we don't always get from CBO what we think is the right answer, but in this case, CBO has certified that this meets PAYGO and that wind will be there.

So what we are saying is that if you already have water and you are in an area where you are likely to have a combination of wind and water, we will allow you to buy wind as an adjunct so that, and you will have to pay the going rate for it, the actuarially sound rate, but then you will avoid this terrible, intractable problem of arbitrating wind versus water.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I must say, Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman asks for my word, and I am tempted to assume a cultural pose which I haven't always had and simply say, ``Word.'' But I am not sure that is still in vogue. I'm sometimes behind in my fashionableness.

I will say this to the gentlewoman; she has been very constructive and we have been able to work together on this and other matters, including on the most recent legislation involving floods. Certainly I will do everything I can to see that this is given very serious consideration.

Now I should add, the recommendations may mean a curtailment of the program or an adjustment of the program. If the argument is that FEMA is not well structured, the response might be to try to improve the structure of FEMA. But I take this report very seriously. So she has my word that we will take this very, very seriously. In fact, I would say when we get the report, the first thing we will do will be to have a hearing on it and then go from there.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to take up the suggestion of the gentleman from Georgia. He said that the insurance companies should be required, I guess, to live up to their social responsibility. I agree.

The committee of which I'm the Chair has the jurisdiction on that; and if he has any recommendations about what we can do, I'd be glad to do it, but not in that way right now.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

It is not in our power to tell them not to take a walk. They are a private sector

entity. So unless there was to be some legislative change, there's simply no power, particularly at the Federal level, because insurance has historically been a State issue; but when the gentleman says we shouldn't let them walk away, I might be inclined to agree with that.

There's nothing in the Federal Government now that would allow us to stop them from walking away, and our committee is available if anybody has any proposals to increase the role of the Federal Government, and I yield to the gentleman.

I'll take back my time to say that's irrelevant. We weren't talking about the history of the flood program.

The gentleman said we shouldn't let the private companies walk away from their social responsibility. I wish he would tell me how he thinks we can do that. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman if he wants to get back to the subject, but not when I'm still posing the question, because he apparently didn't understand it.

He said if they're not living up to their social responsibility, we should make them do it. I don't know how we can do that. If he wants to suggest to me new powers it would seem to me for us to take to do that, I'll listen.

I yield to the gentleman.

I will take back my time, Mr. Chairman, to say that simply isn't accurate today. Others know it better than I, but we've had insurance companies withdrawing from offering policies that are not covered by Federal flood insurance. The Federal Government covers only flood insurance.

So I would repeat to him, his history is interesting; but he says we shouldn't allow them to walk away, and I don't know any way we can prevent them.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to say that simply isn't true. That's not the causality.

The notion that it was the Federal Government trotting them out is simply not accurate, and again, the phraseology of the gentleman is not that we should allow them to do it, we shouldn't let them walk away. I don't know any way to not let them walk away.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

His point about the flood insurance not being actuarially sound is right; but in this bill, because it is subject to PAYGO, we have a more stringent standard. So it is not totally valid to say, oh, look, it was supposed to be actuarially done. The wind program here is written to a much stricter standard.

But not according to CBO, I would say to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following exchange of letters regarding H.R. 3121.

National Association of Realtors',

Washington, DC, September 26, 2007.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives: On behalf of the more than 1.3

million members of the National Association of

REALTORS' (NAR), I ask for your vote in favor of

H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act

of 2007, when it is considered by the House of

Representatives on Thursday, September 27.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) offers

essential flood loss protection to homeowners and commercial

property owners in more than 20,000 communities nationwide.

The bill, as written, will help protect homeowners, renters

and commercial property owners from losses sustained from

flooding. NAR strongly supports the following changes to the

NFIP contained in the bill including:

Extending the NFIP for five years;

Ensuring that the 100-year flood maps are updated as

expeditiously as possible;

Increasing coverage limits to $335,000 for residential and

$670,000 for commercial properties;

Supporting education of tenants about the availability of

flood insurance while providing flexibility to property

owners and mangers in the manner of providing such notice;

Adding coverage for living expenses, business interruption,

and basement improvements;

Extending the pilot program for mitigation of severe

repetitive loss properties; and

Studying the impacts of eliminating subsidies on

homeowners, renters and local economies.

It is critical that flood insurance remain accessible for

all individuals who own or rent property in a floodplain. I

urge you to vote in favor of H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance

Reform and Modernization Act of 2007, on Thursday.

Sincerely,

Pat V. Combs, ABR, CRS, GRI, PMN,

2007 President, National

Association of Realtors'

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment unanimously supported, I believe, certainly strongly supported by both majority and minority committee leadership and staffs. It incorporates a number of other amendments, and I am pleased to be able to say that at least here we were able to get some bipartisanship, because one of the amendments of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), it improves the program in terms of mapping and other technical ways, and I believe that there is general agreement that this improves it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is welcome. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it might be superfluous, but I would want to point out that the speech we just heard has no bearing whatsoever to the amendment that is pending.

The gentleman, I hope, would wait to be recognized. But in case anybody is trying to follow the debate and the rules, I would want to point out that we are debating a manager's amendment. And while the gentleman didn't know, what he was so expansively saying is, of course, unrelated to this particular amendment.

First of all, I agree. I thought he was talking about the Federal Government when he said ``we.'' And he is right, States have some power; the Federal Government does not. But even there, I believe he overstates the States' powers. And in fact, particularly in the Graham-Leach-Bliley bill, we gave some insurance companies the power to leave States, which we shouldn't have done. But States can be required, if they are going to do something, to do other things. But they can leave altogether, and the State insurance commissioners generally don't have the power to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

If the gentleman would yield.

I just double-checked with the staff, and there is no discount available for wind. It's in the bill.

The language is, in the case of any area that previously was not designated as an area having special flood hazards because the area was protected, it becomes designated as such an area, and it's all about flood. Here it is: the chargeable premium rate for flood insurance under this title shall be, et cetera. So if the gentleman would look at the bottom of the amendment, I'm trying to answer the question.

If the gentleman would yield to me one second, lines 18 and 19, the chargeable premium rate for flood insurance under this title shall be 50 percent.

The law is the law. The amendment would change things. In that sense the gentleman is right: it is silent. It's silent on the wind part, which means it doesn't change it. It explicitly changes the flood part only. And look at lines 18, 19 and pages 1, 2 and 3, and it specifically restricted the flood.

Oh, no. The gentleman is wrong. The gentleman should yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Chairman, at a meeting of the committee, I thought the gentleman was present, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) asked if I would join in a letter to the GAO asking very many of the questions he asked. I have the letter, dated August 9, 2007. And earlier in the general debate, Ms. Brown- Waite asked me to engage in a colloquy and commit to taking seriously the recommendations. So we have already asked the GAO for a study, and I believe that study will be going forward.

And if it hasn't already been done, at the appropriate time I will place the letter that the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite) and I sent to the GAO into the Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, August 9, 2007.

Hon. David M. Walker,

Comptroller General of the United States, Government

Accountability Office, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Walker: We request that the Government

Accountability Office (GAO) initiate a review into a variety

of questions regarding the expansion of the National Flood

Insurance Program (NFIP) to include an optional wind

insurance program. The results of your review will assist

congressional understanding of how such a program could be

implemented and to what extent it would affect the private

market.

As background, Section 7 of H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance

Reform and Modernization Act of 2007 creates a new program at

the NFIP designed to enable NFIP participants to purchase

both wind and flood coverage in a single policy, A key

provision of Section 7 requires that rates charged for this

new, optional, wind coverage be risk-based and actuarially

sound, so that the program collects premiums sufficient to

pay all reasonably anticipated claims. In so stating, H.R.

3121 specificaI1y departs from the method of determining

actuarial rates currently used by the NFIP.

Under H.R. 3121 the NFIP would provide optional wind

coverage in communities that already participate in the NFIP

and that agree to adopt and enforce building codes and

standards designed to minimize wind damage. In order for you

to better understand the details of the new wind insurance

program we have enclosed a copy of H.R. 3121, Section 7 with

this request.

In addition to any issues you deem appropriate, we would

like the GAO to initiate a comprehensive analysis and

determination of the following:

1. The ability of the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) and the NFIP to implement an actuarially-sound (i.e.,

with rates priced according to risk, or as defined by

standards and methods generally accepted by the actuary

industry, incorporating up-to-date modeling technology, and

taking into consideration administrative expenses) wind

insurance program, including: whether FEMA's current staff

and resources enable it to efficiently and effectively expand

the NFIP to offer optional wind coverage; how actuarial rates

for such coverage could be determined; the likelihood that

consumers would purchase coverage at these rates; how this

new coverage would be underwritten and sold; how claims

arising from this new coverage would be adjusted and paid;

whether FEMA's staff and resources are sufficient to be

prepared to implement this new wind insurance program on or

before June 30, 2008; what additional staff and

administrative costs are necessary in order for FEMA to

effectively implement and administer this new wind insurance

program; and how the availability of optional wind insurance

through the NFIP could affect the enforcement of the NFIP's

mandatory purchase requirement for flood insurance.

2. The effects, if any, this program could have on existing

State wind pools, including capitalization of, and

participation in, the wind pools.

3. Whether expanding the NFIP to provide optional wind

coverage could: affect the availability and affordability,

over the long-term, of wind coverage nationwide; influence

the development in private sector markets, including the

surplus and non-admitted markets, for multiple peril

insurance, or alternatives; result in adverse selection,

whereby the wind insurance program could be under diversified

and particularly vulnerable to large events; and lead to the

development of lower, yet actuarially sound rates for wind

coverage similar to wind coverage offered by the private

sector, in the same geographic area.

4. To what extent, if any, the new wind insurance program

could expose U.S. taxpayers to loss, including but not

limited to the case of program deficit.

5. Are alternative methods available to provide NFIP

participants with better wind coverage options.

6. To what extent, if any, gaps in coverage may still

exist, between the coverage included under most homeowners

policies, and the flood and wind coverage provided by the

First, Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman from Texas will remember this problem about spending when we again debate the proposal to spend hundreds of billions of dollars sending a manned spaceship to Mars, which I have been opposed to, and I hope he will join me in that unnecessary expenditure and oppose it.

Secondly, CBO says he is wrong. The wind part is written, unlike the flood part, to require actuarially sound policy premiums to break even, and CBO certified that it's there. So the notion that this is adding trillions or even billions to our debt is simply wrong, according to

As the gentleman knows, I was opposed to the Rules Committee's decision to keep out several Republican amendments. I now regret that even more because if the gentleman had a real amendment to argue for, he wouldn't be making these badly strained irrelevant arguments on this particular poor little amendment. It really doesn't deserve all the rhetoric it's getting.

Mr. Chairman, to answer the direct question by the gentleman, no, I would not say this is the greatest development bill. But I would also say he says he was puzzled. Not as puzzled as I am in trying to figure out what in the world this had to do with the amendment we are dealing with. Maybe it is considered, I don't know, stuffy to deal with the amendment under consideration. I always prefer it as a method of debate.

In the first place, the flood part environmentalists strongly support because it restricts where people can go and raises the fee. As to the wind part, it's not a subsidy.

If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.

The amendment that you are talking about specifically did not encourage anybody to move. It dealt with people who are already there, having moved there previously, found subsequently they were in a flood area. But the general thrust of the bill on flood, strongly supported by environmentalists, is to increase the amount that's charged in many cases and to restrict the building.

As to wind, there is no subsidy. It is required to be actuarially soundly financed. So, yes, it's a government program, but one without any subsidy to the homeowner on the wind part.

Virtually every piece of legislation we deal with, because this legislation has two parts, one part which will reduce an existing liability, that is, there is already out there a flood insurance liability. This bill, unanimously agreed to by all in the committee who worked on it, will reduce that in the flood part.

With regard to water, this will raise premiums and restrict placement. With regard to the new part, the wind part, it will create no liability, because as I have said several times, the bill strictly says that premiums will have to be actuarially sound. And CBO has certified that that is accurate. So CBO has certified this will, over time, produce no new liability on wind and save money on water.

The mistakes the gentleman makes are these; the basis on which the flood insurance policies are set is different. The one in this bill, the wind policy, it is a much tougher requirement to be actuarially sound. And CBO, unlike the gentleman from Texas, can read the bill.

I want to thank Chairman Frank, Chairwoman Waters, Chairman Mel Watt, the Democratic members of the Financial Services Committee for bringing this incredibly important bill to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, a little over 2 years ago, the Nation's worst disaster hit a number of places, including the district I have the privilege of representing. An unprecedented number of homes were destroyed, including my own. As the crow flies between my house and Senator Lott's house is 40 miles. As inconceivable as it may be, in that 40 miles between our houses, only a handful of houses within several blocks of the Gulf of Mexico remained.

A number of things occurred after that storm, most of them good. People in south Mississippi pulled together. They did what they could to take care of themselves. People from all over America came to our assistance. Congressman Gilchrest's district raised something in the neighborhood of $40,000 to $50,000 for the people of my district, as well as the people of St. Mary's County. There are so many of these things, that I can't enumerate them all. The people of St. Mary's County sent down three truckloads of Christmas presents to kids who lost everything.

To this day, there are still young volunteers and not-so-young volunteers from all over the country who come down there trying to help people rebuild their lives. About the only group that didn't try to help the people of south Mississippi is the insurance industry. You see, within days of the storm, the insurance industry issued a memo to their employees that said whenever wind and water occur concurrently, blame it all on the water.

Mr. Chairman, the United States Navy has modeled what happened that day in Mississippi, and the United States Navy tells us that for 4 to 5 hours in south Mississippi we had hurricane force winds before the water ever got there.

Under the National Write Your Own program, we count on the private sector for two things: we count on them to sell the policy, and that way our Nation does not have the administrative expense of having a sales force. But we also count on them to adjudicate the claim fairly. Those things that are wind, say the wind did it, and they have to pay. Those things that are attributed to water, you can blame it on the flood insurance, and the Nation pays.

Within days of the storm, State Farm and other companies had issued the following e-mails to their employees: Where wind acts concurrently with flooding to cause damage to the insured property, coverage for the loss exists only under flood coverage.

So, on one hand, they have a contract with the Nation that says we are going to pay if it's wind damage, the Nation is going to pay if it's flood damage. They get to adjust the claim. We don't have a Federal employee following them around. The total discretion to make this claim is with the private sector.

Put yourself in the position of that 25-year-old claims adjuster. You're looking for your Christmas bonus; you're hoping for a promotion. You can walk on that property and say what is fair, that, yeah, there was wind and there was water, or you can be a company man and you can follow the memo from company headquarters and blame it all on the water and stick the taxpayer with the bill. That is not fair to the taxpayer right off the bat, and it's not fair to the citizens.

Let me further clarify this, and I have kind of become an expert at it the hard way. Every homeowner's policy has something in it called ``Cost of Living Expenses,'' and that is if your home burns down tonight, and you have got a homeowners policy, they will pay to put you up until they fix your house. But if they deny the claim, they don't put you up.

The President came down shortly after the storm and said, you know what, if you have lost your house, or if your house is substantially damaged, we are going to get you a trailer to live in. They assigned, just in south Mississippi, 42,000 trailers; one for every family of five, $16,000 per trailer.

Then they gave another contract to an outfit called Bechtel to haul those trailers the last 70 miles, from a place called Purvis, Mississippi, down to the site where a home was, hook it up to a garden hose, plug it in, hook it up to the sewer tap. It worked out where that company got another $16,000 just for doing the very simple thing that grandmoms and grandpops and moms and dads do every weekend, which is called hooking up a travel trailer.

We are now up to $32,000 per trailer, times 42,000 times, because they decided they weren't going to pay on their homeowners claims, that the Nation would pay. Now, you can come to this floor and defend that, but I don't think you can.

So the individual who had a homeowners policy, because if you live in hurricane country, and this has happened three times in my lifetime, it's the only time I lost my house, but three times in my lifetime I have seen terrible storms. You don't know if it's going to be more wind than water or more water than wind. So you buy both policies, with the idea if I get flooded, I've got a flood policy. If it's wind tearing my roof off, I've got a wind policy. You have both.

As the chairman pointed out, our Nation spends a fortune to have hurricane hunters fly into these storms. Our Nation spends a fortune to put satellites that track storms into space. Why do they do that? To give people warning so that they don't die in the storm. Our sheriffs departments and police chiefs did a wonderful job: get the heck out of here, this is going to be a bad storm. So the logical people and the people who weren't hard-headed got the heck out of there. We lost a rocket scientist. I am certainly not going to say that man was dumb, but he built what he thought was a hurricane-proof house. He died in that hurricane-proof house.

The point is that the few folks who stayed behind almost all died, but the few folks who stayed behind had their claims paid because they could sign an affidavit and say I saw my roof fly off before the water got there, I saw my windows fly in. And, by the way, I was 10 miles inland that day and the windows in my brother's house flew in. The insurance companies paid wind claims in all 82 counties of Mississippi, all the way to Memphis, Tennessee; but they are somehow trying to convince this Congress that the wind somehow miraculously leap-frogged over the coast and they shouldn't have had to pay where it hit first.

Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do with this is tell the people of America, the 52 percent of the people that live in coastal America, that if you build the house the way you should, if you pay your premiums, if you buy this additional coverage, if your house is destroyed in the course of a hurricane

or substantially damaged in the course of a hurricane, you don't have to be there with a video camera to record whether it's wind or whether it's water. You paid your premium, you built it right, you are going to get paid.

One of the gentlemen mentioned that the insurance companies have settled 90-something percent of the claims. Let me address that.

I was pretty busy, as you might guess, after the storm. I put off meeting with my adjuster for 2 weeks. By the time I met with my adjuster, I had heard dozens, if not hundreds, of my constituents as I am going around passing out MREs, told me, ``They already told me they are not going to pay me. I had a homeowners policy. They are not going to pay me.''

So by the time they came to my house, I asked my agent, Please don't say a word. Each one of my steps is about 3 feet. Let's just count the steps until we find my roof. We paced off about 150 of them, 450 feet. I showed them my roof and pointed out it was tin. I reminded them that tin doesn't float. I showed them the holes where it had been ripped through the bolts.

I said, This is my roof. I am the only guy in this neighborhood that has this style roof. This is my roof, and it is 450 feet from where my house used to be. Now let's walk back to where my house used to be. Miss, what do you have to say? This to the claims adjuster.

The first words out of her mouth, I see no evidence of wind damage. We are, however, prepared to pay your flood claim. To which I reminded her that was very sweet of State Farm. That is not their money; that is the Nation's money. What about the claim for that roof that flew over there?

What we are trying to do with this is prevent the need for my constituents, your constituents, anyone who lives in coastal America, to have to stay behind with a video camera to record the destruction and possibly die with these claims. If you build it right, if you pay your premiums, then you get paid. Pretty simple. Under the PAYGO rules of this House, it will pay for itself. It has to. It is written in the law.

Lastly, we quit putting the insurance companies in a position where they can bilk the taxpayers for billions of dollars. What some of you may not know, something I will be entirely grateful for, is because so many homeowners claims weren't paid in south Mississippi of people who lived outside the floodplain, who had homeowners insurance but didn't get paid, in one of the appropriations bills after Katrina, $4 billion in taxpayer dollars was included to pay those people's insurance claims. The taxpayers paid for what State Farm, Nationwide, and Allstate should have paid.

So when people say this is some sort of raid on the Treasury, I see it as just the opposite. This is creating a program where the Nation won't have to ride to the rescue next time because people will have bought insurance ahead of time, in a program that pays for itself, in a program that says if you built it right, if you pay your premiums, an act of God destroys your house, you are going to get paid.

I can't think of anything that is more fiscally responsible. I can't think of anything that is more right for the citizens. And I would remind my colleagues that the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Realtors, and the National Association of Bankers, when given the opportunity to look at this bill in its totality, have endorsed this bill as it is written, including the wind versus water language to allow people to buy all-perils insurance.

I thank the chairman for his leadership on this. No one can say they have been blindsided on this issue. The hearings on this issue began in January. The debate on this issue started the week after the storm. There has been ample opportunity for people to weigh in on this issue.

I very much thank again the chairman, Ms. Waters, Mr. Mel Watt, for the opportunity to bring this to the floor and the opportunity to right an egregious wrong against the American people.

Lastly, I would like to remind people that even with Katrina, the insurance industry made $42 billion in profits the year of Katrina. So while they are simultaneously telling their employees, don't pay the individual, while they are sticking the bill to the citizen, if you have any doubt in your mind why flood insurance lost so much money, it is because they made so much money that year. We are trying to correct that. I hope you will help us.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to remind the gentleman from Georgia that what this is all about is getting the companies to live by their contract.

Thousands of my constituents, including one of the most powerful Members of the United States Senate and a Federal judge, had to hire lawyers and engineers to get fairness from their insurance companies. If they're going to do that to a powerful Senator or if they're going to do that to a Federal judge, what kind of chance does a schoolteacher, a chief petty officer, a high school football coach have?

The fact of the matter is they have not lived up to their responsibilities. That's what brings this bill to the floor today.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Sure. No more than I challenge the question as to whether or not this is a boondoggle. We have recognized a problem; we are addressing it in a means that pays for itself.

On the other hand, when the Republican majority controlled this House, they brought a prescription drug benefit to the floor.

Which increased the liability of the taxpayers for over $1 trillion and had no funding mechanism. And then they held the vote open for 3 hours to twist arms to pass it. So, sir, that is it.

Since you were in the business, you know that if you have a federally backed mortgage and you live in a floodplain, you have to buy flood insurance. The wind policy will be totally voluntary. It is an option to those people who wish to purchase. There is nothing in the law to require people to buy the wind policy.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for allowing this amendment to be considered and hopefully for his help on it.

Mr. Chairman, anyone who has traveled to south Mississippi or south Louisiana after the wakes of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina know we have an incredible housing shortage. Today, 19,000 Mississippi families are still living in FEMA trailers. They are grateful for the trailers. They would rather be someplace else. Part of that problem is, in particular, for renters. In addition to homes being destroyed, a heck of a lot of rental properties were destroyed.

Prior to this amendment, if you are a condo owner or building a condo, you can build a condo with as many number of units as you would like, and each one of those units can be insured up to the value of the Federal flood insurance program. If it is 100 units, each one of them can be insured up to $250,000. On the other hand, if you are considering building rental property, you have two strikes against you. Number one, in the wakes of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, this private sector that so many people are saying are being so good to us have now said that just for wind insurance it is going to be $300 per unit per month even for a modest apartment.

Secondly, if you are considering building a building, you can insure that building for only $500,000. Whether it is one unit or 1,000 units, you can only get $500,000 worth of coverage for that entire building. It is a disincentive for the private sector to rebuild and to build the sort of housing that we need.

This amendment is all about parity. If we, as a Nation, can insure condominiums for folks who can afford to buy them, then we, as a Nation, ought to be making available insurance for folks who can't afford a condo but who need to rent a place to live.

Like every amendment that I have offered and every amendment that has been made in order, it has been judged by the Congressional Budget Office that this amendment will pay for itself. It has no impact on the Treasury.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time, and I want to talk a little bit about my own background.

I was in the insurance business for 13 years, worked strictly on commission. I was a broker, which meant I worked for the buyer, helping them find the best quality insurance in the insurance marketplace. I also represent the entire coast of the State of Georgia. I've been involved in flood insurance and wind storm insurance and fire insurance a great deal of my adult life. So I'm very familiar with this. In fact, I'm the only CPCU in Congress, which means Charter Property and Casualty Underwriter. That's a professional designation. I know this stuff is my point.

Now, what you have with the insurance business is you have two types of profits, one they make from underwriting. They don't want to insure a building if they know it's going to burn down because they won't make an underwrite profit. Fair game. They do everything they can to make sure the building does not burn down.

They also make a second kind of profit called investment profit. When they get the cash flow from premiums from underwriting, they invest it and they make a lot of money in that. But generally speaking, insurance companies are risk averse. They don't want to insure wind if you're on the coast. They don't want to insure flood if you're in a flood zone. It makes sense from a business standpoint.

But as they will gladly cede this to the Federal Government, then what happens is exactly what Mr. McHenry said: you have the private sector pulls out of it. They don't put in their ingenuity to it.

Now my friend Mr. Taylor, and I know having represented coastal areas, it is possible that there are a lot of buildings and homes that have been constructed that probably shouldn't be there or probably shouldn't use the construction standards that they should, I know as I go over the entire district of Georgia on the coast that people in Idaho and Iowa and Maine are subsidizing the flood policies for my homeowners out there.

It's hard to say this is politically unpopular, but it is the truth. I just want to say that the insurance companies need to own up to their social responsibility. They don't need to take a walk on this.

The Federal Government is already supplying health care, retirement benefits, transportation benefits, food, drugs, even school uniforms and babysitting. Yes, there are programs for that. I don't believe the Federal Government needs to get into the wind storm pool in a major way. We need to let the private sector continue to provide this service, and we need to look ourselves in the eye and say maybe not all these buildings should be built.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

If they want to make a profit from it, then we should not let them take a walk from it. They will figure out a way to do it.

Keep in mind, we did not even have a flood program until recent times. The underwriter will take care of it.

Let me say this, we were not in the Federal flood insurance program until recent times.

Case in point, I used to sell flood insurance; but when the Federal Government grew into it, the private sector withdrew from the market.

Let me say this, I would love to continue this dialogue and that's why we wanted some amendments so that we could try to work out some of these differences.

But in your great State, in Massachusetts, in Boston or in Savannah, Georgia, historically very old communities, there weren't Federal programs that did the underwriting. These were all built by the private sector.

What I'm saying is if you just step back and let the market do its place, the market will continue to work wonders as it did for hundreds of years in the United States of America until the Federal Government let them start taking a walk by providing products that competed with the private sector.

Because as I understand it, Trent Lott lost a family home that was like 100 years old or something in Mississippi. There was no Federal insurance program of any nature when that house was built, which is my point for Boston and for Savannah, Georgia. All of those old buildings never had any Federal insurance programs: fire, flood or windstorm or anything else.

And what I'm saying is I agree with you. They are not pleasant to work with, and I understand and I want to commend the gentleman for his great work on this. But the reality is, if the Federal Government steps in, the private sector will move out.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and I thank my friend from Massachusetts for generously yielding time, and I want to speak about the manager's amendment. Now that I have done that, I want to talk about Public Law 15.

Public Law 15, or the McCarran-Ferguson Act, says that the States will be in charge of insurance, not the Federal Government.

Therefore, when a company comes into a State or tries to leave a State, the State insurance commissioner actually has the opportunity to twist an arm and say, if you are going to come into my State, you have to write a certain amount of coastal property, a certain mix of teenage drivers, a certain mix of elderly people for health care or whatever. State insurance commissioners by Public Law 15, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, are very powerful in the insurance business.

So I want to say that is where my philosophy comes from is that I do strongly believe that the States can twist arms and get a lot more done.

But I just want to say that Federal flood fund insurance companies did not start until 1968; yet, we have historic properties all over the coast of America because the private sector was there. And, again, having sold flood insurance through a private insurance company, I know that it is possible. And I don't know if the gentleman needs some time. I will be happy to yield, because it is your amendment.

Reclaiming the time. I do believe that you have set a great message, and Mr. Taylor is a tireless advocate for coastal property. But at the same time, I do think that the McCarran-Ferguson Act gives the State insurance commissioners a pretty big hammer here which they ought to be using on the head of certain insurance company executives.

Mr. Chairman, maybe somebody in the majority party could clarify something for me. Does this apply to the wind coverage? Does the gentleman, author of the legislation, know? Does this apply to the wind storm coverage? Does this amendment apply to wind storm?

Does it apply to the wind storm policy? And here's why I'm asking: as I understand it, we're talking about a multi-peril policy that would have flood and wind. And a mortgagee, or a bank, the lender is going to require you to carry flood insurance. Therefore, you go out in the market, well, it won't be the market. You go to Uncle Sugar, I mean Uncle Sam, and you say, I want to get this policy and you're going to get the flood care, but they're also going to sell you the wind storm as part of it.

So is it your intent for people who are in this floodplain area to also get a discount on their wind storm coverage?

Well, if the gentleman will let me ask, and I'll yield back to you, but where in your policy does it say they won't get the discount on the wind coverage? Because I understand what you're doing on the flood. But it appears that wind is going to be in this package. I don't see how we divide it out.

But am I correct that when my lender requires me to carry the flood insurance, then I'm also going to FEMA for the wind storm insurance?

Would they have to be in the amendment?

Mr. Cardoza said it was silent on it, which it sounds like. From what you just read, that's correct. Wouldn't it have to proactively exclude the discount for wind? I'm just asking.

Maybe if Mr. Frank could finish that sentence.

But in a multi-peril policy, you're only getting one premium.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I'm confused here. This is opening up the floodgates for coastal development. Whom are we fooling here? As a matter of fact, I just understood that U.S. PIRG and a lot of pro-environmental groups are opposing this. It puts me on an odd side of things. But whom are we kidding? This is all about coastal development. And don't say, when you're knocking over the marshland, don't touch that sand dune. If you're serious about sand dunes, if you're serious about the wetlands, if you're serious about the environment, the fragile coastal environment, you will oppose this bill. This is the best thing in the world for developers. In fact, I'm a little bit surprised that developers aren't knocking down the doors and saying to fiscal conservatives who are opposing the bill for that, what are you doing? This is the best thing.

The great State of Florida, where I have vacationed and so many other people do, we all love the State of Florida and its natural environment. But, goodness gracious, Carl Hiaasen wrote the book ``Strip Tease.'' I mean, there's book after book about overdevelopment in Florida.

That is all this whole bill does is allow continued overdevelopment in the coastal area of Florida and other environmental areas. So to have a fig leaf here to say, well, don't worry, FEMA is going to worry about that sand dune and those sea oats in the coastal area, that's a very mixed signal.

Let me yield to my friend from Massachusetts, who I am sure has some great wisdom for this confused guy.

Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.

I want to say to Mr. Frank, do you not agree with me that this is the greatest development bill there is?

Let me restate. Right now it is a fact homeowners and lenders are having trouble getting flood insurance and windstorm insurance in the areas where there are lots of floods and lots of windstorms, coastal areas. This allows them to get it at an economic price that is a lot lower than the private sector because it's a government subsidy. Therefore, America, being great entrepreneurs, this is a very pro-growth, pro-development amendment. I cannot understand how you would not agree with that.

I yield to the gentleman.

Let me reclaim my time just to bite on that piece of the apple.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say this. We just passed an amendment for people who have to buy insurance. They don't have to buy insurance. They can move. If they are living in areas that are susceptible to flood, this is still a free America. They can move on. So we are encouraging them to move into flood areas and windstorm areas that are critical environmental areas.

Yes.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, just to emphasize this point. This creates a stable predictability in the insurance premium by the homeowner and developer. Therefore, it makes it easier to develop in a coastal area.

Listen, I understand what you are doing, but I just think this fig leaf of an amendment saying let's protect the environment is a little bit silly because the entire point of the bill disregards the environment.

I want to say to my friend, I actually think that you're feeling around the right part of the woods on this stuff. This is actually an important amendment; but I, like the gentlewoman from West Virginia, really doubt FEMA's expertise in solving this problem. And I hope that during the legislative process of this you can maybe shore up the language to say that they ought to have somebody with a lot better scientific and organizational mind than they would be in this. I mean, I keep thinking FEMA-Katrina, not a good idea to let them study anything. In fact, there are a whole slew of amendments here that probably won't be speaking of, but it gives FEMA instructions and directions to do this and that. I don't have the faith in FEMA which your side apparently does. I think this is like asking the post office to do an efficiency study; it's just not a good idea.

But I do believe that you should put in there something about rising tides because you don't have anything about tidal levels. In the State of Georgia, we have a 7-foot tide, Florida has about a 1- or 2-foot tide. That stuff all makes a difference.

I want to say to my friend, again, I support what you're after; I think this is a serious amendment. But when you say this information is out there, FEMA can get it, it was also well known that people were in the Superdome, but FEMA had trouble figuring that out and what to do about it. So just keep in mind who you're giving this authority to. But I do want to say to the gentleman, I understand what you're after, and I think it's important.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and permitting me to speak, and for the hard work he and his committee have invested in this.

Mr. Chairman, the area of flood insurance is one that I have been focusing on over the last half dozen years. I was pleased to work with our former colleague, Doug Bereuter, with Chairman Frank and with then- Chairman Oxley on some serious flood insurance reform that predated the most recent disaster with Katrina. During that time, I had a chance to learn a lot about opportunities that the Federal Government has to alter its programs and policies to reduce this long-term exposure, and to think about the redesign of the partnership between the private sector, the State and local governments.

While I appreciate my friend from Mississippi's tenacity in zeroing in on an area of very serious problem dealing with wind damage, and he has documented in great detail the almost impossible situation that many of his constituents and others in the Hurricane Katrina area have faced, I am trying to keep an open mind in terms of how far we go along the lines in terms of expanding it to add wind damage.

I don't think that we have seen the end of this process. I am looking forward to working with my colleague on the legislative process as it moves along. I am deeply concerned that we haven't come to grips with the financing of our flood insurance program. We are looking at upwards of $20 billion, and we are slowly having some actuarial balance added to these programs; but, it still lags. Not only is there a problem of not having actuarial balance to be able to provide the sums that are necessary to maintain this as a self-supporting program, because as it stands now, that is going to be a stretch. It is going to take a long time without serious incident for us to get there.

I am also concerned that we need to do a better job of making sure that the Federal Government and State and local governments aren't putting more people in harm's way. In too many areas we have seen that there has been,

shall we say, reluctance on the part of local authorities and State authorities to be rigorous in making sure that we are not pouring large sums of public investment in areas where it is encouraging people to locate in places where we know there is going to be damage over time.

Last but not least, later in this debate we will be talking about working with FEMA to make some adjustments to take into account global warming, climate change and rising sea levels, because this is an area that is going to compound lax local land use controls and unsteady development processes that is going to end up creating a disaster out of our disaster relief.

I can't say enough about how much I appreciate the committee's willingness to be involved in an area that some think is esoteric, that is sort of mundane, that is sort of too detailed and unexciting. But it is precisely that sort of attention that is going to make us have a stronger program that is going to meet the needs of people and is going to do so in a way that actually helps keep people out of harm's way, which ought to be our ultimate objective.

We ought to make sure that all of these forces save money, save lives and protects the environment. I think this legislation moves in that direction. I look forward to working with the committee as this legislation works its way through the legislative process to better achieve that goal.

Mr. Chairman, I am actually encouraged by some of the common expression that is here. I share some of my friend from Georgia's reservations about where we are getting into with wind coverage. The chairman is right when he noted the focus on restrictions for flood insurance to reduce the problems you are talking about is in the underlying bill. What my good friend from Florida is offering is if you are going to be in this area dealing with wind peril that there is a requirement to discourage elements in the land uses that will not make it worse.

So you are both on the same side. You may want to go further with the wind peril. I am open to that. We are not done with this legislation yet. There are unanswered questions. I agree with you. But in the meantime, acknowledging what the committee has done to narrow the scope with flood insurance peril, which is, I think, extraordinarily positive, and the gentlewoman is speaking out for solid land use, having the natural barriers protected, that will save all of us money.

I am optimistic. If we can talk this through, there are enough elements here that will be good for the environment, good for the taxpayer, and under the leadership of Chairman Frank, I am convinced we can get there before we're done.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am, in fact, encouraged with some of the discussion that is here today. If we sort of cut through some of the areas where people are cranky, as I understand it, I think we are looking at some broad areas of agreement that, at the end of the day, we are going to have a stronger flood insurance program that will be able to answer some

of these questions. I have an amendment that I think will further strengthen this because, as we learned during Katrina, there is more work to be done to make sure that the flood insurance program is able to fulfill its mission of providing flood insurance and helping communities reduce that flood risk.

Now, I am pleased that the underlying legislation makes some very important reforms to the program that I have been involved with for the last 6 years.

What I propose in this amendment is an adjustment to the legislation to help ensure that FEMA is better prepared for current and future risks and that people have the information that they need to reduce their own risk. The amendment simply requires FEMA to take into consideration the impacts of global warming, current and future, when updating and maintaining flood insurance program rate maps.

The flood insurance maps are significantly outdated; over 75 percent of them are at least 10 years old. Not only are they outdated, but they estimate risk by extrapolating solely from historic loss, as my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) pointed out earlier.

Unfortunately, it looks like the future will bring new weather patterns. A recent report from the Intergovernmental Commission on Climate Change, the leading group of climate scientists from around the world, indicated that, with climate change, future hurricanes will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and heavier precipitation. Changes in snow pack and sea level rise will also have a significant impact on flood risk. These impacts are not currently considered in the floodplain map modernization effort.

My amendment will improve upon this mapping program by ensuring that FEMA is prepared to improve the mapping accuracy. It will require the Director to take into consideration the impacts of global warming on flood, storm and drought risk; and take into consideration the potential future impacts of local climate change, weather-related events; and use the best available climate science in assessing flood risks and updating FEMA maps.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Excellent question. Around the world, scientists are a part of this consensus, and we are refining tools. One of the problems with this administration is they've been trying to stifle, as you know, scientists within the administration speaking out on this, and we have undercut investment in these resources.

The fact is that there is better information now for climate change. I have no problem whatsoever of our being able to invest to increase it further, but there is a global scientific consensus, there is investment in NASA, there are already resources within the Federal Government. They are not currently used now by FEMA, the stuff that we've got now, let alone what we're going to have in the future.

As my friend, Mr. Baker, pointed out when he was arguing a few moments ago, they use a different pattern, a different model right now. What we're doing with this legislation is we are requiring them to change the model, use the information that's available right now by the Federal Government, hopefully the Bush administration won't try and stifle it, and use that for forecasting current and prospective. Right now they don't do it in their modeling, and there's no reason why they can't. This legislation would require it.

What we're saying now is that we are in a world that everybody else acknowledges is rapidly changing. It looks like climate change, global warming is a reality, and just using straight-line extrapolation for FEMA to determine 100-year flood plains or 500-year floodplains doesn't work because it is changing much more rapidly than past patterns would expect.

So we ought to use the best available science here and around the world to look at what's likely to happen in the future. FEMA doesn't currently do that. They look at flat-line projections of past activity, not looking at using the best available science for what's going to happen in the future.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Let me just take 30 seconds here.

This is something that isn't unknown. GAO found that 11 out of 11 insurance companies that they surveyed already incorporate this into their risk models. FEMA can do this using the private sector, and it can use government data that the Bush administration has been suppressing now in other areas, open it up, let these climate scientists that work in other parts of the government advise FEMA, or contract with the private sector. It's not hard to find the information.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I understand the reticence that my good friend from Georgia would have giving the current administration of FEMA more tools. I'm sorry he's beating up on the administration, but I understand it. They haven't shown that they're very adept. But think of this as longer-term legislation. There will be a new administration; there will be professionals who are there. The point is that, whoever is there, they need to use the most up-to-date, modern information to think about what's going on in the future.

The science is already available in parts of the Federal Government right now that could be used. The information is available that the private sector is already using. All this amendment says, notwithstanding that I share your concern about who's running it now, but that will change, I guarantee you, that when it changes, and even until it changes, we can give them a mandate to look at the bigger picture and factor climate change in. And I am open to working with the gentleman in terms of whether it's contracted, or it's Federal information, or it's from other international sources. The point is they currently do not do it; we haven't instructed them to do it. This is one thing we can't blame on the inept FEMA administration; it's something that Congress needs to change. And with your help, we can approve this amendment, we'll change their marching orders, we will have the big picture, and it's one of these things we can agree on, work on together, and we will all be better off.

I urge approval of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, floods are amongst the most frequent and costly national disasters in terms of human hardship and economic loss. In fact, 75 percent of Federal disaster declarations are related to flooding.

Before I discuss the merits of the legislation, I would like to talk briefly about the process that is being considered. We are debating a huge expansion of an already struggling existing Federal program, and yet we have not been able to have our amendments out on the floor to have an open and frank discussion about this.

I would like to accept the chairman's offer to continue to work on the amendments that were not allowed to be offered, and I hope that we can see democracy being served by letting everybody's voice be heard.

In 1968, Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP. The program is a partnership between the Federal Government and participating communities. If a community adopts and enforces a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risk to new construction, the Federal Government will make flood insurance available to that community. Today, NFIP is the largest single-line property insurer in the Nation, serving nearly 20,000 communities and providing flood insurance coverage for 5.4 million consumers.

Mr. Chairman, recent events have underscored the need to reform and modernize certain aspects of the program. While the NFIP is designed to be actuarially sound, it does not collect sufficient premiums to build up reserves for unexpected disasters. Due to the claims resulting from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the NFIP was forced to borrow $7.6 billion from the Treasury, an amount it estimates it will never be able to repay. Consequently, NFIP sits on the GAO's High-Risk Programs list, which recommends increased congressional oversight. Additionally, the 2005 storms shed light on the problem of outdated flood maps, resulting in many homeowners in the gulf region being unaware that their homes were located in floodplains.

To address these and other concerns in 2006, the House overwhelmingly passed flood insurance reform legislation. Earlier this year, Chairman Frank and Representative Judy Biggert introduced legislation identical to that bipartisan bill. That bill includes many reforms, including the phasing in of actuarial rates, but unfortunately, the flood insurance bill that the majority chose to move out of the Financial Services Committee was amended to incorporate legislation offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) which expands the NFIP to include coverage for wind events.

Mr. Chairman, no Member of this House was more personally affected by the 2005 hurricanes than Congressman Taylor. I do not, and no one questions his sincerity or his commitment to assisting those who have lost everything they owned in these storms. While I share his concern over the rising costs and outright unavailability of homeowners' wind coverage in some areas, I have three principal objections to linking wind insurance to the reform of the National Flood Insurance Program.

First, expanding the program increases liabilities for taxpayers while decreasing options for customers or consumers. Properties located along the eastern seaboard and gulf coast represent $19 trillion of insured value. Shifting the risk on even a portion of these properties to the troubled NFIP could expose taxpayers to massive losses. The fact is that insurance will choose not to engage a competitor that does not pay taxes, has subsidized borrowing costs, and is not required to build a reserve surplus and is protected from most lawsuits, State regulation and enforcement.

Second, adding wind coverage to the NFIP will exacerbate the program's well-documented administrative problems. Both the Department of Homeland Security and GAO have criticized the NFIP for being understaffed, not having adequate flood maps and not collecting sufficient information on wind payments when claims were submitted for flood damage. Expanding the portfolio further before much-needed reforms are in place is premature.

Third, no consensus yet exists about the necessity or desirability of creating a Federal wind insurance program. In testimony before our committee, representatives of flood management groups, the insurance industry, environmental organizations, Treasury and

FEMA all expressed agreement that a comprehensive study of the proposed wind insurance mandate should first be commissioned to provide Congress with a better understanding of the possible implications this expansion could have for consumers, NFIP and the market.

Mr. Chairman, we must not let the desire to meet every perceived problem with a new Government program drive us towards premature actions that yield unwanted consequences. The NFIP's mission should not be expanded, exposing taxpayers to massive new risks, until reforms are in place and adequate study has been conducted.

In addition to the above reservations, I have serious concerns with the effect the addition of wind coverage will have on communities that are now relying on NFIP. This program is already financially unstable, yet we are about to add $19 trillion of risk. Despite this fiscal instability, States like West Virginia, that I represent, will still rely on the program to provide assistance in the case of serious flooding. There have not been major problems this year, thankfully, but as recently as 2001, FEMA has declared counties in my State national disasters due to flooding and provided $17 million in assistance. These are serious needs across the Nation for the flood insurance program. We should be modernizing NFIP so it can become financially stable.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to one of the original authors of the bill that was presented initially to this Congress, the gentlewoman from Illinois, Representative Judy Biggert.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the representative from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Gilchrest from Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to close to someone who has lived and breathed this issue for many, many years, an expert in the area, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman for working with the manager's amendment with Members of our side. I appreciate his efforts as always.

I yield 2 minutes in particular to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In listening to the debate over this amendment, my question becomes, if we move forward and make wind part of one of the insurable events under this program, and then we study, through the gentlelady's amendment, the effect this has on State insurance, and we find out, after it's already been put into effect, that it's too costly or it's damaging the insurability at the State level and other issues, what are we going to do then?

This is where it goes to my argument in the beginning that we're really entering into this prematurely, because we have so many unanswered questions.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I would like to ask the author of this amendment a couple of questions just for my own clarification, if I could.

First of all, when you're directing FEMA to use the most up-to-date science on global climate change and weather-related issues, does FEMA currently have this technology available? Where does this technology exist for FEMA? And with what type of accuracy can you predict that FEMA will be able to predict? I know FEMA is in the business of declaring where floodplains are; it has a lot of science connected with this. Where is this technology coming from? What sophistication of the equipment exists, and how do you think these will be arrived at?

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Well, my question would be, if that's available to FEMA now to be able to more accurately predict the ebb and flow of water across the United States and the coastal regions, why isn't that being used by FEMA right now, if that's available? Is it statutorial?

Then going further from what you're saying, is what you're really saying changing the entire FEMA modeling perspective, or putting this on top of what is already existing at FEMA?

Thank you. I have a lot of questions about the answer to the question I just asked; but at this point, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

I think the gentleman's amendment has great merit, but I question the fact that he's already

mentioned that the data that we're using in the future, the data that we're using to come about insurance rates in this flood bill, how can we then add on wind as another peril when we're not sure that the data that we're using to predict future weather forces is accurate at all?

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim time in opposition to the amendment, but I am not necessarily opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).