To require Amtrak to discontinue passenger rail service on certain long distance routes that operate at a loss.

I thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee for yielding me this time, my friend, Ms. Slaughter.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this will be the 34th time I have handled a rule on the House floor, and this will be the 34th time I have yet to handle one open rule this session of Congress. In fact, over the 130-plus rules this Congress, we have not yet debated an open rule. I guess I could add the word yet, but I would presume that moving forward during this session of Congress I don't think we expect to. What a shame, Madam Speaker.

I don't believe that closing debate or limiting amendments or shutting down Members of Congress who are elected by their colleagues and peers back home to come and represent them, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, makes a lot of sense. As a matter of fact, I think it's wrong. Yet today here we are again with my handling of the 34th time this session a closed rule.

I would once again question this agenda. I would question the agenda of the majority party, the Democratic Party, that we already know is about taxing, spending, and more rules and regulations, and more debt to this great Nation. But I think that it's important to look at how bad process delivers a bad outcome. And today that's exactly what we're looking at again, another flawed process to bring something to this floor that should be treated more respectfully than the topic that it is.

But I am going to use my time also to talk about some Republican ideas. One thing I have the opportunity today, Madam Speaker, is to call for a vote on the previous question to allow for this week's YouCut winner. We've over the weeks heard about YouCut.

YouCut is a Republican idea that's an online idea. It's a voting tool, a tool where people who are back home have an opportunity to pick what they consider to be wasteful government spending, something which this Congress is incapable of doing because the agenda does not allow for making wiser choices or even feedback from our colleagues about how we would cut and make this government more efficient. Over a million Americans have voted this week alone.

This week's YouCut winner is the elimination of subsidies to first- class seats on Amtrak's long-distance routes. This initiative would yield $1.2 billion in savings over 10 years. And these people who have voted are hardworking Americans who are paying attention to what we're doing here in Washington. They don't want to have their tax dollars subsidize first-class travel on Amtrak.

I have long advocated for reforming Amtrak, especially the long- distance routes. These routes lose money year after year after year. They continue to receive money from the Federal Government, and Amtrak has no incentive to improve their operations as long as Uncle, that's Uncle Sam, is willing to pay.

This Congress I have introduced H.R. 5377, a bill that would require Amtrak to eliminate service on long-distance routes whose total direct costs are more than twice the revenue. That is, where the costs are more than twice the revenue that comes in, the Federal Government should not be paying for that. The taxpayers should no longer be footing the bill for Amtrak's inefficiencies. And today you're going to have a chance to hear from the Republicans about how we think we ought to streamline this government and provide savings to the taxpayer.

Additionally, we're here today to discuss H.R. 1264, which would expand the National Flood Insurance Program, known as NFIP, to include wind storm insurance coverage. But once again today, based upon the agenda that this Democratic majority has, it would create a massive new government program to offer government-paid coverage backed with taxpayer dollars. And while this legislation may be well-intended, I have no doubt that it would have a crushing impact on a very fragile U.S. job market that would add billions to the Federal deficit. That's why we're talking about YouCut today.

We're talking about YouCut today because the bill we're getting ready to pass here in just a few minutes is not even paid for. And our friends in the majority keep talking about, oh, we pay for things. We make the tough decisions. Well, another day in Washington where another tough decision is not being made by the leadership of this House, and the agenda of taxing and spending and more debt and long-term destruction of the free enterprise system is exactly what's on the floor of the House today with this bill.

Transferring these liabilities from the private sector to the NFIP would be fiscally irresponsible. The NFIP currently owes the U.S. Treasury over $18 billion--yet we're going to give them some more, we're going to empower them some more--the amount that it's been forced to borrow from the American taxpayers to pay claims and expenses in excess of the premiums collected.

Since 2006, the Government Accountability Office has included the NFIP on its list of high-risk government programs in need of comprehensive reform. And here today we're empowering a program that's on the high-risk series and encouraging them to do more business, taking business from the free enterprise system.

Additionally, the Property and Casualty Insurance Association of America, known as PCI, estimates that the legislation will eliminate 41,775 private-sector jobs so that Uncle Sam and the government can add jobs.

Madam Speaker, that is the hallmark of this Democrat majority. It is to empower the government against the free enterprise system. We saw this in May numbers, when the May numbers came out, 431,000 net new jobs. And our friends in the Democrats come down every day and say, Look at us, look at all these jobs we're creating. Yeah, 431,000 jobs in May, but of that figure 400,000 were government jobs. They were census jobs, they were temporary

jobs, and you're trying to fool this country. In Texas, if we were in the Texas legislature, that would be deceptive advertising. It should be deceptive advertising in Washington and be against the law.

With an unemployment rate at 9.5 percent and a loss of over 3 million jobs since January of 2009, now is not the time to be diminishing more. That's 41,775 jobs is the estimate. By increasing the taxpayers' exposure also, this program is $22.1 billion in premiums that could be taken out of our economy. But it doesn't stop there. More than $20 billion of investment in mutual, municipal, State, and local bonds will completely dry up. A line of business that the free enterprise system handled that the government did not need to. And government at all levels, State, Federal, and local, will lose billions in tax revenue from the free enterprise system.

During the last Congress, the Senate rejected this proposal by a vote of 74 to 19. Even the administration, shockingly, even the administration voiced opposition to adding wind to the NFIP, citing concerns that it would threaten the long-term viability of the program. Exactly right. It's called bankruptcy. Never forget the taxpayer is there, so it probably won't go bankrupt.

With the current Federal crisis, the financial crisis, and the government crisis, and record unemployment, why would the majority party be pushing for legislation to make unemployment worse? Or would this simply be to help the U.S. Treasury? I don't know. But either way it's government jobs. And I guess we should be careful and not complain too much, because I guess Uncle Sam needs the help.

Madam Speaker, the voices of the American public have been clear. Americans want pro-growth solutions that will encourage job creation and investment and that would keep Americans competitive with the world. Instead, today we find 41,000 more jobs that will dry up in the free enterprise system, jobs back home.

This legislation further diminishes not only these jobs but adds billions of dollars to our national debt. That is the hallmark of this administration and this Congress: more taxing, more spending, more taking of jobs from the free enterprise system to the government, and perhaps worst of all, a debt we may never, ever pay for.

When my friends on the other side of the aisle start to promote positive solutions instead of federalizing more sectors of our free enterprise system, they can count on receiving our support. I can't do it today. Today's another vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Richmond, Virginia, the minority whip, the favorite son from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Clarendon, Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) makes a great point, and we can today on the floor of this House of Representatives add to this bill with its own merits by saying let's also, as we're adding billions of dollars, at least simplify government and cut a billion off of what it does. It makes sense to me, and I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) for his great YouCut suggestion.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wheaton, Illinois, Pete Roskam.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentlewoman if she has any further speakers.

I wanted to ask the gentlewoman if she had additional speakers. I received a good answer. Thank you very much. I appreciate the gentlewoman.

I have about 45 or 50 more speakers, and I will consume my time.

I have a number of speakers. We did not receive enough time in this rule to be able to provide enough time for our speakers. It's a very important topic for us, and I understand that you don't have any speakers, but we've got a bunch. So, yes, ma'am, I do intend to use my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Madam Speaker, you know, it sounds like the gentlewoman from West Virginia gave us a good way to think of things, and that is, too much of a good thing may not be good.

What this rail service is about, Amtrak, I believe, is a pretty good idea, but too much of a good thing, where you can't properly manage it or pay for it, where it gets larger than what the mission statement is, is a bad problem. And, you know, Madam Speaker, the Republicans are on the floor of the House today and we're called to Washington every week and we can handle that, but day after day after day after day after day after day after day we handle small ideas and little issues.

Today, we're handling an issue that the gentleman from Mississippi deeply believes in and, in fact, he will have an opportunity not only to have his ideas on the floor but he will get a vote on those ideas. Republicans have now, in our fourth year, been saying to this Speaker and this majority leader and this Democratic majority that we believe that this body is entitled to have an agenda that the majority wants.

But we believe it should be balanced. We believe it should include some tough decision-making, not just more spending, not just pet projects, but, rather, things which will empower people back home to have confidence in what we are doing here in Washington. And Republicans have, once again today, through YouCut, through the leadership of our minority whip, Eric Cantor, presented ideas on this floor and every single Member will have an opportunity to vote on that.

Republicans believe that we should have to make tough decisions. Republicans believe that you ought to come and read the bill. Republicans believe that that Rules Committee that's up there, if you say your agenda is going to be open and honest, that you ought to mean it. Republicans believe that there ought to be an opportunity for Members to come and have their ideas heard.

We are taking seriously what we think is a duty and an obligation to come and talk about how we can make our jobs that we do more serious by streamlining, providing feedback to Federal money that's being spent. It's an incredible amount of money that not only is being spent out of this town but way too little, if any, is about reforming and making the government more efficient. We think that that's what we should be about.

We think that we should be about providing ideas, giving money to this government, but with the expectation of performance that would allow streamlining and efficiencies and not giving away services at less than what their real cost is.

I reserve the balance of my time.

By the way, the gentleman from Mississippi is a very dear friend of mine with whom I engage on a regular basis. I just want the gentleman to know that while I know that under Speaker Pelosi we don't have any process with appropriations to strike or amend any appropriations bills, for 12 years I brought an Amtrak cut bill to this floor. So I will be providing that information, and I look forward to the gentleman joining me as soon as we get a Republican majority that will allow that to take place on the floor of this House, an open process.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York for not only this time but getting through this thing.

Madam Speaker, as you can see, Republicans, and at least one Democrat, have a lot to talk about. I wish we had more time today. Republicans would have liked a lot more time to make sure that we could talk about not only this bill, but the implications that are on the floor.

Republicans continue to offer, Madam Speaker, commonsense solutions to rein in the current spending spree, a spending spree that's now in its fourth year by this Democrat majority. We, like the American people, would like transparency and accountability and common sense, creation of jobs, not the extension of unemployment benefits that are not paid for.

We believe in people having jobs, and if this majority were serious and if this administration were serious, they would do the things that work rather than the things that don't work. They are doing things that don't work, Madam Speaker, and that is what this Democrat majority will be held accountable for. It's really a sad thing to hear person after person who has lost his job, and people whom I know, and to see the malaise this country is in.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

The legislation before us today brings more uncertainty to the long-term solvency of the NFIP. This legislation risks more American jobs and adds more to our State, local, and Federal deficits. It is true, as the gentleman spoke of, that States take this on. It is a State's responsibility, not the Federal Government's, but that is part of what this agenda is all about. For this reason, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Madam Speaker, if I was a shill for the insurance industry, and apparently we have our share on the floor today, I would do everything but talk about what the insurance industry did to south Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina. I would forget, if I was a member of the Rules Committee, the 12 years that they controlled the floor of the House of Representatives, the 12 years that they could have cut the Amtrak subsidy had they wanted to, but they didn't.

So let's get back to what we are going to talk about today. And, again, I thank the leadership for bringing this to the floor.

If you had visited south Mississippi in August of late 2005, gone to a little town called Bay St. Louis, you could have driven down the street and seen this house. It belonged to some folks named Corky and Molly Hadden. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit south Mississippi. So the Haddens left this because their Nation warned them that a bad storm was coming, and came home to this.

Corky is a financial manager; he is a smart guy. He had lot of insurance, he thought. As a matter of fact, Corky had $650,000 worth of insurance on that house. The problem was under the rules of the National Flood Insurance Program that Mr. Sessions agrees needs changing, and I am trying to change today, we paid the private sector, State Farm, All State, Nationwide, we pay them to sell the policy; they get a premium. We pay them to adjust the claim.

The problem is no one bothered to think that wait a minute, we are letting that claims adjuster decide he is playing God. He can say the wind did it, which means his company has to pay, State Farm, Nationwide or All State; or he can say the water did it, which means the taxpayers have to pay.

You are right, Mr. Sessions, we should not have paid that $18 billion. The reason we paid that $18 billion is a bad set of rules that allowed companies like State Farm, All State, Nationwide to stick the taxpayers with their bills. So 18 months after this event, Mr. Hadden, who had $650,000 worth of insurance on that nice house, was paid nothing by his insurer, State Farm Insurance Company.

Again, if you are a defender of the insurance industry, if they are helping you with your campaigns, you sure as heck don't want to talk about that, do you?

The next house, if you had gone a little bit further down the same street, you would have seen one of the oldest houses in Bay St. Louis, built around 1800. So from 1800 to 2005, no telling how many hurricanes it survived. It belonged to the Benvenutti family, a pretty old house.

This is what it looked like when they left because their Nation told them to get the heck out of there, there is a bad storm coming. Let's see what they came home to. This is what they came home to.

You know, for most people, including Mississippians, your house is your biggest investment. It is, to a large extent, an extension of yourself. So the Benvenuttis, realizing that that house meant a lot to them, had a lot of insurance, or so they thought, $586,000. When they filed their claim, for almost 24 months they were paid nothing on their wind insurance.

Now why is this significant? Well, NOAA, the Navy Oceanographic Lab and others went back and looked at the events that were called Hurricane Katrina, and NOAA tells us that for 4 hours before the storm surge arrived in south Mississippi, that house, the house before it, was subjected to hurricane-force winds for 4 hours before the water ever got there. Yet the insurance

companies wanted to turn around and blame everything on the water. Why? Because they could stick the taxpayers with the bill.

The next house is a more typical home, more modest home. This one is about a mile inland, about a mile inland, pretty good ways from the water. Beautiful home. This is what the folks who lived there, when they left, looked at last.

This is what they came home to.

It's not just three houses; it's not 30 houses. It was 30,000 houses that this happened to. So, again, these folks, knowing this was a big part of their lives, had $249,000 worth of insurance. Their insurance company was slightly more generous than the previous two times and offered them $10,000.

Now, Mr. Sessions points out that, incorrectly, that maybe government shouldn't be doing this. Well, maybe he doesn't talk to his folks in his State capital often enough because if he had he would know that his State is already doing this.

In the aftermath of Katrina, on a State-by-State basis, the insurance industry pulled out, left a vacuum. People had to have some form of wind insurance; and so on a State-by-State basis, the State picked up that obligation.

In the gentleman's State of Texas, the Texas wind pool in 2004 had an exposure of $20.8 billion. That has expanded to $58.6 billion. That's not private sector that's going to pay that bill; that's the Texas wind pool. They are on the hook for that.

In my home State of Mississippi, it has gone from $1.6 billion to $6.3 billion. I can't speak for every State, but I can tell you that pretty well equals the Mississippi State budget. If there was a catastrophic storm in Mississippi that hit all three coastal counties on one day--and, by the way, that's happened three times in my lifetime--it would break the State of Mississippi.

Now, at some point they are going to come up and say, well, they have got reinsurance, okay. Almost all the reinsurance is out of the Bahamas and the Caymans. So let me ask you a simple question: If the Benvenuttis couldn't get a company out of Illinois to pay their claim, if the Haddens couldn't get a company out of Illinois to pay their claim, if the other family couldn't get a company out of Illinois to pay their claim, does anyone really think a company from the Bahamas is going to willingly write these checks? Who is kidding whom?

On a State-by-State basis, Florida has gone from $2.2 billion to $436 billion; South Carolina, $6 billion to $17 billion; Georgia, the gentleman from Georgia's State, $565 million to $2.1 billion, a 265 percent increase, not private sector, State liability.

So why do we want to do this? Because, quite honestly, the purpose of insurance, to people who pay their premium, to live the way they are supposed to, but they want the certainty that if something bad happens to them, they are going to get paid.

Secondly, why should the Nation do it? Because, quite frankly, it would break any one of these States. The chances of every coastal county in Mississippi getting hit all in the same day has happened three times in my lifetime. In 2004, Florida had four catastrophic storms, hit almost every square inch of the State. But the chances of the same storm hitting every State on the same day is minuscule. And if it does happen, don't worry about paying claims, it's just going to be called Armageddon.

So what we are proposing is a program that, instead of letting the private sector collect the premiums and the Nation pay the bill, would allow people to, as an extension, as an option to their flood insurance, pay for a wind option. That way if they come home to nothing, if they come home to a substantially destroyed house, it doesn't matter if the wind did it, it doesn't matter if the water did it; the fact is they built their house the way they were supposed to, they built it in a place that was safe, they paid their premiums, and they are going to get paid.

The last point of course the insurance industry doesn't want to tell you, so I will. In the same year the National Flood Insurance Program lost $18 billion they made $48 billion in profits. Why? Pretty simple. They collected the premiums; you, the taxpayer, paid the bill. You paid the bill for the FEMA trailers because, again, a typical insurance policy says if your house is destroyed, if your house is damaged to where you can't live in it, they will pay to put you up. But when they denied these claims in full, as they did thousands of times, then someone had to do something. President Bush, to his credit, stepped forward and said we're going to make FEMA trailers available. That cost the taxpayers $4.3 billion; $7.2 billion for temporary housing; CDBG grants totaling $15.4 billion. And what was one of the prerequisites to get a CDBG grant? You had to have insurance and you didn't get paid. So who paid that bill? Uncle Sam, you, the taxpayers paid that bill. Lastly, SBA disaster loan, $7.6 billion. So for a total bill of $34.5 billion. It wasn't $18 billion the Nation lost that year, it was over $50 billion. We are trying to change that. We are trying to come up with a program where the premiums pay for the program.

So, again, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this to the floor.

I would remind my Republican colleagues that in the 12 years that they ran the House, I don't ever recall a vote on cutting the subsidy for Amtrak. I would have voted with you, but I just don't remember your bringing it up.

So let's talk about this problem this day. I would remind my Republican colleagues that on a regular basis they come to the floor and say, you know what? We shouldn't be doing all these things that don't make sense, all these things that don't contribute to each other. Amtrak is not an insurance problem. This is an insurance program. It is a single-shot bill to do one thing, and that's to let those people who want to buy wind insurance as an option to their flood insurance so that they will know that if they paid their premiums, they built their house the way they were supposed to, if something horrible happens they will get paid.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1549 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). And all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1549.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1549 provides for consideration of H.R. 1264, the Multiple Peril Insurance Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, there is not a person in the Chamber today who can forget the terrible destruction left in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina 5 short years ago. Lives were lost, homes were destroyed, businesses closed. Schools and hospitals were underwater. Our Nation has never been the same.

The damage that Katrina inflicted on New Orleans and across the Gulf States left thousands of people homeless. There were refugees spread across more than a dozen States. I think I speak for all of us when I say the storm left an indelible mark on our collective psyche.

Although the storm and accompanying flood exposed many troubling failings, one of the most alarming was the fact that so many people who believed that they had adequate insurance, in fact, were not covered for Katrina's destruction.

Why? Because insurance companies engaged in a maddening shell game with homeowners about their coverage. Damage that seemed obviously caused by water would be attributed to wind, while wind damage was chalked up to flooding. The stalemate left far too many people with no claim.

The apparent loophole in coverage made it very difficult for many families to rebuild in the months and years after the storm. The same problem has cropped up after other hurricanes or large storms have struck over the years.

In the aftermath of Katrina, Congress worked collaboratively on legislation to address the coverage gap; and 3 years ago, legislation to do just that was approved by the House. However, the plan was unable to win passage in the Senate, so we are here again to try.

Despite the challenges, it is our contention that taxpayers will actually end up saving significant amounts of money if this type of coverage is made available to Americans.

In the aftermath of Katrina, the Federal Government spent more than $34 billion on rental assistance, on vouchers, trailers, grants to homeowners and Small Business Administration disaster loans to homeowners.

Had there been a public option available to allow property owners to purchase insurance that provided seamless coverage of hurricane losses, some of that cost might have been avoided. With this bill we accomplish that goal.

The bill creates a new program within the National Flood Insurance Program to purchase both flood and wind storm insurance under one multi-peril policy, or to purchase wind storm coverage to supplement their already existing flood insurance.

It is a bipartisan bill and has been endorsed by the National Association of Home Builders, and the National Association of Realtors. The bill is also PAYGO compliant, since the program is required to pay for itself.

The most important thing to remember about this legislation is it simply gives Americans the option of buying coverage of getting some peace of mind.

The issue is far too important for us to wait around for the next round of storms like Katrina or Ike or Gustav to roar ashore and leave far too many families with nothing. This bill is a simple and effective way to permit people to purchase insurance so the next storm does not leave them high and dry.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

We don't have hurricanes in Rochester, New York--for which we are extremely grateful. But all of us were affected by Katrina. All of us saw what happened to the city that we all loved. New Orleans belongs to every American. All of us have friends here in the House and some in the Senate who lost everything they had. These were people who had insurance on their homes. They thought they were covered. But because the fact the insurance companies said no, they would come to your house, which may have been completely overwhelmed with water, and say that was wind damage; we don't cover that. With the whipsawing back and forth, so many people lost everything they had.

As I said in my opening statement, the government paid $34 billion to try to house and maintain people until we could find a permanent solution. If by passing this bill we can avoid that kind of expenditure again, I would call that money well spent. This program is self- sufficient, it is paid for by the premiums.

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

At this moment, I do not.

May I inquire of the gentleman if he's ready to close?

May I inquire if the gentleman is ready to close?

Thirty-five or 50?

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, the sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Taylor.

I yield the gentleman an additional 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman 3 additional minutes.

I reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Texas closes.

Madam Speaker, I want to remind those persons listening, particularly Members of Congress who are going to come to the floor to vote, that we are not voting on Amtrak cars. We are talking about legislation to try to protect those Americans who are victims of hurricanes and other related natural disasters from losing everything the way the gulf coast victims of Katrina have. The bill will help ensure that the insurance loopholes will be closed and that hardworking Americans won't be denied legitimate claims when they desperately need them.

I call for a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy in permitting me to speak on the rule.

I will support the rule, but I rise in reluctant opposition to the legislation.

I sympathize with my good friend from Mississippi and admire his passion and commitment to this issue and his tireless effort to try and help his constituents who have been put in a horrible situation in the aftermath of Katrina. But I do think this bill is a classic example of how our empathy interacts with a system that doesn't work to cloud our judgment and leads us to consider action that would actually make things worse over the long haul.

As Mr. Taylor has forcefully argued, Katrina exposed many problems with the National Flood Insurance Program. The confusion about wind and flood damage and the difficulty that his constituents had in getting insurance companies to cover their losses after Katrina is unacceptable. That was why I was pleased to support his amendment to the Flood Insurance Reform Act on the floor last week that would prohibit the write-your-own insurance companies from excluding wind damage under their own policy solely because flooding also caused damage to the property. I think that will go far in preventing insurance companies from taking advantage of consumers or the Federal taxpayers.

But extending the flood insurance program to cover wind hazards is like slapping a Band-Aid on a broken bone and then putting the patient on a skateboard while the bones are still mending.

I strongly support the goals of the flood insurance program and know that it has played an important role in insuring many American communities while encouraging mitigation and reducing risks. But with each additional disaster, it becomes clearer and clearer that the program is broken.

Right now, as my good friend from Texas pointed out, it's $19 billion in debt. Adding for wind coverage, even if it's supposed to be actuarially sound, will only make this worse.

Now, it is very likely to result in significant short-term losses for the flood insurance program. Even though CBO has given the bill a neutral score, that's based on a highly questionable assumption that FEMA will charge actuarial rates that fully cover wind losses despite a 40-year history of failing to do so for flood losses. FEMA doesn't have the ability to calculate what actuarial rates for wind coverage should be, much less enforce them.

As Robert Hunter, who ran the program in the 1970s, has said, Poor management at FEMA--You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie--and lax enforcement of building requirements by local government has meant that the program hasn't worked the way it was supposed to. Some have even argued that it actually even encourages development in hazardous areas.

Let me speak for a moment about the building code requirements under this legislation. The NFIB already subsidizes unwise construction in floodplains, and this would make it worse. While the bill requires the adoption of building codes to mitigate against wind losses, this is not strong enough. It doesn't address development in hazardous areas itself, and by increasing the availability of Federally backed insurance in hazardous areas, this bill will give people a false sense of security and provide incentives for development in those various areas. And there is a serious gap in the actual enforcement of those building codes.

The current problems with the flood insurance programs must be addressed before we can even think of expanding it to cover yet more hazards.

The experts on flood insurance agree. The administration sent up a statement of administration policy against the bill yesterday. The bill is opposed by FEMA, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the insurance and reinsurance industry, the environmental community, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, and the Consumer Federation of America. They argue that it would expand a broken program, further encourage development in hazardous areas by giving people a false sense of security, have the Federal Government unfairly compete in the private insurance market, and put the American taxpayer further at risk.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

While I oppose the rule and the bill, I want to say with great emphasis what a fiscal conservative my friend from Mississippi is, and how I know that he is struggling to find a solution to something that I would agree is a problem.

Now, I live in Savannah. I have a house on the waterfront, and I also have a beach house, so I have to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and in the State windstorm pool. And Mr. Taylor is right, if you've ever dealt with them, it is a pain in the neck. The bureaucracy is horrible, getting the claims paid is a really big problem. The debate as to what is flood and what is wind and what is wind-driven water is very complicated. And the insurance companies will get no sympathy from me on this situation.

The problem is that here we are again under the Pelosi Congress with a closed rule in which none of us can offer an amendment. I mean, think about that. We're all elected, 435 Members representing 600,000 people, and yet we're not allowed to offer an amendment because the Rules Committee has to play favorites. And unless you're on the A list, you can't offer an amendment, even though you

still represent 600,000 people like everyone else here. So we can't improve this.

A couple of suggestions I would have said is, why not give the State insurance commissioners--since, as my friend knows, insurance is a State matter, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Public Law 15, says that States will regulate insurance. And why not make sure the insurance commissioners have the authority to say to an insurance company, if you want to sell insurance in my State, then you're going to have to take a percentage of the flood or the windstorm exposure? Give him the power to twist their arms. Because I can tell you, having been in the insurance system--I'm a CPCU, that's a Chartered Property Casualty Underwriter--that insurance companies will cede anything, anything that's difficult they will be glad to let the State government or the Federal Government take all the flood claims, take the crime claims, take the DUI drivers. They want the unprofitable stuff off their books because they make money two different ways, one is an underwriting profit, the other one is an investment profit.

Now, ironically, right now we're in a soft market. Insurance premiums on the commercial side are actually going down because insurance companies, for some unknown reason, are making their money elsewhere. So I think what Mr. Taylor is saying is right, there are some things that are going on, and an insurance commissioner should be able to get to the bottom of it. But again, since we can't amend this to try to put language like that in there, we need to bring this rule down to send the bill back to committee.

Now, I want to say we almost got through today without a new Federal program--I thought it might happen. This is a new Federal program. We did pass $34 billion onto the next generation in increased debt--which I know some people were clapping about, I don't exactly follow that. We have a $1.4 trillion deficit, the largest debt in the history of the Nation, 90 percent of our GDP, and yet we have Members on the Democrat side clapping about $34 billion in new debt.

Now, put this in context. May of 2008, a Bush stimulus bill--which I voted against--$168 billion; it did not create jobs. Bear Stearns bailout by the Federal Reserve in March of 2008, $29 billion. Fannie Mae bailout, $200 billion in July of 2008. September of 2008, AIG bailout--again by the Federal Reserve--$85 billion, now up to $140 billion. And then we had the infamous TARP, $700 billion. I voted ``no'' on that. Then here comes the stimulus bill to keep unemployment from going to 8 percent. Unemployment at the time was 7.6 percent, and $800 billion later we're at 10 percent unemployment. We are right now borrowing 37 cents on every dollar we spend. I hope you will vote the rule down.