Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Taylor

Amendment No. 30: At the end of title IV of the bill,

before the short title, insert the following:

Sec. 408. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to implement section 2703 of Public Law 109-234.

Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking all the men and women who work for the House of Representatives. I know that they are anxious to get out of town and begin their 4th of July holiday. But when we come back in July, it will be what I have considered over the course of my life the beginning of hurricane season, and we still have some unfinished business from Hurricane Katrina that affected my district and could potentially affect over half of all Americans, and that is the reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program.

If Congress does not act by September, this program that is of vital importance to people in the Midwest from flooding, the people on the Gulf Coast because of hurricanes, the people in New England because of storms, this program is important to everyone, it may not get reauthorized, and I think it would put a lot of Americans in jeopardy. Therefore, I think it is important that we not only reauthorize it, but fix some of the problems that we have discovered in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

I want to begin with some homes from my hometown. This is one that belonged to Mr. and Mrs. John Hadden in Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi. If you take a look at it, it started about 10 feet off the ground. It had hurricane shutters. It had a low profile roof. It was built to be a hurricane-proof house. It was insured for about $650,000. This is what it looked like the day before Hurricane Katrina. This is what the family came home to when they could get back to Bay Saint Louis.

I mentioned that they had $650,000 worth of insurance with their insurance company, State Farm. Almost 2 years to the day of that, they still had not been paid by State Farm Insurance Company. Corky is a financial planner. He thought he had done everything he should do. What he didn't realize is that he was dealing with a company that instead of saying ``we are your good neighbor,'' went out of its way not to pay him.

This is another home, a much more traditional, older home. In fact, it was one of the oldest homes in my hometown of Bay Saint Louis. It belonged to Jody and Betty Benvenuti. They had it insured for $586,000.

Jody is in the insurance business. He understood the importance of it. He paid his premiums on time. He insured his home for what he thought it would cost to rebuild it. This is what it looked like when he evacuated, as he was ordered to by his Nation, the day before the storm. This is what he came home to. Within a couple of weeks, his good neighbor, the State Farm agent, informed him that he saw no evidence of wind damage, and therefore, he was going to get paid nothing on his homeowner's policy.

Another home in South Mississippi, more of a typical South Mississippi home, belonged to Mr. and Mrs. Pat Street. $250,000 worth of insurance. Prior to the storm, prior to all of the inflation that has taken place since then, that probably would have been a very good amount to be insured for. It certainly should have covered the cost of replacing it should something bad have happened. Again, they were ordered to evacuate. So this is what their home looked like as they were leaving before the storm. That's what they came home to. Again, they were told by the insurance company we see no evidence of wind damage. Notice the tree is knocked over to different angles. So, therefore, we're not going to pay you the $250,000. We're going to pay you $9,000 on this policy.

Madam Speaker, in South Mississippi, we asked the United States Navy to model what happened that day on August the 29th of 2005. What the Navy told us, I found, as a life-long resident of the gulf coast, to be pretty interesting. It's that we've always thought of maximum wind and maximum water occurring at the same time, but in the case of Hurricane Katrina, as you can see, category 2 and 3 force winds, which is up to 140 miles an hour, actually occurred several hours before the water showed up. When I asked the Navy to explain that to me, they said it's pretty simple. You can push air a lot faster than you can push water. The storm was moving ahead of the water.

So, basically, what it translates to is that homes like I just showed you were subjected to anywhere from 2-to-4-hours' worth of hurricane- force winds before the water ever showed up. As a matter of fact, it's not just that area that we're talking about, but as to the entire State of Mississippi, the insurance companies actually paid claims on wind damage all the way from down here on the Mississippi gulf coast all the way up to Memphis, Tennessee. They paid claims in every county in the State of Mississippi.

What was particularly interesting and what should be particularly interesting to the 53 percent of all Americans who live in coastal America is that the claims they chose not to pay were right down here where the winds were the strongest. They somehow would tell people that no, no, no. Your damage was not the result of wind. It was the result of water.

This is in fairness to them. These are the areas in South Mississippi that were affected by both wind and water. This is where the flood went. For those of you familiar with that area, this is I-1 to I-10. It was designed to be a hurricane-proof road, and by and large, the designers did a very good job. They came close to doing that, but there were some areas north of I-10 that flooded.

Our Nation has a plan to help people protect themselves in the event of a hurricane. Most prudent people whom I know, based on the fact that we have had other hurricanes in my lifetime--Hurricane Betsy and Hurricane Camille--don't know whether it's going

to be the wind. They don't know whether it's going to be the water. So a prudent homeowner buys a homeowner's policy. It's supposed to protect you in case of wind damage. If you buy a flood policy, it's supposed to protect you in case of flood.

So the way the claims process should have worked is our Nation should have hired the insurance industry to go out and adjust a claim. If the wind did it, it should have, therefore, been covered under the homeowner's policy. The company would then pay out of its pocket those people who suffered wind damage. If the water did it, then folks who would be covered by the National Flood Insurance Program would have the Nation that would back that program. The Nation would pay the insurance industry to sell the policy. The Nation would pay the insurance industry to go out and adjust the claim. That way, we wouldn't have to have a lot of Federal employees who would be doing all of these things.

Up until Hurricane Katrina, the program worked pretty well. With Hurricane Katrina, though, we saw a very different set of circumstances because what should have happened didn't happen. That insurance company that we were counting on to go out and adjust the claim and to make a fair, proper adjustment of the claim, in many instances, looked after its own best interest against the interest of the homeowner and, by the way, against the interest of the American taxpayer.

Now, why is that?

The law calls on the insurance companies to do a proper adjustment of the claim, and we give them total discretion as to who is going to adjust that claim. Think about it. I can't think of anyone else in America who can send a bill to the United States of America for $250,000 for the cost of that claim, another $100,000 for the cost of the contents, and no one second-guesses it, and no one looks over his shoulder and sees if it's a proper claim. In this instance, it was the case. So some insurers interpreted the law to allow them to blame everything on the water.

What does that mean?

It means that, for starters, a typical homeowner's policy says that, if your--the homeowner's--house gets hit by a meteor tonight or if your house catches on fire tonight or if a trucker loses control of his vehicle and, unfortunately, plows into your living room and your house is uninhabitable, a typical homeowner's policy will not only pay to get your house fixed; it will pay to put you up for up to 24 months until your house can be repaired. But when the insurance company walks onto your property and says, ``We see no evidence of wind damage. We're not going to pay your homeowner's policy,'' then they escape those things. They don't fix your house, and they don't pay the cost of putting you up.

Again, the law calls on them to call for the proper adjustment of a claim, but what had happened in the case of Katrina and what I fear could happen to you if you live in coastal America is that the policy is that the companies do what they did in South Mississippi, which is, within days of the storm, they send their adjusters notices that say, when you see wind and water both occur, blame it all on the water.

What that means is, as I've told you, that there were 4 hours of hurricane-force winds at homes like the Benvenutis' and the Haddens' and at others. They had substantial damage because of the wind, but the insurance company took the policy that if there was one 2-by-4 left standing after 4 hours of hurricane-force winds and then a wave came along and knocked down that last 2-by-4 that they had escaped all liability for what the wind did and that the taxpayer would pay all of the cost of getting this fixed, that they would escape all liability of rebuilding that home, all liability of putting that family up until their house could be repaired. The taxpayer was going to foot the bill. Well, flood insurance doesn't cover cost of living expenses. So, right off the bat, that cost was borne by the taxpayer.

How do they get away with this?

Well, buried in a typical 25-page contract, that was the norm for State Farm Insurance Company. On Page 10 of a 25-page contract, buried in there despite a contract with America that calls for a fair adjustment of the claim, they told folks we do not insure any coverage for any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events:

We do not insure for such loss regardless of: A, cause of excluded event, B, other causes of the law, C, whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss or, D, whether the event occurs suddenly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces or occurs as a result of any combination of these.

If you are confused, don't feel alone. A Federal judge, Judge Lou Guirola in South Mississippi, ended up suing his insurance company because they told him he couldn't read his policy. The former president of the United States Senate, Trent Lott, also an attorney, was told ``We're sorry, Senator. You can't read your policy,'' which leads to the question:

If a U.S. Senator and a Federal judge can't read their policies, what chance do you have? What chance does a high school football coach, a corrugated box salesman or a housewife have if those guys are told ``you can't read your policy''?

That goes back to the conflict between the law that says you can do a fair adjustment of the claim and a company that says, if both things happen, we're not going to pay.

I'm quoting from the National Flood Insurance Program regulations, section 44 CFR. ``The primary relationship between the `write your own company'' that's your insurer--``and the Federal Government will be of a fiduciary nature; i.e., to ensure that any taxpayer funds are accounted for and are appropriately expended.

``The entire responsibility for providing a proper adjustment for both combined wind and water claims and flood-alone claims is the responsibility of the `write your own.' ''

In effect, our Nation said we're trusting you, State Farm. We're trusting you, Nationwide. We're trusting you, Allstate, to do a fair adjustment. If the water did it, Nation pays. If the wind did it, you pay.

So how did the insurance industry respond to being given this huge leeway?

Within days of the storm, within about 13 days to be exact, State Farm was writing their adjusters and was saying, where wind acts concurrently with flooding to cause damage to insured property, coverage for the loss exists only under flood coverage. What does that translate to? The homeowner gets screwed out of his policy, and you, the taxpayers, get stuck with the bill.

This is an internal e-mail from an engineering firm, one of the ones that was hired by State Farm to go out and adjust these claims. It had been fired by State Farm for actually doing what the law said to do, which was to say this much wind damage, this much water damage, but now they have reached an agreement with State Farm, saying, ``Okay. We'll go back and revise those things.'' Meaning, we'll scratch out all efforts to say that the wind did it, because we're going to now say the water did it, and the taxpayer pays. So this is from Randy Down to Bob Kochan. This is an internal memo that we've been given access to:

``I have serious concerns about the ethics of this whole matter. I really question the ethics of someone who wants to fire us simply because our conclusions don't match his or hers. In my opinion, we need to find a more rational and ethical client other than State Farm to be dealing with. They have already contradicted themselves regarding the reports, wanting percentages stated, and his counterpart calling a few days later and telling us to resubmit two reports that had shown percentages and saying that SF,'' State Farm, ``absolutely does not want them shown because they would then have to settle for the portion that was reportedly caused by wind.''

In the House of Representatives, we have passed language to try to correct this. The people who have objected to this have been, by and large, from the insurance industry. The insurance industry, in their claims, will tell you that they had settled 95 percent of the Katrina claims within the first year. What they will not tell you is that there were hundreds of thousands of wind-only claims in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia where there was no flooding. So in any place they couldn't

blame flooding, in any place they could not put the bill on the government, they had no choice but to pay.

So, yes, they did pay thousands of claims. Disputes over wind and flood damage were confirmed to the portions of the coastal counties and parishes that experienced both flooding and the most severe wind damage.

Bob Hardwick of the Insurance Information Institute testified in Congress: ``A claim was completely excluded, for example, because it was not covered under the policy to begin with, which wouldn't be in these statistics to begin with. We consider a claim when there is some damage that is compensable under the insurance policy. In other words, these statistics don't consider all of the claims filed, only those that the insurer decided to pay.''

To put it simply, the claims of the three folks that I showed you when I first walked in would have been considered by the insurance company to have been settled because they were told ``no.'' Maybe in State Farm's mind that case was closed. It certainly was not in the case of those three families, and it was not just three families. I could bring thousands of similar photos before you with thousands of similar sad stories.

So those families were screwed out of their policies, but the point I want to make to you, to the taxpayers of America, is that you got stuck with bills. The Nation got stuck with bills that the insurance companies should have paid.

I think there was fraud. The insurance companies tell you there was no fraud, but the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, finds ``an inherent conflict of interest exists when the same insurance company is responsible for determining the extent of the flood damage that the National Flood Insurance must pay and the extent of the wind damage that is the responsibility of the company, itself. FEMA, a parent organization of National Flood Insurance, cannot determine the accuracy of flood insurance payments because it does not require companies to explain how they divided wind and flood.

``Property owners with separate wind and flood policies cannot buy insurance and know in advance what hurricane damage will have been covered.''

The Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security went on to say because FEMA oversight on wind-water claims is minimal, the inspector general subpoenaed records from 15 insurance companies to investigate their proceedings. Adjusters working for the insurance companies, or for the companies, have a conflict of interest when handling flood claims.

Concurrent causation. Remember, that's what we talk about, page 10 of a 25-page document. Language in the insurance policies creates the potential to bill flood insurance for damage that is caused by both wind and flooding.

Let me make it perfectly simple. You are a claims adjuster, you're 25 years old, you have a mortgage. You have kids in school, Christmas is coming up, and you have the opportunity to walk on that property and do a fair adjustment which says my company has to pay some, the Nation has to pay some, or you have the opportunity, in fact you have been instructed by your boss to say when there is wind and water, stick it to the government.

What do you think they did? And as we saw from that internal company memo, the ones who did it right were threatened with being fired.

Not only does the insurer not pay for the house to be rebuilt, they don't pay the living expenses for the property owner who would be entitled to them if the claim was approved.

So who pays? You pay. In the case of south Mississippi, let me start by saying we are eternally grateful to the American people for the kindness and generosity that they have shown us because at one point there were 42,000 families just in south Mississippi living off the generosity of the people of America. They were living in what has now been called a FEMA trailer, a 28-foot travel trailer that our Nation was generous enough to buy and put on their property, hook up to water and sewer, but not without a cost. In fact, the cost of those 42,000 trailers turns out to be, that we paid on the average $15,000 per trailer to buy them, and $16,000, which I know is an outrageous cost, to put them on that property. That was a no-bid deal to one of the President's buddy's, Bechtel, Incorporated.

But the fact of the matter is it did happen and it will happen again next time. And the combined cost of this for those 42,000 families, our Nation, you and I, pitched in $31,000. The cost of that just in Mississippi alone was $1.3 billion that the Nation paid that in most instances an insurance company should have paid. But because they said there was no wind damage, we are not paying on your homeowner's policy, so somebody got stuck with the bill. Our Nation did.

You would like to think that maybe they did that because funds were tight or maybe it threatened the survivability of those companies. That certainly wasn't the case. In 2005, even after paying the Hurricane Katrina claims that they did, the insurance industry made $48.8 billion in profits.

In 2006, we were fortunate to have fewer hurricanes, they made $67 billion in profits.

Last year, $65 billion in profit.

We have before us a situation where it is the perfect storm of everything that can go wrong for the consumer.

Number one, you would think why isn't Congress doing something about this. For starters, you can open the Federal Code from the first page to the last code and you won't find one word of regulation of the insurance industry. It gets worse. The insurance industry, the same folks that are supposed to be our good neighbor, we're supposed to be in their good hands, they're supposed to be on our side, it turns out that they are exempt from the antitrust laws that regulate every other business in America. It is perfectly legal for State Farm to call Allstate to call Nationwide and say, You know what, let's raise everybody's rates. So be it your health insurance, your automobile insurance, or your homeowner's insurance.

It is also legal for them, as I am pretty well convinced they did after the storm, to call each other up and say: You know what, if you don't pay claims, State Farm, and I don't pay claims, Allstate, and Nationwide doesn't pay claims, there won't be anybody saying they are getting screwed, because they're all getting screwed; but it's just the way it is.

If any other business in America did that, they would go to jail. But the insurance industry is exempt from the antitrust laws. Congress has not addressed that, but I want you to be aware of it. They were given this exemption based on a Supreme Court ruling in 1944 that says, wait a second, you're doing interstate commerce, you have to be regulated by interstate commerce. Instead, Congress came back in 1945 and passed something called the McCarran-Ferguson Act which in effect is granting an immunity from the antitrust laws to the insurance industry. I had hoped we would address that. We didn't. But Congress did do something.

First, I would like to tell you I'm sure some of you are thinking, that is just a Mississippi problem. Why are you boring us? I will tell you it is definitely a Mississippi problem. State Farm won't sell property insurance policies in Mississippi. Farm Bureau will not renew wind coverage. Allstate, no new wind coverage sold in south Mississippi. Nationwide, no wind coverage sold in south Mississippi. But it is not just our problem, it is America's problem.

Massachusetts is a long way from south Mississippi. Since 2003, ten insurance companies have dropped homeowner coverage in Cape Cod, affecting 44,000 homeowners.

In New York, Allstate stopped writing new homeowners' policies for single-family homes in New York City, Long Island, and Winchester County. Allstate held 26 percent of the market share for homeowners in these counties in 2006.

In Maryland, the second largest homeowner insurance in the State, Allstate, Allstate will stop writing new policies in many coastal areas.

North Carolina, the North Carolina State Insurance Plan, the beach plan, saw liability increase by over 260 percent, so that is a State- run system picking up for the fact that the private sector has pulled out.

In Virginia in 2006, State Farm stopped writing insurance business. Travelers Insurance stopped selling and

renewing residential insurance in Virginia Beach.

South Carolina insurance companies have dropped the last 16,000 homeowners' policies since 2006.

In Florida, State Farm has announced it will stop writing residential renters and commercial properties on March 1, 2008.

Texas, Allstate won't write new homeowners' policies in 14 coastal counties.

Louisiana, the State insurance plan that jumped in to take the place of the private sector is now the third largest homeowner's insurance.

In Alabama, State Farm won't write policies to cover the beach towns.

The point is that although the coastal counties of America constitute only 17 percent of the total land mass, it represents 53 percent of all Americans. That is why this is a problem that affects every one of us, at least half of us. Every one of us who lives in a coastal State, half of all Americans.

Unless we change the law, Congress will allow this system to continue and taxpayers to continue to foot the bill when the next hurricane strikes.

So what's the solution? The solution is what the House of Representatives has already passed that the Senate has not passed that we will go to conference in the next month on, and that I would hope as a result of this that the American people would encourage their Senators to help us find a risk-based, actuarially sound national pool to allow property owners to purchase coverage for both wind and water, a revocation of the insurance industry's antitrust exemption that allows them to fix prices.

The multi-peril bill that passed this House with the help of Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Frank, Chairwoman Waters, and a lot of other folks, including a number of my Republican colleagues, would allow property owners to buy both wind and flood coverage through the National Flood Insurance Program.

It would increase the coverage, and I am one of the many people who lost my home that night, and I for one was shocked at the incredible cost of replacing my house. And, quite frankly, the $250,000 that the National Flood Insurance covers, I would have told you 5 years ago was a lot of money. Based on my experience of building a 1,400 square foot house, I realize now it really doesn't cover enough. So we have increased the coverage up to $500,000 per structure, $150,000 for contents. For non-residential, it's a million for the structure and $750,000 for contents.

Property owners would be able to buy insurance and know in advance that hurricane damage will be covered without disputes. That you don't have to hire an engineer to say whether the wind did it or the water did it, you don't have to hire a lawyer, and you don't have to wait 2 years to get justice. If you leave your home, if you evacuate the way your Nation told you to get out of there, and you come home to a substantially damaged home, or if you come home to nothing, which is what thousands of my friends and neighbors did, you know that if you paid your policy, if you built your house the way you should have, that you are going to get paid.

The premiums for this new coverage would be risk-based and actuarially sound. Under the new rules of the House, under the Democratic majority, we can't start any new program that doesn't pay for itself. That's the way it should be. So the premiums would be more than enough to cover the liabilities and so there would be, unlike the present situation where $1.3 billion went to pay for FEMA trailers by folks who got screwed by the insurance companies, where billions of dollars went for homeowners' grants in Louisiana and Mississippi to pay people who didn't get paid by the insurance companies, in these instances those people who had the policy who paid the premiums who built the houses the way they should, they're going to be covered and you, the taxpayer, will not have to subsidize this by one dime.

Wind storm insurance would be available where the local governments adopt and enforce the international building code or equivalent.

The Federal multi-peril program will spread the risk geographically. If you think about it, Mississippi has a fairly small coastline so it is fairly safe to say that if a storm hits, the entire coastline is going to get hit. That is not spreading the risk. On the other hand, if 53 percent of all Americans live on the coast, the chance that every coastal community is going to get hit by a storm that year is minuscule. In fact, it would probably be called Armageddon, and we hope that doesn't happen.

Taxpayers would benefit where more damages are covered by the insurance industry instead of the inefficient governmental disaster assistance programs. Insurance companies could return to coastal communities to sell fire, theft, and liability coverage and excess coverage above the $500,000 that this policy would cover.

A multi-peril bill was introduced in the House in February. It had 33 cosponsors, 27 Democrats, 6 Republicans. Ms. Waters, the chairman of the subcommittee, included the text in the National Flood Insurance Program. It passed this House by a vote of 263-146. It did not get a lot of help in the United States Senate. It will go to conference this summer.

If you live in coastal America, I would give you a couple of words of advice.

Number one, if you have a homeowner's policy, break it out. See if it has the words ``concurrent causation'' in that policy because if it does, that becomes the same excuse that the insurance companies used to screw thousands of south Mississippians out of their money. Demand a clarification from your insurance agent as to what that means for you. Does that mean you are going to find an excuse not to pay me? Or does that mean that you're going to come through like a good neighbor, like I'm going to be in your good hands, like you're supposed to be on my side.

The second thing I would ask you to do, if you belong to the home builders or the realtors or the bankers, encourage those organizations to back this program because, again, for 53 percent of all Americans, they are in peril at the thought of not being able to cover their home for wind damage.

But I will take this a step further. It has come to my attention recently that there has been as much tornado damage around the country for the past 20 years as hurricane damage. Tornadoes happen to be very fierce in a smaller area, but the cumulative effect of all those tornadoes has caused as much damage dollar-wise as the hurricanes have.

In fairness, we ought to cover that, too. In fairness, those people who are waking up in Indiana and Ohio and Iowa from the devastation of those floods and from the devastation of those tornadoes, they need to know that they are protected, too.

I would hope that as this bill goes to conference that our Nation would step forward and assume the responsibility and provide every American the opportunity to purchase multi-peril insurance. Hopefully we can start out with hurricanes because we know the present system isn't working there. But I think every American ought to know that if they build their house right and pay their premiums and something terrible happens to them, that their Nation is going to be there for them. And yes, they have paid into a fund that will help cover that cost when it happens.

We will have that opportunity next month, and I would hope that every American, no matter where you live in America, would see the value of this and would ask their Senators to agree to this, and that we can do something that's good, not just good for my State, not just good for Alabama and Louisiana, not just good for Maine and Massachusetts and North Carolina, but good for every American.

The insurance industry let us down. The insurance industry makes huge money. The insurance industry is exempt from the antitrust laws. The insurance industry has the most favorable tax treatment of any industry in America; and the truth of the matter is, instead of having all of those benefits and turning around when the people were down and saying yes, we are going to help you, they screwed the people of south Mississippi.

What I don't want is them to do that to you.

This is not going to be an easy fight. This is truly a case of the citizens against the lobbyists. In 2004, the insurance industry donated $36 million in

political contributions. In 2006, $31 million. Most of that money went to Republicans, but in fairness, now that the Democrats are in the majority, they're probably writing checks to Democrats, too.

They're doing this because they want to hang on to their greedy practices. They want to hang on to their anti-trust exemption. They want to hang on to the fact that they can collude. They want to hang on to the fact that they can turn around and have the lowest taxes in America and that they have zero Federal regulation, that there is nothing that the Federal law can do to stop them from these practices.

But you know what? We have right on our side. We have the best interest of the homeowner, whether he's in Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, California, when we think that there's better ways to offer an all-fairness insurance, backed by our Nation, that's going to be there when we need it.

So Madam Speaker, with that in mind, I'm going to yield back the remainder of my time. And for the very, very patient staff of the House of Representatives, I kept you here as late as I did, but I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the people.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the Readiness Subcommittee.

I want to thank the distinguished chairman, and quite possibly the best committee chairman we've had on the House Armed Services Committee in my 20 years, Chairman Ike Skelton.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2009. The bill before the House today represents the strong bipartisan effort of the House Armed Services Committee under the leadership of our very capable chairman, Ike Skelton.

For Navy and Marine Corps programs, this bill recommends several initiatives not in the administration's budget request that we believe will enhance the ability of the sea services to protect our Nation. These initiatives include:

Full funding for the eight ships in the President's request, with authorization to build an additional four.

The funds for $1.8 billion to fully fund a 10th LPD class amphibious assault ship, a vessel that is the number one priority of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

We would pause the DDG 1000 program to allow the Chief of Naval Operations the flexibility to restore the production of the DDG-51 class destroyers, or continue the 1000 program.

Advanced procurement funding for long lead components to accelerate the production of Virginia class submarines to two per year beginning in fiscal year 2010 instead of fiscal year 2011.

Authorization for the final two vessels in the Lewis and Clark T-AKE dry cargo ammunition ship class.

$14.6 billion for the procurement of 206 aircraft, including eight Joint Strike Fighters, 45 F/A-18 series aircraft, 30 Marine Corps MV- 22s, 49 MH-60 series helicopters, 44 T-6 JPATS training aircraft, and two KC 130J cargo aircraft.

We would include $247 million for the continued funding of the Joint Strike Fighter competitive engine program; $448 million for emergent aircraft wing repairs to the P-3C fleet of reconnaissance aircraft.

We also include important legislative proposals that would direct the Secretary of the Navy to design and construct the next class of amphibious warships with an integrated nuclear power system.

Mr. Chairman, today the price of oil went to approximately $130 a barrel. Less than half of the oil that our Nation uses is produced within the United States of America. It makes no sense at all, you have aircraft carriers that could go 30 years without refueling, if those ships that support our aircraft carriers have to refuel every 3 to 5 days.

We would authorize the commencement of the complex refueling overhaul of the USS Roosevelt. We would authorize economic inflation adjustments to the statutory cost cap of the Littoral combat ship based on the realities of cost escalations in the materials to build those ships.

We would require accountability of obligations in the National Defense Sealift Fund. I want to thank one of our new Members, Admiral Sestak, for helping to make that happen.

For the committee's oversight of the activities of the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation, we authorize the request for funding the Maritime Security Program, the Vessel Disposal Program, and the operations and maintenance included in the Merchant Marine Academy.

We would authorize $30 million for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program, commonly referred to as title XI loans. We would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to increase student initiative payments at the various State maritime academies.

And we would prohibit the transfer of government-owned vessels for the purpose of scrapping or dismantling in foreign shipyards.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank my good friend and ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland, the Honorable Roscoe Bartlett. I have been honored to have him as my working business partner. He has been a great partner in helping to rebuild our Nation's fleet.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in support of this bill.

I now recognize the gentleman from Maine for the purpose of a colloquy.

I appreciate the gentleman's questions. I would remind the gentleman, and all Members of this body, that from the earlier days of our Republic we have had at least six major naval shipyards. In the early days, there was concern that maybe the British or the French may come back and reoccupy our country. In the case of the Washington Navy Yard, they did. It made sense then, it made sense now.

I am committed to the industrial base of those yards that build our surface combatants, both in Maine and on the gulf coast. The DDG-51 has been a phenomenal platform.

The 51 has been a proven platform; we've had over 50 of those ships constructed. It has turned out to be a bargain for the taxpayer.

I do have concerns about the DDG 1000 program and some possible cost overruns associated with it. That is why for the stability of the fleet and for the purposes of trying to get the fleet up to 313 ships, we are going to give the Chief of Naval Operations the option of either pursuing the third DDG 1000, or DDG-51s, keeping in mind that the Navy can buy two DDG-51s for the price of every 1000.

Again, the gentleman is correct.

That's correct. And I would also remind the gentleman that we are working with the Chief of Naval Operations. He has come to us with a proposal. To extend the life of one of our oldest carriers, he would have to spend approximately $2 billion to get an additional 6 months out of that carrier. We are working with the Chief of Naval Operations to give him the option of, instead of spending $2 billion to get an additional 6 months, of taking that $2 billion and applying that money towards an additional surface combatant. And that would certainly help the fleet, and I think it would certainly help Bath Shipyard.

I want to thank the chairman. And I want to encourage all the Members of this body to support the House authorization.

I thank the chairman.

I was very much in the wrong for failing to mention the great work of your committee staff, headed by Ms. Conaton, and in particular Captain Will Ebbs of the Seapower Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity for correcting my mistake. I do want to very much compliment the men and women of the House Armed Services Committee staff who have helped put this package together.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Mississippi, the Honorable Travis Childers, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Madam Speaker, as dean of the Mississippi congressional delegation, I am very, very happy to introduce to the House today the House's newest Member, Travis Childers.

Travis went to work when he was 16 years old following the death of his father. He worked in a local convenience store to help put himself through school and take care of his family. He attended Northeast Mississippi Junior College and graduated from the University of Mississippi. He is a successful realtor, and has served as the Chancery Clerk of Prentiss County for 16 years. He is married to the former Tami Gibson, and the couple has two children, Dustin, a first-year law student at Mississippi College, and Lauren, a freshman at Ole Miss. Travis has been elected four times in the span of 63 days.

He follows in the footsteps of the longest serving Member of Congress, Mr. Jamie Whitten, who used to sit right there, and, most recently, Mississippi's newest Senator, Roger Wicker.

On behalf of the people of Mississippi, on behalf of this Congress, we welcome Mississippi's newest Representative, Travis Childers.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking our chairman, Ike Skelton, for the phenomenal job he's done for looking out for the men and women in uniform this year.

I want to thank my ranking member, Roscoe Bartlett, for his incredible cooperation, and I want to thank all the members of the Seapower Subcommittee.

I also want to thank the other committee chairmen who, to a man or a woman, transferred funds from their jurisdiction to try to help in our efforts to rebuild America's fleet.

Of all the services, I think it is fair to say that the Bush administration has been the least favorable to the United States Navy. It has shrunk by about 50 ships on George Bush's watch. We're trying to turn that around.

With this year's bill, we're very proud of several things we've done. We've funded one Virginia class submarine and advanced funding for a second. We've funded one Littoral combat ship, one amphibious assault ship, a dry cargo vessel, a high speed vessel. We've completed funding for two Arleigh Burke destroyers, one amphibious assault ship, and we have started the full funding of an additional carrier.

We have long lead funding for three TAKE cargo ships, and Mr. Speaker, again with the great help of Roscoe Bartlett, we have in here language that says the next generation of warships, surface combatants, will be nuclear-powered to lessen our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.

I would encourage every American to read a great book on the New York Times best sellers list called ``Halseys Typhoon,'' and it talks about the Christmas typhoon that hit the fleet off of the Philippines in 1944, the needless loss of vessels. But the event that triggered the fleet's sailing into that typhoon was the need for the fleet to refuel their destroyers when the destroyers were caught low on fuel. The destroyers got caught in this storm. Three of them foundered needlessly, and had those vessels been nuclear-powered with a 30-year supply of fuel on board, that never would have happened.

To this day, we have only five oilers in the Pacific. Any clever, future foe of the United States, the first thing they're going to do is try to sink those oilers. And the Department of Defense strategy of wishful thinking that this isn't going to happen isn't good enough.

So because of future combat needs, things like rail guns, the growth in power, demand for things like electronics, and above all, to have the ships that guard our carriers to have the capacity to stay with the carriers for 30 years, as far as their fuel needs, we're very, very proud of that.

We're very happy that the Guard Empowerment Act will become law, and I want to thank my colleague Tom Davis for encouraging me to sponsor that, and I want to thank him for cosponsoring it. It will raise the chief of the National Guard bureau to four stars. It will see to it that either the commander or the deputy commander of the northern command will be either a Guardsman or Reservist.

And I can tell you, having worked with General Steven Blom in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I cannot think of a finer human being to be the first person as a National Guardsman to wear four stars.

I want to thank the subcommittee for their work on the fielding of mine resistant ambush protected vehicles. A year ago right now, the administration had only asked for 400 of those vehicles. Because of the work of the subcommittee, because of the case that was made to the American people, there will now be 15,000 of them built, and it will from the day it's fielded save lives and save limbs. There are young people in Mississippi graveyards who would be alive today if we had fielded them sooner, but at least it's getting done now.

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the great work you've done. I want to thank my fellow subcommittee chairman. And above all, I want to encourage the House to support this very important measure.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent to thank Captain Will Ebbs and Ms. Jenness Simler for the outstanding job they did in helping the Seapower Subcommittee this year and have them reflected in the Record.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The Lee family is from Quitman, Mississippi. The dad is a State Trooper. The mom is a public school teacher. I want to thank you for doing this. I regret that the request was not made of my office. But it just once again proves what a decent Joe you are, Walter. Thank you for doing that

I thank the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman.

Madam Speaker, one of the things we ought to do in a democracy is when the other guy has a good idea, no matter what political party he's in, is to say that's a good idea. I would remind the gentleman that it was the Bush administration that classified the number of jammers in Iraq under a failed policy by Donald Rumsfeld that basically didn't want the moms and dads of Americans to know how few we had. It was this Congress that insisted that we have a jammer on every vehicle in Iraq to keep the improvised explosive devices from being remotely detonated. So, of course, I don't want those funds cut because I, along with others, worked to put those funds in the bill.

Along that same policy of ``war by wishful thinking'' from the Rumsfeld crowd was that we didn't need mine-resistant vehicles over there. The Bush administration only asked for 4,000. We were going to build over 15,000 because this Congress realized the importance of them, and that there are kids in Walter Reed today who would still have their limbs if we had built them sooner. There are kids in Mississippi graveyards who would still be alive if we had built them sooner. So of course we want those funds in the bill.

I fully support the gentleman's efforts. We have a lot of very good things in this bill, and it deserves to be funded, and the troops in Iraq need to know that we are going to fund the jammers they need to save their lives both over there and here because one of the problems with having too few jammers is that our troops in the United States that are training to go to Iraq still aren't seeing a jammer until they get to theater. And this is the device that is going to save their lives. This is the device that is going to save their limbs. And they need to be training with those things here in America so that the first time they don't see this device that's going to save their life is when they are traveling from Kuwait into Iraq. That is the situation that still exists today that we are trying to fix.

The Bush administration asked for too few of these. Congress, in an earmark, said no, we are going to build them because they are going to save lives. The Bush administration asked for too few mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles. Congress, in an earmark, said no, we are going to build them because it is going to keep kids from losing their legs, and it is going to keep kids from losing their lives. So of course I am going to support this bill, I am going to support the gentleman's efforts, and I thank the chairman for putting together what I think is an excellent Armed Services defense authorization bill that is going to lead to fewer deaths in Iraq, fewer deaths in Afghanistan, and a stronger, and hopefully in the future, more peaceful world.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I guess of all the Members, I have been the closest to this situation with what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. As you know, Katrina struck during the August recess, and shortly after the recess one of the first votes that was scheduled was the GO Zone legislation which was a very substantial piece of legislation on the part of our Nation to help the affected area.

Given the severity of what happened in Mississippi, I made a conscious decision to stay in my district. I felt like that was the best thing to do. This body overwhelmingly passed the GO Zone legislation without me.

To the gentleman's point, I have not had one complaint about staying in Mississippi, and I think your colleagues that you are concerned about will not get one complaint about missing a vote on something that is going to pass anyway. I did not ask to shut down the Congress because I needed to be in Mississippi; and, quite frankly, I don't think our California colleagues are really asking to shut down the Congress because they needed to be there. Their constituents will understand, just as my constituents understood.

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.

First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to encourage the gentlewoman, let's deal with the facts. If you have an organization that is opposed to this amendment, name the organization. But let's don't suppose for anyone whether they are for it or against.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentlewoman's remarks. I would like to mention to the gentlewoman, and add for the Record, the support for this bill, including the wind language, from the National Association of Realtors, National Association of Homebuilders, National Association of Bankers.

National Association of Realtors,

Washington, DC, September 26, 2007.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: 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 managers 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,

2007 President,

National Association of Realtors.'

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of today's debate, a lot of Members are learning a lot about insurance that they kind of wish they didn't know. Unfortunately, a lot of folks in my district learned a lot in the wake of that storm that they wish they knew.

As I have told you before, the United States Navy has modeled Hurricane Katrina. According to the United States Navy, there were four to five hours of hurricane force winds that hit south Mississippi before the water ever got there. Now, that is a fact from the United States Navy.

We have a policy under the National Write Your Own Program where we as a Nation allow the private sector to sell that policy, even though we back it. That is not a problem. It cuts down on administrative costs. We also have a line in that contract, though, with those private firms that says you will do a fair adjustment of the claim.

Think about it. I can't think of any other person that can send a bill to the Federal Government, up to $250,000, plus another $100,000 for contents, and no one ever questions it. And yet we gave the insurance industry this incredible responsibility, and I can tell you, they misused it. But it says there has to be a fair adjustment. That is the law.

Unfortunately, in the policies that they wrote for people, that were multiple pages thick, buried in that policy is something called ``concurrent causation,'' which says, in effect, that after those four to five hours of hurricane force winds hit south Mississippi, if on a residence there's a single two-by-four left standing, the roof is gone, the windows have been blown in, the curtains are gone, the house is gone, if there's one two-by-four left standing, then there is a concurrent causation of wind and water, and they don't have to pay. It's in their policies.

Under oath there have been insurance agents who admitted they didn't even know it was in the policy. If the insurance agents didn't know, do you think an individual has a chance?

There is an extremely influential Senator on the other end of the building, a law degree from the University of Mississippi; he didn't know it was in there. Federal Judge Lou Garrolla, a Federal judge, he didn't know it was in there. If an extremely influential U.S. Senator, if a Federal judge doesn't know, what chance does a corrugated box salesman have? What chance does a shrimper have, a housewife, a school teacher?

The fact of the matter is that's wrong. The taxpayers ended up paying the bill that the insurance company should have paid because they stuck it to the taxpayers through the flood insurance policy every time.

This amendment would tell the insurance companies that if they want to do business with our Nation through the Federal flood insurance program, that they can no longer have a concurrent causation clause in their contract because it's completely contrary to the contract they have with our Nation that says it's going to be a fair adjustment of the claim.

If after 4 hours of hurricane force winds the house is almost gone, but there's one board left, and a wave comes along and knocks that last board down, under their rules, the taxpayers pay. Under what is fair and right, they ought to pay for what the wind did and let the taxpayers pay for what the water did.

We recognize there's a problem, we are addressing that problem, and only a shill for the insurance industry can turn around and say that this is right. If you really are concerned about the Treasury, then you ought to be concerned about the Treasury being ripped off by insurance companies by letting their agents be the sole determining factor of who's going to pay and sticking our Nation with the bill. This is an opportunity to close that loophole and to right an egregious wrong.

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

I yield the remainder of my time to the chairman of the committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, on September 4, 2007, I was unavoidably detained in my congressional district as a result of a mechanical problem which prevented the departure of my scheduled flight from Gulfport, MS. Unfortunately, I missed rollcall votes 847, 848 and 849. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of the rollcall votes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, about 22 months ago the Mississippi Gulf Coast was hit with the worst hurricane in our Nation's history. It was followed up by a disaster made by man, which was the insurance industry almost uniformly denying the claims of people who had paid their premiums for decades. So people who thought they were covered woke up the next day or the next week to discover that their house was gone, and that their insurance company that said they were in ``good hands'' or that might have been their ``good neighbor'' or were ``on their side'' weren't going to pay.

It has led to several problems, one of which will be addressed, we hope, in July with a promise by the Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Frank, Chairwoman Waters for a hearing in the Financial Services Committee to amend the National Flood Insurance Program to allow people to buy all- perils insurance through their Nation, something that will prevent the fight in the future in other areas of America where 52 percent of Americans live. So if they go through the same sort of tragedy that the people of Mississippi went through, that they will be paid. Because the only people who did pay their claims last time, uniformly, was our Nation through the National Flood Insurance Program.

One of the ways that the American people responded to that, Mr. Speaker, is that by the thousands, all the way from kindergartners to grandparents, volunteers that have come to south Mississippi, they volunteered their time, they have given of their own personal treasure to help the people of south Mississippi rebuild who should have been paid by the insurance industry but won't. We've had so many groups. And I wish I could name them all and I wish I could have thanked them all.

But one of the groups I did get a chance to visit with just recently was the St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church of Naperville, Illinois, again, one of the thousands of groups that have been to south Mississippi and continue to go to south Mississippi to help people rebuild their lives.

We want to thank them and all the groups, but I also want to recognize a letter that they sent to my office. And it's strange that they should even be thanking someone from my office, it is my office that should be thanking them. But I want to read their letter in gratitude for them, and thank them as a way of thanking all the people that helped.

``We are eternally grateful to you for sharing with us one of Mississippi's finest natural resources, Chris LaGarde.'' Chris is an employee in my office.

Since we first met Chris a year ago, we've come to know him as a dear friend, a counselor, a leader, a chef, a mentor and a pack rat. He is a great big energizer bunny in a bright orange jumpsuit, not only because he never stops, but because his presence energizes all of us. Chris is a man of compassion and passion. He is caring, loving, generous and the most humble man you could ever meet. He's an excellent chef and host.

Through all of the trials and tribulations of finding work for our 60 volunteers all week and feeding us twice this week, he always kept his composure, his sense of humor and his love for all of us. He is a role model not only for young adults, but for us older adults as well. He lends perspective to what is really important in all of our lives, not our iPods, TVs, cell phones, cars and homes, but our friends, family and fellow human beings.

Chris is the epitome of the face of Christ, of service, of love for his fellow man.

To the folks of St. Elizabeth Seton, know what you've said is really about yourselves and about the other people who've come to south Mississippi to help us out. And on behalf of the people of south Mississippi, I want to thank all of those volunteers for what they have done and what they continue to do. And on behalf of not only the people of south Mississippi, but all of our fellow Americans, I think our fellow Americans have truly risen to the occasion. And I, for one, am eternally grateful for their help.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding military service and contributions to our country of YNC (SW/PJ) Dwight R. Scott, U.S. Navy, a native of Punta Gorda, FL, on the occasion of his retirement from military service on July 31, 2007.

Born in 1967, Chief Scott grew up in Columbus, OH, and attended Brookhaven High School. He entered the Navy in October 1985 as part of the Ohio State Buckeye Company. After completion of Recruit Training at Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, IL, he reported to Deck Division aboard USS Mississippi (CGN 40) at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia. He was meritoriously advanced while stationed at Great Lakes.

In June 1986, he was advanced to seaman and tried his hand in the administrative field. He subsequently passed the Yeoman advancement test and advanced to Yeoman Third Class in June 1988. In July 1989, he was meritoriously advanced to Petty Officer Second Class and assigned to the Operations Department. He then qualified as Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist proving his knowledge of how the ship operates and fights in time of war.

In January 1990, Chief Scott accepted orders to the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic Command, SACLANT. After a short time on board, he was selected to work for the SACLANT Protocol Office, working directly for the Chief of Staff. As Protocol Assistant, he developed and implemented the NATO locator, a directory of over 400 dignitaries from 16 NATO nations. He was awarded the Joint Service Achievement Medal for his contributions to the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic.

Promoted to First Class in November 1993, he was assigned to Joint Special Operations Command, JSOC, in Fayetteville, NC. At JSOC, he qualified as a parachutist with the Army 82nd Airborne and then qualified as a Naval Parachutist. Chief Scott was awarded the Australian Army Parachute Badge, the Joint Special Achievement Medal, Second Award, and the Joint Commendation Medal. After 4 years at JSOC he was assigned to the Office of Legislative Affairs, OLA--the very best job of his career. Chief Scott worked on Capitol Hill for 4 years and traveled extensively with Members of Congress and their

staffs. He earned the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal for his contributions to OLA.

In May 1999, he earned the rank of chief petty officer and received orders to Commander, Military Sealift Command, Europe, COMSCEUR, in Naples, Italy. He served as the Senior Enlisted Advisor, Administrative Officer and Command Chief to COMSCEUR. He was entrusted with the health, morale, and welfare of all COMSC enlisted sailors assigned to the European Area of Responsibility. Chief Scott earned the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal (Second Award) for his noteworthy contributions. In November 2005, he accepted orders as the Leading Chief Petty Officer in the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.

The citizens of the State of Mississippi, particularly the 4th Congressional District, are proud of Chief Scott's service. They join me in thanking him and his family for their contributions to the Navy and the Nation, and in wishing them all the best both now and in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I followed this debate for several hours now, both here on the House floor and in my office, and what I sense is some people having a lot of fun at the expense of the least among us.

In my State tonight, 75,000 people will go to sleep in a FEMA trailer that the United States Department of Health has ruled is a health hazard because they have carcinogens in them. They have formaldehyde in them. But it beats the heck out of sleeping in a Chevy Astro Van. It beats the heck out of sleeping on their mother-in-law's couch, if their mother-in-law has a couch.

In the State of Louisiana, there are 49,000 families who will go to sleep in a FEMA trailer. Down around Bayou La Batre, Alabama, another thousand; in Texas, another thousand. This isn't a joke. This is trying to help the least among us. That is why you see Mr. Baker trying to help this bill, and that is why you see me trying to help this bill. It is not a joke.

We talk about we ought to be doing better things with this money. What is better than helping people who 2 years ago who were middle class, who had homeowners insurance, who got screwed by the insurance company and woke up to find out they were poor because they lost everything in one night and their insurance company didn't pay.

No, I won't yield. You've had hours.

And they can't get any housing built because the workers can't move is because there is no place for the workers to live to build the houses. And yes, it is still going on, for those of you who wonder.

I am a U.S. Congressman. I am living in my third place since the storm. You all know what we make. We make lots of money. It's not that I can't afford one, there is none to get.

I am a Congressman. If that is happening to me at my salary, what do you think is happening to a schoolteacher or a retired chief petty officer or a policeman or a fireman. I thought that was what we were about, was helping people.

All of a sudden you are concerned about borrowing and where this money should go. It didn't bother you when you borrowed money from the communist Chinese. It didn't bother you for the past 12 years when you took money out of the Social Security trust fund. It bothers you now when we want to help the average Joes? Well, that bothers me.

The chairman is exactly right. The same folks who say we should have no accountability of where the billions of dollars go in Iraq, all of a sudden, demand that this money that might help somebody who used to be an average Joe who now finds himself in a horrible situation, my God, you don't want to do that.

Cut the games out. This is serious. This is about housing, a basic need. A basic need for our fellow Americans, not Iraqis. Our fellow Americans.

I have sat here and watched this game go on for hours, and I have had enough. I think the people of America, if they are following this debate, they've had enough.

It is time to move this bill. If you don't think it is a good idea to take the profits from this organization and ask that they be directed towards the housing needs of our fellow Americans, vote against the bill. But I happen to think that is a pretty good idea because I know guys who used to live in 6,000 square foot houses who are going to spend tonight in a FEMA trailer. Not because they want to, because they got screwed by their insurance company. They are still going to work. They can't find somebody to build a house.

When you lose 60,000 houses overnight, it puts a heck of a strain on the system. And when the workers who want to come there and build those houses have no place to live, it makes it even worse. We are trying to address that. These are real needs for real people.

You've made whatever political points you want to make to your constituency, but now it is time to move on and help our fellow Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Speaker, the events of the fall of 2005 were horrible to a large portion of the gulf coast. I understand the gentleman's concern. I would have appreciated if he'd have voted against the Bachus amendment, which would have struck all of this money, but you voted for it.

But one thing I wanted to point out is the somewhat arbitrary nature of his amendment. There's no real good way to judge who lost a house. One of the things we can look at, though, is those who asked for the help which was offered by our President which was delivered by FEMA.

They said if your house is uninhabitable or if it's gone, we'll make a trailer available for every four inhabitants. In Louisiana today, based on FEMA's numbers, there's still 49,000 FEMA trailers being occupied. In my home State, there are 24,500 FEMA trailers still being occupied. In the gentleman's State, there's 1,700 FEMA trailers being occupied.

What I have a problem with is arbitrarily taking a substantial amount of money from a State like Mississippi, that had substantially, according to this, more people lose their homes and just giving it to Texas.

Now, if the gentleman is now for the bill, that's wonderful. If the gentleman would ask the chairman to include the word ``Texas'' so that when this goes to conference hopefully with the other body, in the time between now and then we can find some fair way to adjudicate those claims, I think that would be wonderful.

But what I object to is literally picking a number out of the sky in a State that's got less than 1/10th of the people living in those trailers tonight, as my State, and asking for half the money that my State is getting.

I have been for this proposal. I have sat on this floor for this proposal. The gentleman has objected to this proposal.

So, again, if the gentleman wants to make the request of the chairman that somehow the words Louisiana, Texas, Alabama and Mississippi are included in there, and that between now and conference we find a fair way to distribute these funds, I'm with you. But to just pick a number out of the sky and say just because we're from Texas and we've got a huge delegation, we think we ought to get half as much money as Mississippi, even though 1/10th of the people that are in trailers in Mississippi are in trailers in Texas, I just can't buy that. That's not responsible.