Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 26) to extend the termination date of the Terrorism Insurance Program established under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material for the Record on H.R. 26, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, for those of you watching at home today, this is not a C-SPAN rerun. I stand before you today to discuss the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, a bill that passed this House 417-7 at the end of the previous Congress.

This bill is a result of long and difficult bicameral and bipartisan negotiations. But for whatever reason, the previous Senate decided that it was more important to go home a couple of days earlier rather than reauthorize the TRIA program. As a result, the program expired at the end of the year.

So, today, the House will act on this important piece of legislation once again. Doing so will provide certainty to the terrorism risk insurance market and ensure that the American economy remains resilient against the threat of terrorism.

Congress passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 in the aftermath of 9/11. It was intended to provide a 2-year transition period in which the market participants could develop resources that would enable them to offer private terrorism insurance coverage once the program expired. For various reasons, that transition has not taken hold.

Throughout the last 2 years, my subcommittee learned how evolved the terrorism risk insurance marketplace has become since the last reauthorization. Since the advent of TRIA in 2002, markets have stabilized, risk management practices have improved, terrorism risk modeling and underwriting has advanced, and the price of terrorism risk coverage has actually declined by 70 percent.

But we have also learned that this evolution of TRIA has failed to keep up with marketplace realities. In fact, the program remains largely unchanged over the last 12 years. This has hindered the growth of private market participation in terrorism risk insurance and resulted in a bad deal for the taxpayers.

The bill before us today is an effort to recognize and to keep pace with the market developments of the terrorism risk insurance marketplace over the past decade. The bill strengthens taxpayer protections without altering the program's fundamental functions, brings greater certainty and stability to the terrorism risk market, and lays a foundation for a more robust private market for terrorism risk.

With regard to the taxpayer protection, the program's trigger doubles from $100 million to $200 million. It also decreases the Federal share of insurers' losses from 85 percent to 80 percent and enhances the taxpayer repayment requirements. And for the first time, we will have meaningful data on the program to increase accountability and transparency.

To provide certainty, the program is extended for 6 years but makes no changes for the first year so that the market will have time to adjust. It also clarifies it streamlines the terrorism certification process so that policyholders are better protected.

Most importantly, the bill today creates a framework that will allow for a more healthy private market terrorism risk over time that slowly replaces taxpayer-funded reinsurance with private sector capital.

Finally, the bill before us today includes some bipartisan reforms that will help boost the economy and job opportunities for all Americans. These Dodd-Frank fixes will help America's hardworking farmers, ranchers, and business owners. They did not cause the financial crisis, and they deserve immediate relief.

I am also proud of the inclusion of the reestablishment of the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers, or NARAB, which is an efficient and effective way to enable insurance agents and brokers to be licensed on a multistate basis while retaining essential State regulatory authority.

I thank Chairman Hensarling for trusting me to reform this important program, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 26.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record an exchange of letters between the Financial Services Committee and the House Agriculture Committee.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, January 7, 2015.

Hon. Jeb Hensarling,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hensarling: I am writing concerning H.R. 26,

Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015.

As you know, provisions of H.R. 26 are within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture. In order to

expedite floor consideration of the bill, the Committee on

Agriculture will forgo action on H.R. 26. Further, the

Committee will not oppose the bill's consideration on the

suspension calendar. This is also being done with the

understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the

Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its

jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 26, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during Floor

consideration.

Sincerely,

K. Michael Conaway,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), my neighbor to the south, our new committee chairman for the House Agriculture Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for his tireless efforts on NARAB. I think we are going to get it done this time. I know he has worked on it a number of years. He and I have worked together to try to get this done. It is a commonsense piece of legislation, and I am hopeful that this will be the time to get it passed.

I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), who has been a tireless advocate for the TRIA program.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. I want to tell him how much I enjoyed working with him. He was the ranking Member of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee, and we had an opportunity to work together. It was a pleasure to do.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta), a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I think what you can see by the comments today is that we have a bipartisan piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that passed overwhelmingly in the House in the 113th Congress. Unfortunately, it was not taken up by the Senate.

This is a win-win bill. It does a number of really good things for the country; and, more importantly, for the taxpayers, it begins to bring reform in a program that originally was meant to be a temporary program but somehow has become a permanent program, beginning to stairstep-up the private market participation and stairstep-down the taxpayers' participation. It increases the trigger; it increases the amount of recovery that the taxpayers would be able to recover in the case of an event.

Another thing you heard many people talk about is this end-user provision that is going to help farmers and ranchers and small businesses not have to put up additional capital so they can use that capital to create jobs for America.

Another provision in this bill is the NARAB II, which is a small business provision allowing your local insurance agent, maybe he or she can sell insurance in multiple States by being a member of NARAB and being able to not have to get a license in each individual State, but if they are licensed and meet the qualifications in that State, that is recognized by other States.

So this is a great bipartisan effort. It has been, as mentioned, a long process, and so I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 26.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act, H.R. 23. I also want to thank Chairman Smith for his leadership on this issue, and I appreciate him agreeing to bring this back up early in the 114th Congress.

I think we have already heard of a number of people quote a lot of statistics about the amount of damage that occurs from windstorms in this country and the loss of lives. You know, particularly 2011 was a very bad year. As it was pointed out, we had a number of people that were killed that year and over $28 billion in damage to property alone.

What is happening is the risk is growing because our population centers are growing. You know, a tornado that goes through a town center does a lot more damage than one that goes through an empty prairie. As these storms are getting costlier over time, at a time where we are $18 trillion in debt, it is important that we utilize the taxpayers' resources in an effective way. This particular program, as it was mentioned, is reauthorized at a fixed level, the level from previous reauthorization, but also it is designed to make the program more efficient and effective in the future.

When a family loses a home, you know, they don't have to just rebuild the house; they have to rebuild their lives. We know a lot of people have either experienced losses of property or life, loved ones, or they know people that have.

In particular, it is a personal thing for me because, on May 11th of 1970, I had just taken my last final for that semester at Texas Tech University, and 3 hours or 4 hours later, a major tornado ripped through Lubbock, Texas, and killed 26 people, including destroying the apartment complex that I lived in.

I was fortunately unharmed in that event, but what I did get to witness is the tremendous amount of damage that can happen from these storms and the loss of life. You saw things that you didn't think were possible--cars in parking lots that were rolled up and swirled up like an ice cream cone.

So one of the things that later on, to me, in the building business, one of the things that we began to learn is, from important research that was done, that we were able to use certain building techniques that made houses more wind resistant, made buildings more wind resistant, and that is exactly what this bill, NWIRP, does. It takes these four agencies that currently have jurisdiction over that--and those include NOAA, the National Science Foundation, FEMA, and NIST-- and makes sure that they are using those funds appropriately and that there is not a lot of duplication in the research going on. Each one of them has an area of expertise. We want to do a better job of predicting these storms. We want to do a better job of learning how we can mitigate the damage from those.

One of the things that happened right after the May 11 tornado in Lubbock is that Texas Tech University began doing research on windstorms and the effects of different materials, and later on they founded the National Wind Institute, which is doing important research on simulating cyclones and different kinds of wind events and the impact that they have on materials and certain building techniques. Certainly that will be important to our country as we move forward.

What does that do for the taxpayers? Well, obviously if we can learn more about predicting the outcomes, we can make our buildings stronger, but, more importantly, save lives. And one of the things I know from a lot of the research that has been going on right now, that designs are being incorporated in a lot of buildings.

Recently I was at a new elementary school in my district, and one of the things that we learned is that they incorporated certain building techniques within the cafeteria of that new elementary. Basically, the cafeteria became a storm shelter for the students going to that elementary. Those are the kind of things that will be beneficial from this.

I urge my colleagues to help me reauthorize H.R. 23.

I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for allowing me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation to our country. We have heard a little bit of the history that, after 9/11, the insurance industry took a pretty substantial hit. Their reserves were drained to pay out on these claims. As they were looking at writing new business, they were very concerned about what the future held because America had never experienced that kind of disaster in the past, so they were trying to figure out how to underwrite those in the future. TRIA was put into place temporarily to be a backstop for the industry for them to get back on their feet. They have gotten back on their feet, and their reserves are at all-time highs, and they have had a number of years now to model this risk.

The reason it was originally important to do that was, basically, in order to continue the construction projects or the number of projects around the country, the insurance industry needed some assurance that they wouldn't have to bear that kind of event again.

When we began to look at this process when we knew this was going to expire at the end of this year, we knew that there were kind of three options out there. One was to let the program expire as it was meant to be a temporary program. There were some Members who wanted to do that, and some Members did not. Others wanted to just extend the program the way it was. Under the Bush administration, though, we began a process to begin to reform this and to begin to transition more and more of the risk away from the taxpayers and back to the insurance companies. Unfortunately, when it was last reauthorized, none of those reforms were built into it. Even the President of the United States says that TRIA needs to be reformed, and he has offered up, for example, to change the trigger levels.

One of the things we have done with this bill is we didn't really change the overall structure of TRIA. We could have written a whole new terrorism insurance program. We didn't think that was good for the market. The market had already begun to adapt to the current framework, so we felt, if we worked within the existing framework--changing some of the triggers and some of the knobs on this particular program--that that would begin to allow the industry to take on more of the risk and for the taxpayers to take less of that risk. I think we have accomplished that with this bill.

As has been pointed out, I think a lot of people, quite honestly, don't know a lot about TRIA. One of the things is that the insurance industry takes the first losses under this program. So, if there were a loss today, as the gentleman mentioned, 20 percent of the previous year's premiums, which, if industrywide, would be about $40 billion today, would go directly to the insurance companies. Should those losses exceed that--should we have another catastrophic event--then what would happen is that the taxpayers and the insurance industry would begin to share those expenses with a provision now. We have strengthened that in this bill. I think one of the more important parts of it is that the taxpayers would get their money back and would get some return on their money. I think we are headed in a good direction.

I would respond to the point that some extraneous things were put in this bill. When it came over from the Senate, it came over with an extraneous item in it as well, and that was to change the structure of future Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

They also sent over a program which, quite honestly, I agree with, which is something that is in this bill, of allowing your local insurance agent--if he is licensed in or she is licensed in the State one resides in, to do business in other States. None of the policy that is in this bill is new policy. This is policy that this body has voted on in the past. With that, I think we have got a good bill.

I see my good friend from New York (Mrs. Maloney) over there, and I am anxious to hear her thoughts on that because this is an issue that she has been very interested in.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I think the point that we want to continue making here is that when we use the existing framework, the objective here was to give certainty to the industry--both the insurance industry and to the people that the insurance industry is insuring--so that over the next 6 years, they will know what the policy is. But at the same time, we are beginning to transition some of these reforms that hopefully will be a trend for future reauthorizations, should they be necessary. And let me emphasize that: should they be necessary.

One of the things that we do know is that the industry is doing a better job of being able to model what the potential risks are. There is some mitigation going on to make sure that new structures, new facilities take into account preventing the potential for certain types of attacks. So we want to encourage that kind of behavior. But it doesn't encourage that kind of behavior if there isn't some economic incentive. There is no economic incentive if the taxpayers keep having to pick up the bills on a number of these programs.

I am very pleased with the reforms that are built into this. I think we bring the market certainty in that we didn't materially change the program and that we are doing a long-term reauthorization.

I think the interesting thing is--and I think we can make the point-- there is really not anything controversial in this bill. Now, there are some people who don't like the fact that there have been some things included in it. But, quite honestly, we are taking up a Senate bill that was sent over to us with extraneous policy built into it. It is policy that, quite honestly, some of us agree with, particularly the NARAB. And why that NARAB provision, NARAB II, is important, as I said earlier, is because your local insurance agent now can do business in adjoining States without having to go take a license test in each individual State. It doesn't preempt the States' ability to regulate the insurance activity in that State but actually streamlines it and basically is a small business bill.

The other issue that has been talked about is this Business Risk Mitigation and Stabilization Act. That is an important piece of legislation because a lot of our small businesses are out there. They are trying to raise capital. They are trying to create jobs. And there are certain risks that they just don't want to take or they feel like it is in the best interest of their business to be able to help someone risk-share that with. And many of the products that they buy to share that risk, the risk factor of doing business with that company is already priced into that transaction.

But we have an overinterpretation here now, where not only are those businesses paying a risk premium but they are also having to put up additional collateral. So this begins to keep the working collateral for the company so that they can invest in new equipment and in things that can help create new jobs in this country.

I want to talk about the fact that 411 people, including the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), voted for this piece of legislation. So this is not something that we are trying to sneak in on anybody. This is something that was voted on, in this House, by 411 votes.

And Mr. Dodd and Mr. Frank, the primary authors of the Dodd-Frank bill, both said that this was never an intention of Dodd-Frank and have spoken in favor of some kind of reform to that in the future.

So this is a good piece of legislation, and I am a little concerned that my colleagues think that it is in jeopardy. Well, the only reason it would be in jeopardy is if our colleagues over on the other side of the building decide, for some reason, that they don't want to reauthorize TRIA. That is certainly a decision that they would be making on their own. But, again, nothing in this bill is policy that has not been considered by this body in the past.

So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this rule. We need to move this forward. Time is running short, and the marketplace needs that certainty. I am confident that we will pass this bill in the House today, and we are going to encourage our folks over in the Senate to ratify that. We hope the President of the United States will help bring market certainty to the American industry in the future.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion about this bill, and people were talking about reforms. And you know what? I think what the American people need to understand is why these reforms are important to them. The reason they are important to them is, quite honestly, right now, the taxpayers in this country are underwriting part of the risk for terrorism attacks in this country for the property owners.

What this bill does is it begins to bring certainty for the industry, for the insurers, and also certainty for the people who are building the new buildings and apartment houses and shopping centers and other types of public facilities. It gives them the certainty of what the policy is going to be over the next few years. But I think the important part is that the taxpayers are an additional cushion that is being put between them and any potential loss.

One of the things that has been mentioned, we raised the trigger from $100 million to $200 million. That is an important part of that. I think the other issue that we have tried to do with this in order to create this certainty was, we didn't change the overall structure of the TRIA program. We have tried to keep it within the confines of how it has been operating over the last few years, that way, creating the least amount of certainty that we could.

I think the part that isn't mentioned a lot of times is the fact that we did leave in place a deductible, and basically the industry has to take the first loss up to about 20 percent of their annualized premium for the previous year. Today, on an industry-wide basis, that is about $40 billion. So if you have got a $200 million trigger, you have got a $40 billion cushion between the taxpayers and a potential loss.

The other thing that we did in this bill is we said when we get to the point where after the deductible the taxpayers start sharing that loss, then the taxpayers' portion moves from 85 percent to 80 percent. So that is another cushion.

I think one of the things that we want to let the folks know also is that an additional protection that was built into this bill was the amount of money that the taxpayers could recover if, in fact, they had to put additional money into the TRIA program. So now we have increased that amount substantially.

I am feeling good that we are moving in the right direction, but ultimately, what we need to do is get the taxpayers out of the insurance business. When you look across the board where the taxpayers are having to underwrite insurance-type losses, whether it be flood insurance or mortgage insurance, quite honestly, the government doesn't do well at pricing those.

There are some good things in this bill besides the TRIA reform in that we have that NARAB II. What is that? Well, that is a good small business bill. A lot of people have independent insurance agents in their districts or in their communities or in their States that may want to write business in other States.

To do that today, they have to go pass another license, take another license in that other State. Under NARAB II, they would be able to take their existing license if they meet the requirements in other States and follow those laws. They would able to underwrite that.

Mr. Speaker, the third piece of this legislation that is important is that we are going to help farmers, ranchers, and small businesses be able to cover the risks that they need without taking a lot of their operating capital, putting that operating capital into a plant, into equipment so they can hire and create more jobs in America. These are all issues that have had bipartisan support in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I now urge my colleagues: let's do something good for the American people, and let's pass S. 2244, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Financial Services be discharged from further consideration of the bill (S. 2270) to clarify the application of certain leverage and risk-based requirements under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service of my friend and colleague, Congressman Ralph Hall. You look at Ralph's life, and it is a record of service to his country. It began in 1942 as a young lieutenant flying an aircraft off of an aircraft carrier. After the war, Ralph came back to this country and started work in the private sector, creating jobs and expanding the economy in Texas.

Later, Ralph would be the county judge for Rockwall, Texas, and then later would be elected as a Texas State senator. In 1980, he was elected to the United States Congress to represent the Fourth District of Texas, where he has represented that district with distinction.

If you ever traveled in Ralph's district and you stop at the 7-Eleven and you stop to get a little gas and you mentioned Ralph Hall, people's faces light up because I bet everybody in Ralph's district has met Ralph because one of the things that he was very diligent about doing was making sure that the people in his district felt represented.

Since his election, he has worked tirelessly here in Congress on a number of issues, and I had the honor and privilege to serve on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee with Ralph. One of the things I appreciated most about Ralph and I think most of us appreciated is Ralph's sense of humor. Now, that didn't stop him from really asking very direct and grilling questions of witnesses that would come before our committee, and sometimes, it would be a tense moment, but Ralph always had something funny or a story to tell that kind of broke the ice.

You see a number of members of the Texas delegation are here today, particularly the Republican delegation. Every Thursday, we have lunch together and talk about what is good for Texas. The thing that we always looked forward to was we couldn't wait until Ralph got there so Ralph could share a funny story. One of the things that I will miss most about Ralph is

those times when he would be on the floor or he would be at lunch sharing those stories.

Now, one of the things about Ralph is that, as he got older, he got wiser. In fact, he got so wise in 2004 that he realized that he needed to be a part of the Republican Party, so he switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, and we were so glad to welcome him to that.

As I said, it has been an honor and a privilege, Ralph, to be part of your team on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and it has been a great honor to be one of your colleagues. More importantly, Ralph, we want to thank you for your friendship, your kinship, and, most importantly, your service to this great Nation and to the State of Texas.

With that, we say, Ralph, job well done, God bless you, and we look forward to seeing you soon.

Mr. Speaker, when Roll Call Vote #516 was taken on November 12, 2014, I was unable to be in Washington, DC to place my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4315, the 21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act.

I also want to thank Chairman Hastings for all of the work that he has done on this issue, and I also want to thank him for inviting me to be a part of the ESA Working Group and for including my bill, H.R. 4317, the State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency and Recovery Act, in the final version of this bill.

In the 19th District, we have been facing a lot of these issues with the Endangered Species Act. We had the lesser prairie chicken. We had the Dunes Sage Lizard and some of the areas dealing with minnows. But one of the things that this bill does in the part of the bill that I introduced is something that is very simple and straightforward and very commonsense, and that is to say we need to make sure, before we make some of these decisions, that we have the facts.

Now, that is kind of a novel idea. When we have a lawsuit, everybody gets to present the facts. And so what we are saying, and when we begin to go down the road of listing, causing millions of dollars' worth of expense and, in some cases, encumbering millions of acres of private property, we need to deal with the facts.

Now, why are we bringing this bill up? Well, it has been pointed out that this bill is like over 40 years old and over 1,500 species have been listed, and only 2 percent of those have been recovered.

Now, imagine going to a doctor and you say: Doctor, what is your outcome ratio? He says: 2 percent of the time I have good outcomes. Or imagine buying a product where you say this product works 2 percent of the time. So, basically, the ESA, Endangered Species Act, does need reform, and my bill, this bill, begins to do that.

What does it do? It just says that when the Federal Government has collected data and they are making the decision, they have to make all of the findings, all of the data that they used to reach that decision available to the States and local governments and to the stakeholders.

That seems fair to me.

The other thing it says is that the local stakeholders and the local State governments and the local county governments have the right to present their facts.

Now, one of the things that is important about that is that, I know a lot more about Lubbock, Texas, than maybe somebody that lives in the State of Oregon or the State of New Jersey. So that local knowledge of the habitat, the conditions is an important part of the data.

So when you are dealing with the facts, then I think we are going to have better outcomes. And if that is the goal of the Endangered Species Act, then why are we trying to suppress the facts? I don't get it. So that is the reason that this is an important part of that.

I notice that the gentleman mentioned that he thinks that this bill somehow dictates what is the best science. Not true. What it says, though, is that all of the data that they collect they have to present to the other stakeholders. What it also says is that the data that the stakeholders and the county and local and State governments present, they have to consider that data.

Now, if somebody has got a study about what they think the conditions in Lubbock, Texas, are, we think the people on the ground in Lubbock, Texas, or in west Texas probably have better information and ought to be a part of that consideration.

I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 4315.

Mr. Chairman, as I was listening to the gentleman, I was wondering if he was talking about the amendment that he had actually offered, because actually he is making the case that I stood up to make today.

Let me tell you what this amendment would do. It would exclude scientific information published solely in the internal Interior Department publications from the definition of ``best available science,'' which would allow the Department of Interior to avoid transparency requirements in section 2 of the bill, which requires that the data used by the Federal agencies for the Endangered Species Act listing decisions to be made publicly available and accessible through the Internet.

So what the gentleman was saying is they cooked the books, they cooked the information, and he doesn't want that to be made available. So here we are making important decisions about the potential taking of people's land, spending millions of dollars in mitigation for what may be false science.

This gentleman's amendment defeats the whole purpose of transparency, the intention of this bill.

What we are trying to do is we are going to say: Let's take the facts, let's take the best available science that the Fish and Wildlife and some of these agencies say that they have, let's compare it with what is the best available science from the stakeholders and come up with the truth.

But the gentleman's amendment, which I urge Members to defeat, defeats the whole purpose of that transparency. The American people deserve that. Their tax money is being used

against them in the fact that the tax money is going out and being used to determine what is the best available science. Now if we have got the best available science--in fact, as the gentleman referred to it as ``cooking the science,'' then the American people ought to have an opportunity to dispute that and it not be hidden from them in some agency memo.

With that, I encourage Members to defeat the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, basically, what the gentleman's amendment would do is strike the language in the section of this bill that requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to consider all data submitted by State, tribal, or county governments as best scientific and commercial data available.

Let me dispel one of the myths. It says that all of this data has to be considered best scientific and commercial data. That is not necessarily true. The Fish and Wildlife Service still has discrimination over what data that it considers. What it does say is that it must consider the data that is submitted.

The other thing that you hear my friends on the other side of the aisle say is that I guess all of the best data and all of the smartest people in the country must be in Washington, D.C., but we have Mr. DeFazio, the gentleman from Oregon, stand up and say:

no, sometimes they cook the books. So I wondered if that memo that the gentleman was talking about was the best commercial and available science for the wolf. Obviously, he was saying it was not.

What we are really saying about all of this is it is just about transparency. It is about recognizing that the people in the States and the local governments may actually have better information on the ground about a lot of these issues than somebody sitting in Washington, looking at some model or some report that someone has drawn up.

I will talk about my State of Texas, for example. The Texas Parks and Wildlife service has developed over 8,000 wildlife management plans covering over 30 million acres. I would probably tell you that those people have some of the best available and commercial science on a lot of the issues facing Texas probably a little bit more than maybe somebody sitting in Washington, D.C., or some other State.

So one of the things that I am a little perplexed about is my colleagues keep fighting the transparency. This President said he was going to have one of the most transparent administrations in history, but that has been far from the truth.

I would encourage my colleagues to defeat this amendment. It defeats the whole purpose of the bill and the intention of letting the American people know the facts.

If you go to a trial, you don't get to use only your facts. You have to hear everybody's facts. Since this is a trial that determines whether these species are in fact endangered or not endangered anymore, we should be able to deal with the facts, but we can't deal with one set of facts. We have to deal with all of the facts.

So if you want to hear all of the facts, defeat this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, due to flight delays on July 8, 2014, I was absent from votes in the House. I, therefore, missed rollcall votes 369 and 370. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 369 and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 370.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Chairman Smith's support of this legislation, as well as Ms. Johnson, the ranking member.

I rise today in support of H.R. 1786, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act. This is a very important piece of legislation because what we know is that tornadoes and tornadic-type winds have caused a huge amount of destruction and loss of life in our country.

Last year alone, there were over 1,300 recorded tornadoes in our country, causing over 70 deaths and over 1,500 injuries. These storms not only cost lives, but they also damaged property. The average is about $4 million a year, except in 2011, when we saw a bad year for tornadoes. The damage was over $28 billion. That is not just a natural disaster; it is national disaster as well.

Back in 1970, I had an opportunity firsthand to find out exactly how devastating these tornadoes can be. In my hometown of Lubbock, Texas, a tornado ripped through our community and killed 26 of our citizens. Fortunately, I was not injured. It was in an area that I lived at that time, and I had the opportunity to see firsthand the tremendous amount of devastation that can happen from these storms.

Very quickly, after that storm in 1970, Dr. Ernst Kiesling, with Texas Tech University, began to study these tornadic winds and to look at ways to build structures more effectively, to build shelters, and to really study the impacts that these storms have on building materials and what materials hold up the best.

We have been talking about statistics, but it is really about the lives of people that are impacted by these storms. When someone loses their home, they not only rebuild their home, but, in many cases, they are going to have to rebuild their lives, which is one of the primary reasons that I introduced this important piece of legislation.

What does it do? Basically, it begins to, as I mentioned earlier what was going on at Texas Tech, not only study the building materials and different types of wind activity and the material

in the structure and construction techniques that are used to apply those materials, but also to begin to have a better ability to predict how these storms form and, in the future, be able to give more warning, but just doing the research overall of how we can do better at predicting and also helping the American people do mitigation against these kinds of storms and understand the mechanics of them.

Basically, what this NWIRP does is take four agencies and pool them together in how they spend money for this important research. It takes NOAA, the National Science Foundation, FEMA, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, and basically makes sure that they are coordinating and sharing that information.

What is so important about using Federal tax dollars to do that research is to make sure that we are transforming that out into the general public. And so as we learn about these techniques and we begin to make suggestions of how building codes, building standards, and building techniques can be improved in the future, we thereby save lives and property down the road. That is an important part of this.

What we learned is that for every dollar that we spend in mitigation, we save $4 in response down the road. And so not only is this a piece of legislation that will help save lives and property, but a really novel idea of saving the American taxpayers money at the same time.

This is a commonsense piece of legislation that is bipartisan. It passed out of the committee in a bipartisan way. It will save lives; it will save money; and it will save property. I encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourns to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to rise tonight to recognize a great friend and great public servant and a great chancellor at Texas Tech University.

When Chancellor Hance was first appointed to be the third chancellor of Texas Tech University, his motto was ``Dream no little dreams.'' I think this is a perfect motto for the chancellor to use because that really expresses the way he has lived his life.

Kent Hance was born to Raymond and Beral Cole Hance on November 14, 1942, in the great city of Dimmitt, Texas, which is in my congressional district, a town known for grit and determination, which clearly was passed along to Hance.

He enrolled in Texas Tech University in 1961 and joined the fraternity Delta Tau Delta, where he often mentioned that he became friends with a guy named John Deutschendorf, who later became a guy by the name of John Denver.

Now, I think, sometimes, Kent Hance claims that he helped John Denver with some of his material, but we have not been able to actually verify that.

Hance graduated from Texas Tech in 1965 with a business degree, and despite his better judgment, he entered law school at the University of Texas. While he was at that school, they named him president of the Student Bar Association and, of course, in the true Red Raider spirit.

After graduating with his law degree, he returned to west Texas to practice law and teach business law at Texas Tech. While teaching, undoubtedly, the most momentous meeting in his career was when he had this student by the name of Randy Neugebauer in his business law class.

Now, what was kind of unique about that class, with Professor Hance and his student Randy Neugebauer, was that little did either one of us know that both of us would go on to be congressmen for the 19th District of Texas.

In 1974, Kent Hance decided to run for the Texas Senate and won in that west Texas seat. He served in the senate from 1974 through 1978, when he decided to run for Congress for the 19th Congressional District.

Interestingly enough, in that race, he defeated a young man in Midland, Texas, by the name of George W. Bush. Many of us know that he became the future President of the United States.

One of the things that President Bush would occasionally say is that, Mr. Hance and I accomplished something he was not able to accomplish, and that was being elected to Congress, but then he would smile and say, but I guess it worked out, and it work out indeed.

While serving the House of Representatives from 1979 to 1985, he was known for his conservative voting record and was a member of the Boll Weevil Conservatives. Congressman Hance became one of President Reagan's closest allies when he was working on his 1981 tax package. In 1984, Hance decided to run for the Senate in Texas, a seat that ultimately was won by Phil Gramm.

In 1987, Texas Governor Bill Clements appointed Hance to a vacancy on the Texas Railroad Commission. Upon doing so, he became the first Republican to ever serve on the railroad commission in Texas.

Due to his successes on the commission, he was reelected in 1988, and in 1989, he was elected chairman of the railroad commission. After stepping down in 1990 from his commission, he continued to practice law. In 2006, Kent Hance was chosen to become the third chancellor of the Texas Tech University System.

When appointed to the position of chancellor to begin implementing the motto, as I mentioned earlier, ``Dream no little dreams,'' and no little dreams did Kent Hance have for Texas Tech University. He said that he was going to raise a billion dollars and began a fundraising campaign to do that, the largest one in the school's history.

Additionally, Hance decided to grow the university to 40,000 students by 2020 to meet the demands of a growing State. Not only has his fundraising campaign exceeded a billion dollar mark, but under his leadership, Chancellor Hance has grown the university system and about doubled it by adding Angelo State and the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso.

Texas Tech University, the flagship institution of the Texas Tech system, has also increased in the number of degrees by 46 percent between 2006 and 2012 and added a chapter of the prestigious Phi Beta Kappa to the campus. All together, it is quite easy to see why in 1985, even though Kent Hance had not accomplished all of this, that people recognized early his talents and named him Distinguished Alumni of Texas Tech.

On October 11, 2013, unfortunately, Kent Hance announced that he would be stepping down as chancellor. While Texas Tech and west Texas would be losing one of its best advocates, we are extremely grateful for the services that he offered as he served and will continue to serve as chairman emeritus. Future students of Texas Tech will also benefit from his decisions to continue teaching his seminar classes on leadership.

Before handing over the floor to some of my colleagues who would like to say some things about Chancellor Hance, I wanted to read a quick quote from President George W. Bush. Upon his announcement for retirement, George Bush was quoted saying:

Texas Tech was fortunate to have Kent in a leadership

position. He loves the Red Raiders and he leaves behind a

better university, and I wish all the best to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I now will yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I thank the gentleman.

I think what the gentleman said about Mr. Hance was he dedicated himself to a life of public service and education. I think when you ask people, Kent Hance was always available to be your friend, and I think that is a unique characteristic for someone who led a very busy schedule like that. He'd always take time out to be a good friend to folks.

Mr. Speaker, now I will yield to a gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway.)

(Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

I thank the gentleman for bringing up a point. While Chancellor Hance was out raising all of this money for the university, over a billion dollars, I think it exemplifies who Kent Hance is. He put his money up, too, contributing and building that chapel. Whereas the gentleman mentioned that a lot of weddings have been held, but students also go over there and spend time for prayer, and I think that says a lot about the character of the man we honor today.

It is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), my neighbor to the west.

I thank the gentleman, and I now yield to the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions).

I thank the gentleman, and I yield to another gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stockman.

I thank the gentleman. Now another great Texan, I yield to Dr. Burgess from Dallas.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things about this evening, we had some other Members that were planning to be here tonight to honor the chancellor. But, as you know, there was a memorial service in Texas at Fort Hood today, so some of our Members have flown to Texas to participate in that. I have letters from some of those folks, and remarks, that I want to enter for the Record.

I have a very special letter here from the Speaker of the House, which I am going to put a part of in the Record. I won't read the whole letter. It is a very nice letter. It talks about all the many accomplishments of Chancellor Hance and his service here in Congress.

He closes that letter by saying:

Congratulations to Chancellor Hance as he moves on to a new

chapter. I thank him for his leadership, his vision, and his

lifetime of public service.

Here is another letter from the Governor of the State of Texas, Rick Perry, and I quote part of that. He says:

It is my pleasure to join your friends and colleagues in

recognizing the remarkable job you have done as a leader of

the Texas Tech University system.

You have presided over an incredible era for the Texas Tech

system, highlighted by profound growth and positive change.

With the addition of Angelo State University and the creation

of the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center--El Paso,

the system has literally doubled in size since 2007.

Enrollment has also increased dramatically, and students are

graduating and joining the workforce at a faster rate, too.

Nearly 10,000 degrees were earned in 2012, almost double the

number that were awarded a decade ago.

Many students have passed through Texas Tech's institutions

during your tenure. These men and women will make incredible

contributions to our communities, to our State, and to our

Nation; some of them probably already have. You have

furthered both individual success and collective

achievement--and it is quite a legacy.

Anita and I thank you for your service to the State of

Texas and wish you an enjoyable, fulfilling retirement.

Governor Rick Perry

Randy Sanders, who is a former editor at the Lubbock Avalanche- Journal in Lubbock, wrote these remarks:

During the 6 years that I was editor of the Lubbock

Avalanche-Journal I would frequently call Hance when I was in

the dilemma about an important editorial decision. Many times

without taking a breath he would tell me: Well, let me tell

you what I would do if I were in your shoes. Every time I

would follow his advice and our editorial position would be

spot on.

No one knows west Texas and west Texans better than Ken

Hance. He knows how to cut to the chase and develop a plan

that will serve west Texas and its citizens in the most

beneficial possible manner.

One of the regents at Texas Tech, Regent Tim Lancaster, writes:

No matter where you start, how you prioritize, or how

inclusive you become in including the vast number of

accomplishments of Kent Hance, it has been a great and

impactful career. There are few people that can be included

in the same category as Kent Hance. Unfortunately,

individuals like Kent do not come along often enough.

What a pleasure it has been for me to get to know and

observe the impact of this great man.

One of our Senators, Senator John Cornyn, says this about Ken Hance:

I send my greetings and best wishes on the occasion of your

retirement as chancellor after more than 8 years with Texas

Tech University.

From your early career in the Texas senate, three terms in

the U.S. Congress, chairmanship of the Texas Railroad

Commission, and your current role as chancellor, you have

dedicated your life and service to the betterment of Texas

and its citizens. Your energy and experience have been an

important force in ensuring access to quality higher

education and expansion of research and innovation in Texas.

Our other Senator, Mr. Cruz, says:

On behalf of a grateful State, thank you for your service

to the great State of Texas and Texas Tech University. As a

native of Dimmitt, your west Texas roots, strong moral

character, and entrepreneurial spirit have created a legacy

that will not soon be forgotten.

The mayor of Lubbock writes:

On behalf of the city of Lubbock, let me offer my

congratulations on your retirement as chancellor, and thank

you for your service to west Texas, Lubbock, and Texas Tech.

Your love and dedication to Texas Tech has brought the

university to new heights. From your graduation in 1965 to

leading the way in raising over $1 billion, the time you have

spent at Tech has left a lasting impression on the

university. You strengthened ties between Texas Tech and the

city of Lubbock, and your efforts to increase enrollment have

led to new students and families now calling Lubbock home.

You are a true servant of the State, having served as a

Texas senator, U.S. Congressman, and chairman of the Texas

Railroad Commission. Thank you for the years of service you

dedicated to making Lubbock and west Texas a better place to

live.

Congressman Roger Williams is one of the Members that I mentioned who said he was originally going to be here, wanted to be here, is a good friend of Chancellor Hance, but he went down to be at the memorial service today at Fort Hood. He says:

Today I rise to recognize a good friend of mine, a great

friend of Texas, and one of the finest examples of public

servant, Texas Tech University System Chancellor Ken Hance.

In his nearly 8 years as head of Texas Tech, Chancellor

Hance has become a staple in the community and beloved figure

on the campus. Famous for knowing every Texas mascot, a trait

that he and I share, students are often greeted by him with a

fist bump and a quiz on high school mascots while on their

way to class. From Itasca Wampus Cats to the Hamlin Pied

Pipers, there is not a student on campus he hasn't won over

with his down-to-Earth demeanor and palpable dedication to

the students.

His quit wit, famous stories, and steadfast dedication to

his alma mater will certainly be missed upon his retirement.

I wish my friend Ken Hance the best of luck in his next

endeavor and thank him for his tremendous legacy he is still

creating. From his early days in Texas politics to his

service in the U.S. Congress to a successful law firm,

Chancellor Hance makes a difference everywhere he goes. He

lives by his own motto: Dream no little dreams, and I look

forward to seeing what his dreams have in store for him

next.

Another Member that went down to the Fort Hood memorial service was Congressman John Carter. He says:

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor the distinguished

career of Texas Tech University Chancellor Kent Hance. With

his retirement approaching, he will soon close his incredible

service to my alma mater and begin the next chapter of his

life.

Congressman Carter is a Red Raider.

Chancellor Hance's dedication to public service began in

politics with stints in the Texas senate, house, U.S.

Congress, and eventually serving as chairman of the Texas

Railroad Commission.

Since becoming chancellor in 2006, he has made incredible

achievements at Texas Tech and the university continues to

thrive because of the impacts he has made.

Retirement is to be celebrated and enjoyed. It's not the

end of a career but rather the beginning of a new adventure.

I speak for myself, as well as all of the Red Raider family,

when I say Chancellor Hance's unconditional love for Texas

Tech combined with his exceptional leadership leaves behind a

legacy that will never be forgotten. I commend him for his

dedication to Texas Tech and wish him the best in the years

ahead.

One of the things is that Chancellor Hance is very hands-on and he gets involved with the students at Texas Tech. He greets them one-on- one and, in fact, teaches a leadership class there. So I think it is kind of fitting we asked some of the students that had known the chancellor. These are the people that he is working for and worked tirelessly for.

John Esparza, who is a Texas Tech Board of Regents 1997 graduate, said:

Let it be said that Chancellor Kent Hance has a deep and

abiding love for the institution he has devoted the last 8

years of his life to. In reality, Chancellor Hance has given

so much more than just those 8 years. Those who know him know

his love affair with Texas Tech University began shortly

after his parents dropped him off there in 1961. Since that

time he has served his family and his constituents with

honor, going all the way back to the late 1970s, when he

served in this hallowed body.

As he is well known for saying to freshmen during their

orientation, and to seniors at their graduation, ``I love

Texas Tech.''

And truly Ken Hance loves Texas Tech.

I wanted to read a few quotes from Stephanie Addison, who interned in our office and works now in the chancellor's office. She says this about Chancellor Hance:

Chancellor Hance is dedicated to excellence in every area

of his life. His enthusiasm is very evident in the impact

that he has left on Texas Tech University, as well as

everyone he meets. His passion for investing in the students

and the alumni is second to none. It is hard to imagine Texas

Tech without the chancellor. It has been a pleasure serving

his office as student assistant, and I will carry this

experience with me the rest of our lives.

Pat Campbell said:

You can easily judge the character of a man by how he

treats those who can do nothing for him. Chancellor Hance

definitely goes above and beyond the call of duty as an

administrator, and I am proud to call him a friend. When

Chancellor Hance says he loves Texas Tech, he truly means it.

Lee Bobbitt, a former Student Government Association president at Texas Tech, writes this:

He had high expectations, not just for himself but all

those who worked around him. In his time at Texas Tech, he

devoted himself to improving the university, and through his

work taught me and many others to be servant leaders, to be

good listeners, and, more importantly, how to connect with

people through the fine art of storytelling. Ken Hance is one

of a kind, and I am lucky to have called him mentor and

friend.

Mr. Speaker, I have many other letters here in testimony, which we will be glad to enter into the Record.

We have talked about Chancellor Hance as a former Member of Congress, a former State senator, and a former railroad commissioner. In his life of public service, obviously, he dreamed no little dream.

But just for a minute, I would like to talk about the Ken Hance that I know. It is not the one that I call chancellor; it is the Ken Hance that I call friend.

Over the years, Kent and I have had an opportunity to mentor and to talk to each other, and I consider his advice to be a treasure in my life. I can always call him up when there is an issue or something that I want to get his reflection on. He is always quick to take my call.

But it is not just what Ken Hance says. I think what we have heard tonight and what we have seen tonight, it is about how he lived his life. A lot of people out in west Texas, we say some people talk the talk, but some people that you really pay attention to are the people that walk the walk. What I would say about my friend Ken Hance is he dreamed no little dream, and he walked the walk. So it has been my pleasure tonight to recognize a good friend, a great American, a great Texan and a great Red Raider--go Tech.

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

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to H.R. 3370. The National Flood Insurance Program is in trouble. It is in deep debt, and it is putting taxpayers at risk for another government bailout.

The program was added to the GAO's ``high-risk list'' in 2006 and remains there today because of the financial exposure it represents to the American taxpayers. Today, it is over $24 billion in debt, and this number will continue to rise.

Recognizing this, Congress passed the Biggert-Waters Act in July of 2012. The act authorized the flood insurance program for 5 years and included important reforms to get it back on sound financial footing. One of these reforms was the gradual elimination of outdated rate subsidies.

In a rare display of bipartisanship, Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly supported the notion that risk-based premiums were needed for the program to be self-sufficient and to protect the taxpayers from further bailouts. Over 400 Members of Congress voted for that.

Since then, we have heard concerns from homeowners facing sticker shock from the higher rates. I am sympathetic to those concerns, but I believe there are more responsible ways to address this bill than the bill before us today.

The Financial Services Committee put together four different proposals to address these concerns. The last one included an 8- to 10- year phase-in for rates and nearly a 2-year affordability cap of $5,000. Unfortunately, each one of these proposals were rejected because they fell short of maintaining subsidies indefinitely.

That is unfortunate because maintaining these subsidies hurts everyone in the long run. It hurts taxpayers by putting them on the hook for billions of dollars in subsidies. It hurts the Flood Insurance Program by easing its path toward insolvency. It hurts homeowners by encouraging them to build in areas that jeopardize their lives and their properties.

After more than a decade, if I have learned anything in Congress, it is that the Federal Government does a terrible job of underwriting and pricing risk. Whether it is through subsidies or failures to price risk due to political considerations, the American taxpayers, unfortunately, end up footing the bill.

What is even worse under H.R. 3370 is that the taxpayers will be subsidizing rates that benefit only 1 percent of households. More than 20 percent of the programs policies are heavily subsidized, regardless of need, and of those policyholders, 70 percent go to homes in counties with the highest property values.

While H.R. 3370 may help homeowners facing high rates in the short run, it does them a disservice by not promoting a healthy, stable financial program in the future.

For taxpayers, for homeowners and, ultimately, for the future of the flood insurance, I think we can do better. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 3370.

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

I thank Chairman Hensarling.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is kind of interesting that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to want to justify this ``spending gone wild'' agency, an agency that last year alone had a budget overreach of nearly $100 million.

That is the reason that I introduced title II of this bill, which really says two things: one, that we take this agency out of the Fed and make it a stand-alone entity; and two, that we put it on budget, a normal appropriations process, where Members of Congress can begin to sit down and look at the budget that is presented to them by the agency--how you are going to spend their money. Maybe we would have prevented some of these overreaches that happened.

I don't think that anybody thinks that government should just have an unlimited purse, and this is what this agency basically has. If they run out of money--spend too much money--they just reach over into the Fed and take that money out. No other agency that I know of in the government has that, and I think the hardworking American people and the hardworking people of the 19th District feel like agencies ought to come and bring their budgets, like in other areas of government, and explain and prove why they need that money.

Interestingly enough, the CFPB has 1,500 employees, 60 percent of them making over $100,000 and 5 percent of those making more than Cabinet secretaries. Mr. Chairman, again, we think there needs to be more accountability here.

This agency can draw up to $500 million each year, really. In fact, some of the requests for transfer were done on small pieces of paper.

Can you imagine a three-line paragraph saying, ``Please send over $150 million. We have run out of money''?

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3193 begins to bring the accountability that the American taxpayers not only deserve but desire.

Mr. Speaker, next Wednesday is a very solemn day in America. It is the 41st anniversary of ROE v. WADE; and I think that that was the day that a blemish was put on America, a blemish put on a country that was founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But, unfortunately, we denied almost 56 million individuals that opportunity. A lot of people use the word ``choice'' when they are talking about abortion, but unfortunately we didn't give 56 million people a choice.

One of the great pleasures of my life is I just spent Christmas with my family and, more importantly, with my children and my grandchildren. I have two sons and four grandchildren.

One of the pleasures that Dana and I have on our mantle at home in our bedroom are the sonograms of each of our grandchildren, our first glimpse at what our loving grandchildren were going to look like, and a clear indication that life begins at conception.

So my hope while I am here in Congress, and I will continue the fight, is that we remove this blemish from this great Nation; that we make this a Nation recommitted to those principles it was founded on of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we cannot be a Nation of life, truly can we uphold any principles?