Floor Statements

I'd like to thank the ranking member for his recognition.

Over the past several years, this country has witnessed a series of tragic mining disasters, starting with the 12 miners killed on January 3, 2006 at the Sago Mine in my district. I know the families, I know the communities, and this is a wound that will never heal. This tragedy was followed by more deaths in accidents around the country, and each of these disasters has identified and highlighted deficiencies in the protection afforded miners.

In response to Sago and the other mine disasters, Congress enacted the MINER Act. We did it in a bipartisan way. It was a very proud day for me, as a West Virginian, to stand with my fellow West Virginians, several Governors, the President of the United States. Members of my own community, from the Sago community, came to the signing to sign the MINER Act. I'm proud of that effort, and I'm proud of the efforts that the companies have moved forward to improve the safety since the enactment of the MINER Act. It has substantially tightened regulations and enforcement procedures, and the mining industry has made significant changes in operations and equipment to comply with the strengthened requirements.

A number of Federal agencies and several State agencies, West Virginia has been very aggressive in this regard, has pushed reforms to better respond to incidents that occur and how we can improve the chances of miners to survive a serious accident. Today more self- contained self-rescuers are being stored underground than in the past, and that is a good positive first step.

With the success of the original MINER Act in mind, I do hold some reservations that additional legislation could complicate the safety improvements currently under way, and I am not alone in my concern. I encourage my colleagues to keep this in mind if this legislation moves forward.

Unfortunately, the events of Sago serve as a reminder that we must always strive to make America's mines as safe as they can possibly be.

This bill is flawed in many ways. The junior Senator from West Virginia has publicly expressed his concern, and I have concern that this bill will hold up some of the progress as it has moved forward.

But at the end of the day, for me, this is about those Sago miners, and their tragedies stay with me. My hope is that we can continue the good work that has moved forward as a result of the MINER Act. It is crucial that Congress continue to highlight mine safety so that the tragedies we've seen in West Virginia and across the Nation are not repeated.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor South Fork Volunteer Fire Department of Pendleton County, West Virginia which will be celebrating its 45th anniversary.

South Fork Volunteer Fire Department was incorporated December 6, 1962. Those serving as the first officers were President: Herald Williams, Vice-President: Fred Williams, Secretary: Carl Nesselrodt, and Treasurer: Orville Gum; and the original members also included Marvin Hartman, Albert Joseph, Sheridan Layman, Harold Miller, Harold Wilson, and Mervin Zirk. The formation of the fire department would not be possible without community involvement; the land and materials used for the construction of the original firehouse were all donated, many by the original members and officers.

South Fork Volunteer Fire Department has expanded its facilities, equipment, and operations over its 45 year span. Construction was completed on March 20, 2004 for a new firehouse located on Route 21. South Fork Volunteer Fire Department now boasts 35 volunteer members, 15 auxiliary members, and has a fleet of six vehicles.

I would like to extend my gratitude to the past and current members of South Fork Volunteer Fire Department for providing safety to our citizens in times of emergency and dire need. Our first responders and volunteer fire departments represent the best of our communities.

I extend congratulations to South Fork Volunteer Fire Department and all of those who have been involved with 45 successful years of serving and protecting the community of Brandywine.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor William Rhodes of Gandeeville, WV, for attaining the rank of Eagle Scout.

William has been involved as a member of the Boy Scouts for the past 6 years as a member of Troop 434 sponsored by Walton Union Church in Walton, WV. For his Eagle Scout project, William improved the facilities at Bessie Jones Memorial Park. He constructed a handicap accessible bridge, trash can receptacles, three benches, and most notably built a trail at the park complete with signage, so walkers could easily navigate their way.

His accomplishments and hard work demonstrate the high standards held by those who achieve the rank of Eagle Scout. He has been involved with his local 4-H Club and played freshman and junior varsity football for the Roane County Raiders. William is currently a junior at Roane County High School and attends Roane-Jackson Vocational School, where he is studying auto mechanics.

I extend my congratulations to William and look forward to his future accomplishments. Roane County is fortunate to have such a dedicated, patriotic, young man among its citizens.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mike Bunner of Buckhannon, WV, who recently attained the rank of Eagle Scout on November 12, 2007. He is the son of Roy Michael Bunner and Jennifer Lee Bunner.

Mike is a member of Boy Scout Troop 106 and is sponsored by Sand Run Baptist Church in Buckhannon, WV. He has been involved in scouting since August of 2004. During his time in Boy Scouts, he has earned 31 Merit Badges and was awarded the prestigious Order of the Arrow. For his Eagle Scout project, Mike constructed a play area for a local Christian school.

Mike is truly a representative of the Scout Oath, ``to do duty to God and country.'' He has been involved with the 4-H Club for six years where he has excelled in leadership and community service activities. He is also a member of his church's youth group.

His many accomplishments demonstrate the high standards held by those who achieve Eagle Scout. I extend my congratulations to Mike and look forward to his future accomplishments.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Grayson Lee Shreve of Buckhannon, WV, who recently attained the rank of Eagle Scout on October 23, 2007.

Grayson is a member of Boy Scout Troop 106 and is sponsored by Sand Run Baptist Church in Buckhannon, WV. During his years in scouting, he has received 43 Merit Badges and achieved the rank of Life Scout. He was awarded the prestigious Order of the Arrow and the Arrow of Light. For his service project to obtain Eagle Scout, Grayson restored and constructed a screened picnic shelter for a local church.

His many accomplishments demonstrate the high standards held by those who achieve Eagle Scout. Grayson has been a consistent Honor Roll student and has been a member of the Gifted Program since elementary school. He currently attends Buckhannon-Upshur High School where he is involved in BUMS, the school news channel.

Grayson is truly representative of the Scout Oath, ``to do duty to God and country.'' I extend my congratulations to Grayson and his parents, Leslie Shreve II and Norma Hinkle. Upshur County is fortunate to have such an accomplished young leader.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the bravery and heroism of Tony Hess. A 23-year-old volunteer firefighter from Kanawha County West Virginia, Hess raced into a burning house last month to save the life of two year old Alyssa Abner.

Hess didn't plan on being a hero on November 23. A business major at West Virginia State University, he was just answering an early morning emergency call; but when he arrived first on the scene he headed directly to a second story bedroom. The smoke was so dense that he had to break a window in order to find Alyssa trapped inside.

After rescuing her from the fire, Tony rode with her all the way to the hospital. I am happy to report that little Alyssa is in an improving condition at a Cincinnati hospital.

Madam Speaker, I join the chorus of West Virginians thankful for Tony's courage and service. Volunteer firefighters are true heroes who sacrifice for the right reasons. In Tony's own words, ``I'm not doing it for the publicity or lights or sirens,'' he said. ``I just want to be a fireman.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this no-energy energy bill. We're all for innovation and research for future energy resources, including renewables; but the standard in this bill is a one-size-fits-all mandate that ignores available energy resources and economic needs of individual States.

A mandatory renewable energy standard, such as in this bill, picks winners and losers. It excludes nuclear, hydroelectric and clean coal. Technology is giving us ways to use coal more cleanly and efficiently. We just heard coal sequestration mentioned, but where is coal liquification? It is a proven viable fuel for the decades to come.

Despite tremendous promise of this and other technologies, this no- energy bill excludes our most abundant domestic resource, coal, from our future energy strategy.

A federally mandated renewable electric standard will raise electric prices for all consumers. Think of that senior citizen on a fixed income trying to bear the burden of the new rising energy costs contained in this bill.

The cost of energy impacts every job, every family in West Virginia. The rising cost of gasoline is consuming a greater portion of our family budget. This bill is not the answer.

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

I rise in support of the bill, H.R. 3526, a bill that is intended to provide financial consumers with additional regulatory protections against unfair and deceptive trade policies. This measure, which the Financial Services Committee approved by voice vote, expands the range of financial regulators, as the chairman has just explained, with the authority to promulgate regulations that identify and restrict such practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Today only the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the National Credit Union Administration have this authority. This bill expands that list to

include the other Federal banking regulators, namely the FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

The legislation also mandates that regulations promulgated under the relevant section of the FTC Act be prescribed ``jointly by such agencies to the extent practicable,'' in consultation with the FTC. And it requires the GAO to report on the status of the regulations of the Federal banking agencies and the NCUA regarding unfair and deceptive acts.

In testimony before our committee earlier this year, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Chair of the FDIC recommended that the committee make these changes, which also are supported by consumer advocates. This bill merits our support, and I urge its adoption.

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

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

I rise in support of H.R. 4043, the Preserving and Expanding Minority Depository Institutions Act of 2007. This bipartisan legislation, introduced by Chairman Watt and Ranking Member Miller of the Financial Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is intended to support our Nation's minority banks. The bill includes new reporting requirements which will help gauge the effectiveness of government programs that assist minority banks. Like other community banks, minority banks may confront unique challenges because of their smaller size.

Section 308 of FIRREA, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, mandates that the FDIC in conjunction with the Office of Thrift Supervision work to preserve existing minority banks, promote the creation of new minority banks, and provide technical assistance and training. Although not required to do so, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve also provide assistance to minority banks.

H.R. 4043 will codify the advisory role of the OCC and the Federal Reserve by expanding section 308 of FIRREA to include both of these agencies. Additionally, the legislation directs all four banking regulators to report annually to Congress on their efforts to preserve, promote, and assist minority banks.

At an October 30 Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing on minority banks, the OCC and Federal Reserve did not object to being covered by section 308 of FIRREA, and all four regulators stated that they would also not object to the annual reporting requirement since most of them already include minority bank information in reports they currently submit to Congress.

At that same hearing, the subcommittee heard testimony that many of the regulators' programs are underutilized by the minority banks they are designed to help. According to a report issued by the Government Accountability Office last year, most of the banks that did participate found these programs very, very useful. Minority banks should be encouraged to use any and all the tools provided to them by the Federal regulators.

I, too, join with my colleague Congressman Watt in extending our deep sympathy and great caring for our colleague Congressman Miller while he's going through the tragedy in his family. We miss him here, but his imprint is being felt through this legislation today, and we wish him God's help in dealing with this crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 2930, the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act of 2007. I would like to thank my colleague from Florida for all of his good, hard work and the leadership of the committee, the Financial Services Committee, for the work they have done on this.

Affordable housing with supportive services is a key component for seniors seeking to stay in their homes and to ``age in place.'' The section 202 housing for the elderly program is the primary HUD program that provides housing exclusively for low-income elderly households. H.R. 2930 reforms the section 202 elderly housing program making it more effective and efficient and better able to meet the housing needs of our elderly.

Today, we are facing a growing elderly housing crisis in this country. According to the 2005 census data, there are approximately 3.6 million seniors living below the poverty line. Among senior renters, 1.29 million have worst case housing needs, meaning they spend over 50 percent of their income on housing.

The section 202 program has been an important tool in addressing these serious housing needs by providing capital advance grants to nonprofit housing sponsors to build new elderly housing facilities and project rental assistance contracts to subsidize very low-income elderly residents of these facilities. Many nonprofit sponsors are faith-based organizations with a mission to serve the elderly. As a condition of receiving a capital advance, which does not have to be repaid, a nonprofit sponsor must make housing available for a period of no less than 40 years. As a result of these efforts, the section 202 program currently supplies over 320,000 units of housing to very low- income elderly citizens.

While the section 202 program has been successful at providing much- needed housing resources to our very low-income seniors, it is estimated that 10 seniors are waiting for each unit that becomes available. Participants and developers of the section 202 housing program maintain that the current regulation and HUD administration of the program can be time consuming and bureaucratic. H.R. 2930 will improve the section 202 elderly housing program by streamlining and simplifying the development and preservation of HUD's section 202 properties and by increasing participation by not-for-profit developers, private lenders, investors and State and local funding agencies.

I do want to point out to my colleagues that the bill we are considering

on the floor today includes several changes to the bill reported out of the Committee on Financial Services on September 25. While the bill as reported did have a $94 million cost for fiscal year 2008 and a $212 million cost over 5 years, those costs have been removed by the elimination of the mortgage sale demonstration program and the subordination or assumption of existing debt provisions. The Congressional Budget Office now reports the costs associated with this bill to be insignificant.

I would also like to thank my colleagues and Chairman Frank in particular for his willingness to work with me on a provision to resolve a problem that non-metropolitan States like my home State of West Virginia have experienced when attempting to qualify for funds under the section 202 program. It is important to recognize that the need for housing for the very low-income elderly extends beyond metropolitan areas and it needs the flexibility for rural and suburban areas to be able to qualify for these funds. The very low-income elderly of rural West Virginia deserve the very same resources available to the elderly in the larger areas.

H.R. 2930 now includes provisions to establish a national competition for non-metro elderly housing funds and will allow regional offices to administer elderly housing allocations. This greater flexibility will help create more elderly housing units in rural States like mine.

I would like to pause and thank the housing advocates in my State of West Virginia for bringing this issue before me in a very timely manner so we could fix this while we are dealing with the section 202 program. So I want to thank my fellow West Virginians for helping us out here.

Mr. Speaker, the affordable rental housing crisis in America is having a profound effect on renters of all ages, especially our seniors, and this bill will help ease some of the affordability problems plaguing our senior population.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2930, the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act of 2007.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Jeremy Thomas Charlton, who recently received the highest rank in boy scouting, Eagle Scout, on September 23, 2007. He is a member of Troop 33, sponsored by First United Methodist Church in Romney, WV.

For his Eagle Scout service project, Jeremy painted and repaired three buildings at the Hampshire County Fairgrounds. These buildings are used every summer in August during the Hampshire County Fair and throughout the year by various community organizations. Jeremy's beautification and improvements have increased the fairground as a whole.

Throughout his involvement since Cub Scouts, Jeremy has been an exemplary scout. He is a recipient of the Arrow of Light Award and officiates as a Scout Chaplain Aide to his fellow scouts.

In addition to his scout activities, Jeremy is very involved with his church's youth group and is a member of the Bible quiz team. A dedicated citizen, Jeremy has taken on several community service projects including food drives, picking up litter, and helping clean up the Potomac River.

Jeremy is truly representative of the Scout oath, ``to do my duty to God and country'' and I am proud to recognize a dedicated young man, like Jeremy Charlton. Hampshire County is fortunate to have him as a leader and I look forward to hearing about his future accomplishments.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to respectfully request that my colleagues join me in congratulating Donald W. Campbell for being named the National Parks Conservation Association 2007 recipient of the Steven Tyng Mather Award.

Don Campbell has been a tireless advocate and ambassador for Harper's Ferry National Historic Park for nearly thirty years. When he arrived at Harper's Ferry as Superintendent, Don was a self-described ``peace, love, and let's everybody get along,'' laid-back Californian. Since then, he has forged relationships of mutual trust and understanding with the communities that surround his park and has touched many with his strong values and steady leadership.

Don's service, leadership, and advocacy for the protection of Harper's Ferry National Historic Park exemplify what it means to be a steward of America's national parks. For more than twenty years, the National Parks Conservation Association has proudly presented the annual Steven Tyng Mather Award to a National Park Service employee who has worked tirelessly to protect our national parks. His contribution to the Harper's Ferry National Historic Park will always be appreciated and I am pleased that he is being recognized for his service to our community.

In closing, I want to thank my colleagues for joining me in recognizing Donald W. Campbell as the 2007 Steven Tyng Mather Award winner for his dedication to protecting this scenic and historic jewel.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama for recognizing me and yielding me the time, and I greatly appreciate the leadership of the chairman and ranking member on the Committee of Financial Services for bringing this important legislation before the House today.

The legislation before us is a bipartisan response to a problem that is affecting every congressional district across this Nation, the rising number of foreclosures and a large number of impending alternative mortgage resets, combined with a large number of delinquencies in mortgage payments. It is very important for Members to look at this legislation in its entirety.

When combined on the whole, the components of this legislation will provide consumers with the necessary tools and protections to hopefully avoid another housing crisis like we are experiencing, but also realize the importance of not clamping down so hard, and we have heard some folks express concern about this, that we still have the innovations and we still have the ability of subprime mortgages for those who are now living because of the benefits that subprime benefits allows them.

In this bill, we require the registration of all originators under a national registry will be established by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the American Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators. These new licensing requirements, coupled with the national registry, will make it much more difficult for fraudulent originators to bounce from State to State. This is a problem my State of West Virginia has expressed concern about.

Another component that Mrs. Biggert talked about in her statement is to provide consumers with greater access to housing counseling. The availability of counseling will help individuals learn and understand the complicated financial disclosures, all of the paperwork and technical languages that come along with securing and purchasing a mortgage.

Another important reform that was adopted during our committee markup is the inclusion of a one-page estimate outlining the total cost and potential changes in the cost for the consumer over the life of the mortgage product. I have been lucky enough to be a homeowner, and I know when we go in to close at the time to secure our mortgage, the amount of paper and signatures that you have to go through to try to figure out what you are doing is very intimidating. So to have this one-page disclosure I think gives the consumer the ability to have this information right in front of them so they can know what they are getting into and making this process easier.

This legislation also provides more certainty and clarity for the liability of the entities that purchase mortgages on the secondary market.

I would like to particularly thank the chairman of the committee for helping me work through the technicalities of this language to explain to my local newspaper and my local consumer advocates what this language means in the bill. We live in a national economy and must recognize the need for consistency across the board.

In addition to the bipartisan underlying legislation, we will also be considering I think a very important addition to this bill, an amendment I have worked on with Mr. Kanjorski and Mrs. Biggert that will provide additional protection for consumers. This amendment will now require escrow accounts for some mortgages and will provide borrowers with the budgeting tools necessary to properly manage taxes and insurances on their property. This amendment will also include Federal appraisal standards with serious penalties.

I fully support this bill and thank the chairman and the ranking member.

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

First of all, I would like to thank the two gentlemen from Financial Services from Florida for bringing this bill forward.

Mr. Chairman, we are all concerned about insurance rates that are increasing in Florida and other States. Representatives Brown-Waite, Putnam, Buchanan and Feeney have all been very effective and passionate advocates for their constituencies, and I would like to commend them for their hard work.

We can all agree that many States are facing considerable problems with the affordability of homeowners insurance. However, at this point, there is no consensus that H.R. 3355 is the best solution to the problem. In fact, there is quite a bit of disagreement amongst a broad spectrum as to what is the best manner to address this problem. Instead of granting long-term relief to middle-income coastal homeowners confronted with rising insurance costs, this bill could potentially place taxpayers at risk for bailing out insolvent State insurance companies.

In the past few years, some of the largest hurricanes on record tore through the gulf coast and coastal Florida. Some of the affected States have tried to protect their local markets, to limit rate increases, force coverage, or restrict market freedom. Unfortunately, these efforts have had severe unintended consequences and have done little to lower the cost of insurance for consumers. Competition has been reduced and homeowners have been left with fewer choices. Ironically, State initiatives designed to secure more coverage for their constituents have resulted in less affordability.

Florida created Citizens Property Insurance Corporation in 2002 because private insurers have reservations about insuring risky coastal development. While Citizens was supposed to be an insurer of last resort, it is now Florida's largest insurer, with over 1.3 million policyholders, and a total exposure of $434 billion, yet only enough funding to pay approximately $9.4 billion in claims. This undercapitalization means that if a major hurricane hits Florida, Citizens could be bankrupt by hundreds of billions of dollars.

To bring down the cost of insurance even more, Florida created a State reinsurance fund to sell inexpensive reinsurance to private companies to encourage them to write more business in the State. This fund has never had enough cash on hand to pay claims and has driven out the global reinsurance market, recouping losses through taxpayer assessments. According to a Georgetown University report released last summer, the Florida catastrophe fund offers $32 billion in coverage and has $1 billion on hand.

Of the two main titles of the bill, H.R. 3355, the first doesn't add anything new that States cannot already do on their own. The second one makes inexpensive federally subsidized loans available to State insurance companies that are curtailing the private market, resulting in less competition and higher costs to the customer. And I will add here that anytime you're federally subsidizing somebody, that's a cost to every single taxpayer in the country.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the next 5 years implementing this bill would cost $75 million, but even this number seriously underestimates the true cost to the American taxpayers. CBO concluded that few States would actually be interested in these loans and that they would only be made on rare occasions. Nevertheless, taxpayers could potentially be exposed to billions of dollars, leaving them with an enormous cost of capital for the loan's duration and subjecting leaders here in Congress to the inevitable pressure to later forgive loans at the taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Chairman, the federally headed consortium provided for in this bill, while a novel approach, likely offers nothing but an implicit Federal backing for any insured securities, much like the GSEs; not to mention States already have the ability to engage in these pooling arrangements at this day. Further emphasized in the President's Statement of Administration Policy on this bill: ``There is no need for a Federal role because States are currently free to associate to address catastrophic risk.''

It is also debatable whether securitization represents any significant advantages over the sophisticated private reinsurance markets. According to the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute: ``The mere creation of this consortium would likely skew insurance premiums and encourage unwise development.''

Of concern as well is that the Treasury would make loans to State catastrophe programs. Florida is currently the only State with a reinsurance fund that would qualify for these loans, but there is no doubt that this bill would encourage other States to create these programs, most likely in the Florida mode, further undermining the private market.

The legislation at hand even allows an interim period where other state-run insurers, such as the financially troubled Citizens in Florida, could receive these loans. We should think twice about bankrolling State insurance companies. A Federal loan to an insolvent State catastrophe fund sounds eerily similar to me to the Federal Government's ongoing loan to the

National Flood Insurance Program, which is currently carrying $18 billion in debt.

Republicans will offer a number of critical amendments today to try to steer this debate towards fiscal responsibility, mitigation, and free market competition. We will consider an amendment by Congressman Shays to replace the text of the bill with a bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission to report to Congress specific proposals to improve the affordability and availability of national catastrophe insurance. It would be very prudent of this body to take a step back, allow for further study, and gain a consensus that we do not have on this proposal before us today.

Mr. Chairman, we need to be careful when confronting this very complex issue affecting millions of homeowners that could expose all American taxpayers to huge liabilities, and we shouldn't rush to judgment for an appropriate response.

All of us Members of Congress here know that natural disasters can strike anywhere and everywhere in this country; and by no means are we saying, in opposition to this bill, that we shouldn't have the American response of a helping hand. We just don't feel that this is the right way to do it. We need to work together on bipartisan reforms to address market dysfunction. I think H.R. 3355 falls short on that standard.

There will be many productive ideas put forward this afternoon that will improve the legislation that we're considering; however, if these are not adopted, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) who has been very active on this issue.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out a couple of things. I represent the State of West Virginia. In our home State for many, many, many years we had a state-run workers comp program, which caused businesses to leave, which caused workers comp rates to rise because of the nature of a state-run insurance company. Maybe this is what is going on in Florida to a certain degree with the catastrophic insurance situation and the state-run insurance company.

The solution we went to in West Virginia is to move workers comp to the private sector to incent private markets to come into our State. Starting January 1, we are going to have competitive bidding on our workers comp and workers comp rate. They are beginning to slide now, and our great hope is that it will become more reasonable as time goes on.

One concern I think that I ought to also raise and that has been raised to me, the Wildlife Federation opposes this bill because of the concerns the gentleman from Ohio alluded to in his statements in terms of the environmental aspects of this bill. Are we encouraging redevelopment in areas, particularly in our very fragile coastal areas, that are in dangerous kinds of environmental situations but also maybe were developed under less stringent rules and regulations?

What kind of protections do we have for our fragile coastal regions in this bill? I think it's a logical question to ask and one that has been brought forth to all of us in the Committee on Financial Services.

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

Mr. Chairman, as I have said in my opening statement and some of my comments, I think that this bill presents an implicit Federal backstop for catastrophe insurance to spread the risk. It has potential to cost the taxpayers of this country enormous amounts of money.

Let's just do a scenario where, say in Florida, hopefully this never happens, there is a catastrophe of a hurricane of very large proportions, and Florida goes through all the insurance that is available to them and comes to the Federal Government and asks for a loan. Let's say this catastrophe is of such proportions that Florida looks to their lawmakers and looks to their taxpayers and realizes they can't pay this loan back. What are we going to do here in the United States Congress? We know what we are going to do: we are going to forgive the loan.

I think therein lies one of the big problems in this bill, that it does go to every taxpayer in this country, it does have a formal liability to every taxpayer. Whether it says it explicitly in the bill, it is going to result in that.

My suggestion and some of the suggestions coming from my side of the aisle are going to be, let's step back. Let's do a study. Let's look at this. Let's make sure we have mitigation and let's make sure we are doing this responsibly.

I don't happen to live in Florida, and there are many times during the year when I really wish I did. Although I love living in West Virginia, many West Virginians do live in Florida, by the way, during certain parts of the year, and I know how difficult some of the catastrophes that Floridians suffer are, as well as across the coastline and across the Nation.

This is not about shutting them out or making them not have the ability to be able to insure their properties and live a good, wonderful life in the State of Florida. This is about finding the best solution, not only for Floridians but for the rest of the Nation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Roskam's very thoughtful amendment. I feel that it helps to work this bill, which I have obviously voiced some questions about, because it would simply require States to pay their fair share before tapping into a Federal line of credit. This will encourage State funds to handle a predictable level of loss before putting Federal dollars and Federal taxpayers on the hook for what could be billions of dollars in catastrophic loans.

Very briefly, I would like to say, without loss requirements, State reinsurance funds will have no incentive to actuarially price their risk since they will be getting cheap loans to assist them in paying their claims. I would like to voice support for the Roskam amendment.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman if he could show us where in the bill it states that the Treasury has that kind of discretion in this particular case.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Did you say page 20, section c?

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no opposition to Mr. Matheson's amendment.

I just want to go back to the last point we were taking about with Mr. Manzullo, the gentleman from Illinois. His amendment was putting forth the fact that if there is a loan to the State under these provisions that if they were in default or were not repaying their loan that there shouldn't be any further loans.

And the gentleman offered me a clarification by reading me some text.

On further looking at the text, yes, the text does say that the Secretary of the Treasury requires full payment of the loan; but it also says that the Secretary can then determine that if full repayment is not made or is unlikely to be made, that the only punishment or the only enforcement mechanism is the Secretary will then submit a report to the Congress explaining why repayment is not being made. It does not state in here, at least to my mind in the way I read it, that that State would be precluded from being able to attain another or further loan under the provisions of this bill.

I appreciate the opportunity to make that clarification. I think it strengthens Mr. Manzullo's amendment, which I fully support. And, again, I thank the gentleman for his indulgence.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, in its current form I am.

Mr. Speaker, valid questions have been asked about this, and this bill could make West Virginians and other taxpayers across America liable for what the bill says itself, hundreds of billions of dollars in loans and subsidized insurance to State insurance companies that are displacing the private sector and charging inadequate rates.

It is unclear how much this bill will actually cost the taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office has said at least tens of millions of dollars if fully implemented, and it could have been higher by several magnitudes if they thought that States would actually use the provisions of the bill with any meaningful frequency. Now the manager's amendment has added up to 200 billion more dollars in taxpayer exposures that would not be repaid. There is no sunset on this bill, and this is a permanent liability for the taxpayers. The hard facts are that the bill itself recognizes that taxpayers could be asked to cough up enormous sums of taxpayer dollars.

Another consideration is the environment. The National Wildlife Foundation and the Florida Coalition for Preservation oppose this bill because they say it ``would result in continued encouragement of risky development in our Nation's coastal areas and floodplains. With more development in these environmentally sensitive areas, this bill could lead to more loss of life, property, and of wildlife habitat. The safety of our citizens should be the number one priority of any government program dealing with natural disasters.

The administration says that H.R. 3355 would ``displace the private market,'' ``clearly result in a subsidy for insurers, State insurance programs, and their policyholders,'' ``undermine economic incentives to mitigate risks,'' ``be fiscally irresponsible as the Federal Government could expect to face steep losses in certain years,'' and that ``financing these losses would require Federal taxpayers to subsidize insurance rates for the benefit of those living in high-risk areas.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment simply says, if we are going to put taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars in loans Treasury will be forced to give under this bill, then we should also make a commitment that homeowners who do not live on the coast will not have to pay for this subsidy in the form of increased insurance rates. One group of taxpayers should not be compelled to cover the inherent costs of risky, high-priced coastal development for developers.

Without this amendment, homeowners, who are taxpayers too, would be hit twice. First, they would essentially guarantee these loans in the event States default, and according to Treasury, ``it is more than likely that there will be significant pressures to forgive outstanding debt in the case of a huge catastrophe'' and that ``taxpayers nationwide subsidize insurance rates in high-risk areas, which would be both costly and unfair.''

Second, the extension of these loans will implicitly subsidize high- risk areas at the expense of other homeowners. When a State repays these loans, it could assess a fee or tax on all homeowners in the State, including those who don't receive the benefit of this subsidy. Also, the State insurance companies that stand to gain from this bill squeeze out private insurers, meaning less competition for consumers, higher prices, and fewer choices.

On October 10, a Wall Street Journal editorial put it this way: Congress is volunteering ``middle-class taxpayers nationwide as the financial backstop for beachfront properties.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing to address the development and zoning that could be encouraged with these new programs. We can add mitigation and other requirements. The fact is, if the Federal Government is making something cheaper, you're probably going to buy more of it and do more of it.

Today, with this bill, we are giving a gift to coastal development and dysfunctional State agencies at the expense of Middle America. Homeowners all over the country have been hit hard lately; and for the millions of taxpayers who do not live in these areas, this bill would be another blow. My amendment simply ensures that we will be mindful of the vast majority of homeowners and taxpayers who, like West Virginians, do not stand to benefit from this bill at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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