appoints the gentleman from california mr costin to preside over the committee of the whole the houses in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h r thirty one twenty one which the clerk will report by title a bill to restore financial solvency of the national flood insurance program program to make available multi parallel coverage for damage resulting from wind storms and floods and for other purposes pursuant to the rule the bill is considered read for the first time the gentleman from massachusetts mr one minute just to say that i want to be very clear that i regret the decision not to allow our number of amendments offered by members of minority to this bill and i will give them my word that as this legislative process goes forward i intend to seek out opportunities to give them my view and my hope that we can deal with that and now i will yield such time as you may consume to the chair of the subcommittee on housing from which this bill came from and who's done a great job all year on legislation the gentlewoman california thank you very much mrs speaking members i rise in strong support of h r thirty one twenty one the flood insurance reform and modernization act of two thousand and seven and i would like to thank my colleague from mississippi  mr jane taylor for all of the work that he's put into this issue and the way that he helped to focus my committee and the overall financial services committee on this very issue he will be speaking today and i don't think there's anybody who can describe what happened as a result of hurricane katrina and rita and wilma and what happened in the gulf coast  in particular his district any better than mr taylor will do and by the time he banishes his presentation here today i think all of the members will very well understand why follow in substantial consideration by the pencil services committee on blood and joints and related issues specifically the committee held two hearings on june twelfth one examining the issues by the national flood insurance program raised by the gulf coast hurricanes and a second hearing on the predecessor to this bill h r sixty nine to enter dues by chairman frank there after our july seventeenth a committee held a hearing on related legislation h nine twenty the multiple peril insurance act of two thousand and seven that was introduced by mr taylor h r thirty one twenty one reflects this extensive committee analysis on the  wind insurance and related issues accordingly on july twenty sixth two thousand and seven the financial services committee reported out h r thirty one twenty one with a favorable recommendation i hope they were able to pass  thirty one twenty one today because it makes critical improvements to the in f i p and light of the devastating lessons of the two thousand and five hurricane season and the aftermath of hurricanes katrina rita and wilma point five billion from the united states treasury an order to pay claims and entries resulting from hurricane katrina loan those of us concerned about in f i p in the wake of the two thousand and five storms saw the urgent need to put the program on founder financial putting by addressing issues stakeholders had raised around the substantial premium discount and cross subsidies among classes of its policyholders outdated program additionally the committee hearing on h r nine twenty the multiple peril insurance act of two thousand and seven made it clear the need to address to perverse incentives created by dual government and private insurance regimes when damage can be a result of wind and flood i'm proud to say that h r thirty one twenty one prudently addresses these concerns specifically the bill would increasing f i p s barton authority to twenty one point five billion from twenty point eight billion birds require that it satisfied traditional criteria by actuarial soundness by phasing out discounted premiums allow the federal emergency management agency that is famous to increase flood policy rates by fifteen percent a year up from ten percent raise civil penalties on federally regulated lenders who fail to enforce mandatory purchase of flood insurance for market holders increase program participation incentive encourage t revisions to flood maps and starting in mid two thousand and eight allow for the purchase of optional insurance for wind as well as water damage these reforms are desperately needed because as we have seen storms will become stronger and more intense we need a program that can contend with the worse that mud mother nature can throw at us simply put we cannot wait and let another hurricane season pass without putting the national flood insurance program on solid footing and i would urge my colleagues to support a juror thirty one twenty one the flood insurance reform and modernization act of two thousand and seven and i thank you so very much mr chairman for all of the time that you have put in to trying to make us  credible as we relate to these reforms by doing not only the given us to leadership but allowing us to hole the hearings that is so necessary to get the information that so desperately need to do this you know back the balance of my time natural disasters in terms of human hardship and economic loss in fact seventy five percent of federal disaster declarations are related to flooding before i discuss the merits of the legislation i would like to talk briefly about the process that is being considered are debating a huge expansion of an already struggling existing federal program and yet we have not been able to have our amendments out on the floor to have an open and frank discussion about this i would like to accept the chairman's offer to continue to work on the amendments that were not allowed to be offer and i hope that we can see democracy being served by letting everybody's voice be heard in one hundred sixty eight congress established the national flood insurance program the program is a partnership between federal government and participating communities if a community adoption and forces a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risks to new construction the federal government will make flood insurance available to that community today   f i b is the largest single line property insurer in the nation serving nearly twenty thousand communities in providing flood insurance for five point four million consumers mr chairman recent events have underscored the need to reform and modernize certain aspects of the program while the n f i p is designed to be actuarially sound it does not collect sufficient premiums to build up reserves for unexpected disasters due to the claims resulting from hurricanes katrina and rita the n f i b was forced to borrow seven point six billion dollars from the treasury and amount s estimates it will never be able to repay sequentially f i p sits on the g a o has high risk programs list which recommends increased congressional oversight additionally the two thousand and five storm shed light on the problem of outdated flood maps resulting in many homeowners in the gulf region being unaware that their homes were located in flood plains to address these and other concerns in two thousand and six the house overwhelmingly passed flood insurance reform legislation and earlier this year chairman frank and representative judy biggert introduced legislation identical to that bipartisan bill that bill can include many reforms including phasing rates but unfortunately the flood insurance bill that the majority chose to move out of financial services committee was it was amended to incorporate legislation off offered by the gentleman from mississippi mr taylor which expands n f i b to include coverage for wind events mr chairman no member of this house was more personally affected by the two thousand and five hurricanes than congressman taylor no one i do not and no one questioned his sincerity or his commitment to assisting those who have lost everything they owned in these storms w share his concern over the rising cost and outright on availability of homeowners when coverage in some areas i have three principle objections to linking wind insurance to the reform of the national flood insurance program first expanding the program increase increases liabilities for taxpayers while decreasing options for customers or consumers properties located along the eastern seaboard and gulf coast represent nine hundred trillion dollars of insured value shifting the risk on even a portion of these properties to the troubled and f i p could expose taxpayers to massive losses the fact is that insurance will not will choose not to engage a competitor that does not pay taxes has borrowed has subsidized borrowing cost is not required to build a reserve surplus and is protected from most lawsuits state regulation and enforcement second at angwin coverage to the n f l ip will exacerbate the program's well documented administrative problems both the department of homeland security and g a o have criticized the n s a p c for being understaffed not having adequate flood maps and not collecting some signet sufficient information on wind payments when claims were submitted for flood damage expanding the portfolio further before much needed reforms are in place is premature third no consensus yet exists about the necessity or desirability of creating a federal wind insurance program in testimony before our committee representatives of flood management groups insurance industry environmental organizations treasury and female all expressed agreement that a comprehensive study of the proposed wind insurance mandate should first be commissioned to provide congress with a better understanding of the possible implications is expanded could have for consumers and at the n f i p and the market mr chairman we must not let the desire to meet every perceived problem with a new government program driving us towards premature action that yield unwanted consequences the n f i p s mission should not be expanded exposing taxpayers to massive new risks until reforms are in place and adequate study has been conducted in addition the above reservations i have will have serious concerned with the effect the addition of when coverage will have on communities that are now relying on n f ip this program is already financially unstable yet we are about to add nine hundred trillion dollars of risk despite this fiscal instability states like west virginia that i represent will still rely on the program to provide assistance in the case of serious flooding there not been major problems this year thankfully but as recently as two thousand and one fema has declared counties in my state national disasters due to flooding and provided seventeen million is that we now give the insured and the people who administer insurance and impossible tests it is to evacuated a home on the notice of a hurricane and the return to that home some period of time later after that has been devastation from hurricane and decide with some degree of certainty what damage was caused by water and what by wind because  water versus when the more it was water the less they would have to pay but even a shot of that conflict of interest it is inherently difficult in fact impossible to decide if you go back and there was all this devastation was it that the wind blew the roof off was it the flood that did it was the window broken by wind driven projectile it is impossible to tell and we give people this impossible decision now the way the wind program works under this bill in the first place it is not a complete expansion you only would be eligible to buy wind insurance if you already have flood insurance it will be to no new insured that's got to be very clear no one who is not now taking out insurance not just eligible but taking on insurance will be allowed to take this out because you can only be an adjunct to you policy and is aimed at trying to avoid having this impossible arbitration between wind and water damage secondly and g b o scores it this way it is subject to paygo and the mandate in the legislation is that it has to be actuarially sound that people said well the previous know we don't always get them c b l what we think is the right answer but in this case c b l has certified that this meets pay go and that when will be there so what we're saying is if you're already a water and you're in an area where you're likely to have a combination of wind will allow you to buy wind as an adjunct so that you have to pay the going rate for it yet you only sound great but then you avoid this terrible intractable problem of arbitrating wind versus water i reserve the balance of my time chair recognizes gentleman from west virginia thank you mr chairman i'd like to yield four minutes to one of the original authors of the bill that was presented and nationally to this congress the representative from illinois representative judy bigger thank you very much and congratulations to the ranking member on her taking over as the ranking member of the house and many i've always known  chairman frank to never shy away from a debate and i appreciate his knowledge meant that he would have liked to have had the opportunity to debate the amendments that were not made in order and i that mr chairman chairman frank and i did introduce h r six hundred eighty two earlier that was the flood insurance reform and modernization act of two thousand and seven and that was to address the much needed reform edwin to the national flood insurance program and i i really am concerned about this we had hearings several hearings and witness after witness testified that adding when to the to the flood insurance plain management groups the treasury and female all were opposed to such an expansion in previous congresses flood modernization bills virtually identical to h r six hundred eighty two the frank bigger bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support and during the last conference the financial services committee considered a chair forty nine seventy three the act of two thousand and six which the house passed by a vote of four sixteen to four on june twenty seventh of two thousand and six but instead of embracing this approach and the recent track record of bipartisan szczepan f and f ib the other side of the aisle has chosen to introduce this new bill and include language that i think that really threatens the passage of necessary reforms to the program and i'm disappointed by this action f a p he needs reform now not a controversy and costly program expansion for the majority of its thirty nine year history n f ip has been a self funding program however flood insurance claims from the two thousand and five hurricane season have grown to almost eighteen billion dollars a total greater than all the claims from all the other years combined and less and f i p program is reform still in the program will face insolvency in january the g a o placed the flood insurance program on its high risk series list which recommends increased congressional oversight for troubled programs so mr chairman it's clear that n f i b reform is needed now and so therefore be before expanding the n f i p program to include when we the president will veto it and so any when really to me is a poison pill to the flood insurance reform bill and is compromising our efforts to enact much needed bipartisan reform of the national flood insurance program that i would yield back member of the but he's chair recognizes gentleman from illinois thank you mr chairman thank the general a d for yielding mr chairman have you ever walked by a construction site and you've seen the site and it's really when they're putting up the buildings really a thing to behold and you look down at the foundation upon which they're building and if they're building the house right they're putting it on a foundation of absolute bedrock and as you're watching them put it together they're bringing in large pieces of concrete and steel and they're putting it down ever so slowly and ever so slowly because when they finally put it down on the foundation it's not going to move again and that's why they're very very careful i think today we're missing an opportunity to build on a solid foundation we have an opportunity to fix a failed and struggling program and that is the national flood insurance program that is not bedrock it's peat moss it is very very soft stuff it has an eighteen billion dollar liability right now and rather than dealing with the flood component what's happening unfortunately is an additional liability is being placed on a program that doesn't have a solid foundation we are giving additional responsibility in this bill to fema without any substantive reforms  athena i know that over the past years fema has been subject to and deserves a great deal of criticism with the way in which it conducted conducted itself following hurricane katrina and rita and i think th e lost opportunity here is a sad thing the vast majority not the overwhelming majority but the vast majority of claims have been settled in the previous conflict and now here we've got the chance to fix the flood program my district wants a flood program that's that's dynamic and vibrant and solvent and based on a good foundation as was previously mentioned the g a o has put member democratic members of the financial services committee for bringing this incredibly important bill to the floor to speak a little over two years ago the nation's worst disaster hit a number of places including the disagree i have the privilege of representing an unprecedented number of homes were destroyed including my own as the crow flies between my house and senator lot halle's is forty miles and as inconceivable as it may be in that forty miles between our houses only a handful of alice's within several blocks of the gulf of mexico we ma something in the neighborhood of forty to fifty thousand dollars so people of my district people say mary's county sent down jeez these are things that again i can't know of all of people saying mary's county sent them three truckloads of christmas presents of kids who've lost everything to this day they're still young volunteers enough the young volunteers from all over the country who come down and try to help people rebuild their lives about the only group that didn't try to help people south mississippi is the insurance industry you see within days of the stone the insurance industry issued a memo to their employees that said whenever wind and water  concurrently blame all the flood blame it all on the water misspeak the united states navy has modeled what happened that day in mississippi in the united states navy tells us that for four to five hours in south this is safety we had hurricane force winds before the water ever got there under the national rights your own program we count on the private sector for two things we count on them to sell the policy and that way our nation does not have the administrative expense of having a sales force but we also count on to adjudicate the claims fairly and those things that are when i say when did it and they have to pay and those things that are attributed to water you can blame it on the flood insurance in the nation pays within days of the storm state farm and other companies it issued the following e mails to their employees where wind acts concurrently with flooding to cause damage to the insured property coverage for the loss exist only under flood coverage so on one hand they have a contract with the nation that says we're going to pay if it's wind damage the nation is going to pay for it flood damage they get to just the client we don't have a federal employee follow him around the total discretion to make this claim is with the private sector so put yourself in the position of the twenty five year old claims that esther if you're looking for your christmas bonus if you're hoping for a promotion you can walk on that property and say what's fair and yeah that was when there was water or you can be a company man and you can follow the memo from company headquarters and blame it all on the water in stick the taxpayer with the bill that's unfair to the taxpayer right off the bat and the citizen i mean let me further clarify this not gonna become an expert at it the hard way every homeowner's policy has something in it it's called cost of living expenses and that is if your home burns down tonight you've got a homeowner's policy they don't pay to put you up to the fix you have house but if they deny the claim then they don't put you know president came down shortly after the storm and said you know if you've lost your house or if your house is substantially damaged we're going to get you a trailer to live in and they assigned just in south mississippi forty two thousand trailers one for every family of five sixteen thousand  trailer then they gave another contract to an outfit called bechtel to haul those trailers the last seventy miles from a place called pervis mississippi down to the site where a home was hooked up to a garden hose plugged in hook it up to the sewer tap it worked out with that company got another sixteen thousand dollars just for doing that very simple thing they grandmamma's and grandpas and moms and dads do every weekend which is called hooking up a  to thirty two thousand dollars per trailer that was forty two thousand times that because they decided they weren't going to pay all the homeowners claims that the nation would pay now you can come to this floor and defend that but i don't think you can so the individual who had a home or possibly because if you live in hurricane country week you know this is happened three times in my lifetime if you don't i'm a lost my house with three thousand my life time  terrible storms and you don't know if it can be more wind and water and more water than when he babbles policies with the idea if i get flooded i got a flood policy if it's winter i'm a roof over gotta when policy you have boat is the chairman pointed out in the our nation spends a fortune to have hurricane hunters fly into these storms our nation spends a fortune to put satellites into space that track storms why do they do that to give people warner so that they don't the rocket scientists i'm not certain i can say the man was dumb but he built what he thought was a hurricane proof house he died in a hurricane food house the point is that the few folks who stayed behind almost all died but the few folks who stayed behind had their claims paid because they could sign an affidavit and say asalam our roof fly off before the water got there i saw my windows fly in and by the way i was ten miles inland that day in the windows in my brother's house flew in the insurance companies paid when claims in all eighty two counties of mississippi all the way to memphis tennessee but they're somehow trying to convince this congress that the wind somehow miraculously leapfrog over the coast and they shouldn't had to pay where it hit first the sequel what we're trying to do with this sale the people of america the fifty two percent of the people in america who live in coastal america that if you build the that's the way you should if you pay your premiums if you buy this additional coverage if your house is destroyed in the course of a hurricane or substantially damaged in the course of a hurricane you don't have to be there with a video camera to record whether it's winter where there's water you page of premium you built it right to get paid one of the gentlemen mentioned that the insurance companies have settled ninety something percent of the claims let me address that i was pretty busy as you might guess after the storm i put off meeting with my adjuster for two weeks by the time i met with my adjuster i had heard dozens if not hundreds of markets did you and says i'm going around passing out and mores tell me they've already told me that i complain i had a homeowner's policy they're not going to pay me so by the time they came to my policy to my house i asked my please i'll say a word each one of the steps is about three steps is about three feet let's just count the steps to we found my roof we paced off about one hundred fifty o e fifty feet i showed them our roof pointed out that it was tin we reminded them the tim doesn't float show them the whole square been ripped two bolts said this is my roof i'm the only guy in this neighborhood words out of about i see no evidence of wind damage we are however prepared to pay your flood claim to which i reminded her that was very sweet of state farm that's not their money as the nation's money what about the claim for the roof  over there what we're trying to do with this is event the need from our constituents your constituents anyone who lives in coastal america to have to stay behind with a video camera to record the destruction and possibly die with these claims if you build it right if you pay your premiums and you get paid for example under the pay go rules of its house of this house it will pay for itself it has to it's written in the wall and lastly we put we quit putting the insurance companies in a position where they can bill the taxpayers for billions of dollars which some of you may not known for something i will be eternally grateful for this because so many homeowners claims weren't paid in south mississippi of people who lived outside the flood plain who had homeowner's insurance but didn't get paid in one of the appropriations bills after the after katrina four billion taxpayer dollars was included to pay those people's insurance claims the taxpayers paid for it state farm nationwide and allstate you are paid so when people say that some sort of raid on the treasury i see just the opposite this is a creating a program where the nation won't have to ride to the rescue next time because people will have bought insurance ahead of time in a program that pays for itself in a program that says if you built it right you pay your premiums active god destroys your house you're going to get paid i can't think of anything that's more fiscally responsible i can't think anything is more right for the citizens and i would remind my colleagues that the national association of homebuilders the national association of realtors and the national association of bankers when given the opportunity to look at this bill in its total written including the wind versus water language to allow people to buy all perils and sure i thank the chairman for his leadership on this no one can say the blonds out on this issue the hearings on this issue began in january the debate on this issue started the week after the storm there's been ample opportunity for people to weigh on on this issue and i very much think again the chairman is waters mr mill lot for the opportunity to bring this to the floor the opportunity to write in agree just wrong against the american people and lastly how would like to remind people that even with katrina the insurance industry made forty two billion dollars in profits the year of katrina so while they are simultaneously telling their employees don't pay the individual well the stick in the bill to the citizens if you have speaker i appreciate that many homeowners around the country require affordable insurance against natural disasters however i also know that the federal government cannot afford continued spending at the excessive levels we're spending it back spending the national flood insurance program the n f l ip h r thirty one twenty one with the federal government on the hook for even more billions of dollars coming from a state prone to hurricanes i'm sensitive to those needs and to those who live in  high risk areas for natural disasters but it would be irresponsible for the federal government to expand this program without fully understand the repercussions unfortunately many americans will likely once again find or sales affected by devastating natural catastrophes such as hurricanes the in f i p already owes the department of treasury around eighteen billion dollars and it's unlikely that they will ever be able to repay this amount eighteen billion dollars so should we now increase the n p's exposure thus increasing the federal government's liability expanding this program to include wind insurance to do so would be unfair to the taxpayers who would be stuck with this bill mr speaker expanding this already distress the federal government's liability and would almost definitely increase government spending on a huge scale while crowding out private insurance markets therefore urge my colleagues to join me in voting against h r thirty one twenty one the flood insurance reform and modernization act and with that i yield back to balance of my t the gentleman from massachusetts how much time do i have remaining the gentleman from massachusetts says eight minutes the chairman first i ask you has said what we have under general we will do that later yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon the gentleman from oregon has recognized and prescience the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak in the hard work that he and his committee have invested on this mr speaker area of flood insurance is and is one that i have been focusing on over the last half dozen years i was pleased to work with our former colleague doug the writer with chairman frank with then chairman oxley on some serious flood insurance reform that predate most recent disaster with katrina in that had a chance to learn a lot about opportunities that the federal government has to alter its programs and policies to reduce this long term exposure and to think about the redesign of the partnership between the private sector the state and local governments now i well i appreciate my friend from mississippi's tenacity in in zero in on an area of very serious problem dealing with w damage and he has documented in great detail the almost impossible situation that many of his constituents and people in the katrina area have faced i'm trying to keep an open mind in terms of how far we go along the line in terms of expanding it to add with damage i don't think we've seen the end of this process i'm looking forward to working with my colleague and what happens the legislative process moving along i am deeply concerned that we haven't come to grips with the the financing of our flood insurance program we are looking at upwards of twenty billion dollars and where we are slowly having some actuarial balance added to these programs but it still lags and not only is there a problem of not having an actuarial balance to be able to provide the sums that are necessary to maintain this as a self supporting program because as it stands now that's going to be a stretch it's going to take a long time without serious incident for us to get there  i'm also concerned that we need to do a better job of making sure that the federal government and state and local governments aren't putting more people in harm's way to many areas  we have seen that there has been shall we say a reluctance on the part of local authorities and state authorities to be rigorous in making sure that we're not pouring large sums of public investment in areas where it's encouraging people to locate in places where we know there is going to be damage over time and last but not least later in this debate we'll be talking about working with thema to make some adjustments to take into account global warming climate change rising sea levels because this is an area that is going to compound lax local land use controls and u nsteady development processes that's going to end up creating a disaster and creating a disaster out of our disaster relief i can't say enough about how much i appreciate the committee's willingness to be involved in an area that some think is esoteric that is sort of monday and that is sort of to detail and exciting but it is precisely that sort of attention that's going to make us have a stronger program that's going to meet the needs of people and is going to do so in a way that actually helps keep people out of harm's way which ought to be our ultimate objective we ought to make sure that all of these forces save money save lives protect the environment i think this legislation moves in that direction i look forward to working with the committee as it works its way through the legislative process to to better achieve that goal thank you and i yield back mr frank as you will recall during the committee process before we actually marked up h r thirty one twenty one my florida colleagues and i raised some serious questions and concerns over expanding the flood program to cover wind we were concerned that while this expansion may help some in areas in the united states were uncertain whether it would hinder some states like florida that tend to be exploited from the national insurance market you'll remember representative feeney putnam and i introduced an amendment that struck the provisions expanding f i p to cover wind losses the amendment put a g a o study in its place to give members in the department time to that this issue further unfortunately the amendment did not pass the committee but you and i asked for a g a o study their e similar to the one included in the amendment you and i have worked closely in the past on a number of issues and i know that you're a man of your word and you've always given those of us with differing thoughts ample discussion in consideration i'm hoping today to get your word  that when the g a o study is released in april that the committee in the regulators will take into serious consideration their findings for example some of the questions we asked were whether consumers would be able to purchase when and flood whether fema questions that were posed there tough questions that g a o will be responding the factual answers to but i hope i have your commitment that the financial services committee members who supported an expansion in the regulators cultural pose which i haven't always had and simply say a word but i'm not sure that's still in vogue i'm sometimes behind in my in my fashionable ness i will say this idiom and she's been very constructive and we've been able to work together on this and other matters including on the most recent legislation about the pledge and certainly i will do everything i can to see that this is given very serious consideration now i should add the recommendations may mean a good term of the program make a way they may gentleman it's her and i can tell you real to me so he has my word that we will take this very very seriously and in fact i would say when we got the report the first thing we would do would be to have a hearing on it and then  members on both sides of the state after working on this pretty vital issue i want to take a minute or two to tell the the members that there will be an amendment coming up during the amendment process offered by mr bloom an hour and myself to deal with more effectively with how the federal government determines taking in consideration future effects of climate change on the american taxpayer and homeowners and i would urge all my colleagues to vote for the amendment that does basically two things are we as a federal government providing incentives to put more people in harm's way in coastal areas are we adding cost to the federal taxpayers as a result of that and are we in scent of biasing ecological degradation i say that because there are maps on coastal areas there are maps on on on flooding there are maps on predicting storms and all based on history nothing is projected into the future with an understanding of what global warming is going to do let me tell you how it's impacted my district in the chesapeake bay poplar island for decades was a popular place for many people in maryland clothing presidents of the united states it was fifteen hundred acres it is now five acres as a result of sea level rise and we are now restoring that wood dredge material holland island three hundred fifty people lived on highland island five miles long a mile and a half wide down one hundred acres today hundred acres and nobody lives on highland island barrel island with five hundred eighty two acres it's down one hundred twenty acres now areas of my district black water refuge for example in dorchester loses one hundred twenty acres a year due to sea level rise and exacerbated erosion problems it's not taken into consideration by the federal government by fema or anybody else to project those natural causes that are occurring right now in the chesapeake bay sealevel used to rise three feet every thousand years in the last one hundred years has risen to a foot and a half it's important for us to take these things into consideration i urge your vote on mr bloom and ours amendment when we come to that point in the debate thank you very much and i'm going for massachusetts the old gentleman from west virginia is recognized thank you mr chairman i would like to yield three minutes the representative from texas number the financial services committee mr he rling gentleman from texas texas is recognized for three minutes i thank the general a d for you olding i listen very carefully to the gentleman from mississippi and he may recall that i went to his home town and i saw what was left of his home and i saw that definite station i spoke to those people firsthand and although my family didn't feel quite that devastation my in laws lived in new orleans their home was severely damaged to hurricane katrina my father in law was in the new orleans convention center when all the violence broke out and something that my family knows about so i know there has been a lot of pain in that community and i have no doubt that the federal government which is already rendered over one hundred billion dollars of taxpayer aid can do more good but i fear i fear this is not the solution now i look at the legislation i understand it is designed to be actuarily example sound understand that the taxpayers aren't supposed to have to pay more understand that factory worker in mosquito xs in my district who generously gave to help fellow americans in their time in need he's come to me and he said congressman i want to be helpful but tell me we don't have to do this again now congress can't outlaw hurricanes but what do we do to make sure he doesn't have to pay again and so now we have a program that is not actuarially sound it was designed to be i'm sure the authors had great intentions but it's not and so on the coverages that we have and i will admit under the chairman's leadership there's been a number of reforms put into the program that i support but we're increasing coverages we're upping coverages we're adding wind on top of a program that already owes the taxpayer twenty billion dollars that they have no way to pay for whatsoever and mr chairman i would note that we had other insurance programs that were supposed to be financially sound social security which now has a long term deficit of eight point nine trillion dollars federal pension benefit guaranty corporation supposed to be fiscally sound running a deficit of eighteen billion off balance sheet liability of seventy three billion we've already talked about the national flood insurance program that will crop insurance medicaid i could go on and on now mr speaker i have no doubt again that the people on the gulf coast continue to be in need but we were told a little earlier this week i believe our speaker this is supposed to be the congress of the child well let's look at the future of our children when you look at the spending of the federal government already we know that chairman bernanke has said without early and meaningful action the u s economy will be seriously weakened with future generations bearing much of the cost that's just with the government we have today the g a o is said we're on the verge of being the first generation in america's history to lead the next generation with a lower standard of living due to all of this spending this program makes it worse it must be three and a half minutes the gentleman from west virginia has eight minutes thank you mr chairman i would like to yield two minutes the representative from north carolina congressman mchenry gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes a number of amendments through that whole process that were vigorously debated and there was a lot of discussion about continuing that vigorous debate on the house floor to work out some compromises and the committee chair  honored is his word in committee i want to thank him for that unfortunately the rules committee did not allow those amendments to come forward to the house floor and that is a great shame and i think the work product coming off this house floor will be less than it could have of the last twenty six years it's barred from the treasury fourteen times eighteen billion dollars in the hole certainly it needs reform and i think the underlying reforms for flood insurance in this bill are appropriate and good and i appreciate the chairman of the committee and i appreciate my colleague from massachusetts accepting my minutes in in the committee that says that new and renewing multiple policies shouldn't be extended in a time when the national flood insurance  program is borrowing from the treasury i think that's proper and i appreciate him accepting that in this bill but overall this edition of wind will actually step in and step into the private sector a private market that is largely working and h largely worked for the last hundred years in this country there have been a number of failures and that is on occasion what happens but with the private sector it can be done on a actuarially sound basis what we are doing under this bill by adding wind proposal a exposing to the tax the tax payers tens of billions of dollars worth of additional unfunded liabilities and that's why i'm going to have to sadly vote against this bill and i urge my colleagues to vote no gentleman from massachusetts is recognized reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from west virginia thank you mr chairman i would like to yield to matt the representative from georgia representative kingston gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes  thank the gentleman for yielding the time and i want to talk a little bit about my own background i was in the insurance business for thirteen years worked strictly on commission i was a broker which means i work for the buyer helping them find the best quality insurance in the insurance marketplace i also represent the entire coast of the state of georgia i've been involved in flood insurance and windstorm insurance and fire insurance great deal of my adult life a very familiar with this in fact i'm the only c p c you in congress which means charter property casualty underwriter that's a professional designation and no this is my point now what you have with insurance business is you have two types of profit one they make from underwriting they don't want to insure a building that they know it's going to burn down because they won't like an underwriting profit they are gay and they do everything they can to make sure the building does not burn down but they also make a second kind of profit called investment profit and when they get the cash flow from premiums from underwriting they invest and they make a lot of money in that but generally speaking insurance companies are adverse are risk adverse they don't want to insure wind if you're on the coast they don't want to surf what if you're in a flood zone it makes sense from a business standpoint but as they will gladly see this to the federal government then what happens is exactly what mr mccann we said you had the the private sector pulls out of it they don't put in their ingenuity to it now my friend mr taylor and i know having represented customers it is possible that there are a lot of buildings and homes that have been constructed probably should be there are probably shouldn't use the construction standards that they should and i know if i go the entire district of georgia on the coast that people in idaho and iowa and maine are subsidizing the flood policies for my homeowners out there and it's hard to say that's politically unpopular but it is the truth i do not believe the federal can thirty more seconds john mccain have thirty more seconds i think the gentlewoman i just want to say that  the insurance companies need to own up to the social responsibility they don't need to take a walk on this the federal government is already supply and health care retirement benefits transportation best benefits food drugs even school uniforms and babysitting yes there are programs for that i don't believe the federal government needs to get into the windstorm pool in a major way we need to let the private sector continue to work to provide  take up the suggestion to go on george or he said that the insurance company should be required i guess to back to the social responsibility i agree the committee which i'm the chair has the jurisdiction on that and if he has any recommendations about what we can do i'd be glad to do it we're not near way right now and if the judge my friend yelled if they want to make a profit from it then we should not let them take a walk from they well if you had a way to do it all right by the gentleman it is not in our power to tell the not to take a walk they are a private sector entity so unless there was to be some legislative change this simply no power particular at the federal level because insurances are starting to be a state issue but when the gentleman says we shouldn't let them walk away i might be in kind of we were that there is nothing in the federal government now that would that would prevent us that would that would allow us to stop them walk away and our committee is available to anybody has any proposals to increase the  seconds no gentleman will suspend mr chairman i will be great deal to him if you want to get back to the subject but not when i'm still posing the question because you probably didn't understand it he said they're not living up to the social responsibility we should make him do it i don't know how we can do that if we want to just suggest to me new powers it would seem to me for us to take to do that and listen i will yield thank you let me say this we were not in the federal flood insurance program and until recent times a case in point i used to sell flood insurance but when the federal government grew into it the private sector withdrew from the market all right so i will take back my time mr chairman to say that simply isn't accurate today others know it better than i but we have had insurance companies withdrawing from offering policies that are not covered by federal flood insurance the federal government covers only flood insurance so i would repeat to him his history is interesting but he said we shouldn't allow them to walk away and i don't know any way we can prevent them i reserve the balance of my time once time's expired the gentlewoman from west virginia is recognized thirty seconds the gentleman from georgia let me say this i would love to continue this dialogue and that's why we wanted some amendments so that we could try to work out some of these differences but in your great state  massachusetts in boston or in savannah georgia historically very old communities there weren't federal programs that did the underwriting these were all built by the private sector what i'm saying is if you just step back and let the market do its place the market will continue to work wonders as it did for hundreds of years in the united states of america until the federal government let them start taking a walk by providing products they write it with the products that are how you have myself one minute to say that simply isn't true that's not the  that it was the federal government crowding the mao is simply not accurate and again the phraseology you've done when you've not that we should allow them to do it we shouldn't let them walk away i don't know any we waited not to what were the general mississippi wanted including one of the most powerful members of the united states senate and a federal judge had to hire lawyers and engineers to get fairness from their insurance company if they're going to do that to a powerful senator if they're going to do that to a federal judge what kind of chance is a schoolteacher a chief petty officer a high school football coach a the fact of the matter is they have not lived up to their responsibilities that's what brings this bill to the forward today my friend from mississippi yelled that think second is available because as i understand it trent lot lost a family home that was like one hundred years old or something in mississippi that house was built there was no federal insurance program of any nature when that house was built which is my point for boston and for savannah georgia all of those old buildings never had any federal insurance programs fire flood or wind storm or anything else and what i'm saying is i agree with you they are not pleasant to work with and i understand and i want to commend the gentleman for is great work on this but the reality is the federal government steps in the private sector will this gentleman to hell for massachusetts time has expired the gentleman from west virginia has three minutes to close three minutes to close thank you to close someone who has lived in breathe this issue for many many years an expert in the area the congressman from louisiana congressman baker i think gentleman from louisiana is recognized i thank the general a d for yielding and wish to quickly say as a lewsey any and obviously i am a defender of the flood insurance program i want to commend chairman frank for his willingness to work with us and all affected parties in crafting a flood insurance program reform which i thought was a very good product it was only with the addition of the wind exposure element to the underlying bill that i begin to have any concerns about the legislative direction of the chairman's recommendation currently the notional value of flood insurance in effect just flood not confuse with wind today is trillion ninety two billion nine hundred thirty two million seven hundred seventy eight thousand as of june thirty fema report that's the potential exposure of the flood insurance program to claims pursuant to contract we know that the current flood program with the actuarial system in place cannot repay the debt it currently has to put into scale what the additional risk brought on to the u s government books will look like the industry estimate from new england to the gulf coast only is an additional one thousand trillion dollars of risk exposure now ladies and gentlemen the limits in the bill that have been described as it's only available where you can buy flood insurance we sail flood insurance in new mexico we sailed it in boulder colorado and ladies and gentlemen we sail flood insurance in wam and the entry to the win program is to bob the flood policy so that we will in fact nationalize wind insurance coverage via the flood program opening the u s taxpayer to a risk and a payment for which there is not an adequate stream some say well the bill requires actuarial rating the flood insurance program has actuarial rating but it's not an industry actuarial it only looks to historical claims data there's no risk modeling to look forward those who have laid claim to the fact that whether cycles are more severe damages are likely to escalate that is not data which is incorporated into the flood insurance premium structure so there will be problems with the implementation of the program as currently drafted am i suggesting we do nothing absolutely not do i think that the current system is adequately taking care of the risk of those who live along coastal areas of course it isn't i have legislation which i am planning to introduce and hope to have had introduced before the consideration of this bill on the floor which will enable the issuance of a privately issued policy multi peril but it would be exempt from state price controls just to start with them and i his point about the flood insurance not being accurate it sounds right but in this bill because it is subject to paygo we have a small stringent standard so it is not totally for flood only therefore the tax payer does have exposure to the limit authorized by statute which is twenty point eight billion dollars in that but not according to see below i would say the gentleman well we have a dispute bank and west virginia has expired all time for general debate has expired pursuant to the rule amendment in the nature of the substitute and in the bail modified by the amendment printed in part of the house report one and ash three five all is adopted the bill as amended shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of a further amendment under the five minute rule and shall be considered read no further in member to the bill as amended is in order except those printed in part b of the report each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated by the report and shall be read considered read shall be debatable and for a time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and the opponent shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question dash three fifty one offered by mr frank of massachusetts pursuant to house resolution six eight three the gentleman from massachusetts mr frank and a member opposed each will control five minutes the chair recognizes gentleman from massachusetts i rise today to support the manager's amendment offer my thanks to the chairman of the full committee chairman frank about a year ago and ohio we had a five hundred year event and a lot of places never flooded flooded and what we found was that the current structure the national flood insurance program indicates that if the primary insurance if there's a finding that it's under insured there's a penalty that attaches to it it further goes on to say that if the penalty attaches and you don't pay out the the limits on the first policy you can't reach the secondary insurance we had people in in our hometown that basically did what they were supposed to do they bought the secondary insurance they were fully insured the condominium owners association however was under insured and therefore we didn't reach the policies the chairman joined with me  irresponsible bad ideas cooked up by the liberal leadership of this house this has to be the blue ribbon boondoggle champion of bad ideas this exposes the u s treasury and american taxpayer to a potential liability of up to nine trillion dollars of property from the from maine to the gulf coast states the flood insurance programs already as we've heard one team about to believe one excuse me  e hundred billion twenty billion dollars in debt already the flood insurance is already underfunded and yet we are going through this legislation if it passes exposing american taxpayers to an toed billion dollars worth of liability every year and this is a public private partnership as my friend randy neugebauer of texas pointed out the insurance companies in the private sector's part are going to collect the premiums in the american taxpayers are going to pay the bill this is i believe one of the most dangerous and fiscally irresponsible pieces of legislation ever brought to the floor of the house probably in history and certainly sets a blue ribbon record for the liberal leadership of this house we need to all remember as guardians of the treasury that the american taxpayers already facing individually according to the jet government accountability office every living american would have to buy a hundred and seventy thousand dollars worth of treasury bills today just to pay off the existing liabilities of the federal government both direct and indirect and it is unconscionable it is absolutely intolerable that this congress this liberal leadership of this house would attempt to pass on to my daughter and our kids the potential liability reaching one thousand nine hundred dollars it is unacceptable it's outrageous and i hope this house will soundly defeat this utterly irresponsible piece of legislation the gentleman from massachusetts is right that i missed him and i would it might be suppressed with but i would want to point out that the speech we just heard has of course no bearing whatsoever to the amendment that is pending it's pensively saying he's of course unrelated to this particular amendment gentlewoman from west virginia is recognized yes i'd like to hear my remaining time i believe it's one minute to john much from georgia mr kingston the  says that the states will be in charge of insurance not the federal government therefore when a company comes into a state or tries to leave the state the state insurance commissioner actually has the opportunity to twist an arm and say if you're going to come into my state you have to write a certain amount of coastal property a certain mix of teenage drivers a certain mix of elderly people for health care or whatever state insurance commissioners by public law fifteen the mccarran ferguson that are very powerful in the insurance business so i want to say that that's where the last philosophy comes from is that i do strongly believe that the states can twist arms and get a lot more done but just want to say federal insurance cut federal flood insurance company did not start till nine hundred sixty eight yet we have historic properties all over the coast of america because the private sector was there and again haven't solved the flood required if they're going to do something to do other things but they can leave altogether and the state insurance commissioners have not generally got the power to stop that what we claim in the time they believe you have sent a great message and i think mr taylor a tireless advocate for coastal properties but at the same time i do think the mccarran ferguson that gives the state insurance commissioners a pretty big hammer here which they ought to be used in on the head of certain insurance company executive that gentleman from massachusetts says three minutes left i yield back to balance of my time yield back the balance of his time the question is on the him and offered by the gentleman from massachusetts those in favor will each control five minutes the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california thank you mr speaker i'd like to yield myself three and a half minutes cherub recognizes gentleman from california thank you i write today in strong support of this amendment to h r thirty one twenty one the flood insurance reform and modernization act of two thousand and seven i thank the chairman of the committee mr frank for his leadership on this issue i would also be remiss if i did not mention that  congressman host so was very instrumental in helping me bring this amendment to the to the or today and his name was left off the list of co authors although he was certainly instrumental as well as ms lo capps our colleague from california as a problem the santa maria area and is is also a supporter of this bill i so i fully understand mr speaker and appreciate the need to reform and modernize the national flood insurance program as we all know the recent devastating hurricanes katrina rita and wilma not only ruined thousands of people lives but displaced tens of thousands of people and laid waste to millions of homes causing billions of dollars in property damage and they were exposed to the  of the national flood insurance program mr taylor will speak later to that problem at the at the same time fema began a remapping of flood plains across the country and while i agree that people should know whether they live it in a protected area or not famous process has been terribly flawed from the beginning as my constituents stand to suffer as a result as we make the necessary reforms to the system we must be cognizant of the impact this legislation could have on  suspecting residents famous current plans to update the flood plain maps will force many people in my district and across the country to have to purchase flood insurance who are currently not required to purchase it to add insult to injury many of these people are low income earners and have no idea that this expense is looming i commend the bill for recognizing this problem and taking some steps to address it however we must do more to help low income people who will be affected our amendment addresses these concerns and blunts the unpack of remapping of the remapping progress process will have on low income residents this amendment says that people forced to purchase flood insurance as a result of a new map who live in an area that was previously certified and now have been decertified under the new fema process will have a grace period of five years in which they will be entitled to a fifty percent reduction in their flood insurance premium the goal is that during those five years necessary upgrades will be made to the levies to bring them into compliance thereby a lemonade ing the mandatory requirements to purchase flood insurance this amendment will have a huge impact on my district and many other parts of the country as well it's simply unfair to while requiring communities to upgrade their levies also require them to purchase flood insurance at the same time many of these people are still paying on the levees that initially protected them in the first place by giving those who most need assistance a grace period we are acknowledging the plight of these communities and taking action this is the right thing to do moreover given the volatile housing market we need to do everything possible to insure people on the precipice remain in their homes in my district we have nearly twenty thousand people who are currently facing foreclosure doing two due to the subprime loan problem saddling the same people with more expenses when they can least afford it is counterproductive and contrary to the shared goal of promoting homeownership let's help these people bring some balance to the flood insurance program and f e m a is remapping process i urge my colleagues to support this amendment as thank you neil back the bound reserved about my time the gentleman from west virginia is recognized yeah i'd like to claim time in opposition although i'm not opposed to a gentleman to man i'd like to yield two minutes to gentleman from texas mr culberson the chinaman from texas your recognized like you and i want to ask if i could the author of the moment of the awful legislation if they're here if they could identify please for the record other than social security and medicare can you all identify any piece of legislation that has ever exposed the american taxpayer to greater potential liability than this bill before the house today one go ahead a program but unheard of pac cuts that were not paid for now there's been several things that have exposed the american treasury to boondock and they often authored by the gentleman's part ok tax cuts pay for themselves by growth in the economy and what get people but you don't count reclaiming my time reclaiming my time when people have more their own money to spend the economy grows because they invest in we're rewarding people for hard work and productive behavior other than social security medicare which are noble good programs that have helped this nation other than those two has there ever been a piece of legislation exposing the american taxpayer to greater potential liability than this boondoggle that you're putting before the house today and i  a bigger boondoggle than this one no more not challenge the question as to whether or not this is a boondoggle we have recognized a problem we are dressing it and he maintains that pays for itself on the other hand when the republican majority controlled the sales they brought a prescription drug benefit to the floor which i voted against which increased the liability of the taxpayers over to you dollars and had no funding they say that's not bigger than a hill the vote open for three access to federal benefits and that shows the difference in priority law or i would point out and i think it's in our gentleman's time has expired can recognize gentleman from california mr her nose i recognize my colleague from texas for a  a who could not join us here this afternoon now our amendment stands both for fairness and the integrity of the national flood insurance program in el paso which is my district team is currently in the process of issuing new flood plain maps initially the community didn't think much of this exercise because simply many didn't know that they had ever lived in a flood plain and didn't expect any problems with this issue however the federal agency in charge of flood control the international boundary and water commission about the condition of our levees the answer came back that they were on satisfactory the levees were missing a few feet of freeboard which is supplemental height and therefore could not be certified which meant that now members of our community in el paso were now subject to flood insurance that is why this amendment is necessary that's why we're trying to correct an my remaining time to the gentleman from georgia mr kingston i don't have that oriental around that and maybe somebody in the majority party could clarify something for me does this apply to the wind coverage the gentleman the author of the legislation therefore you go out in the market well it won't be the market you go back you go to uncle sugar and they don't call sam and you say i want to get this policy and you're going to get the flood care but they're also going to sell you the windstorm as part of it so that your intent for people who are in this floodplain area to also get a discount on their windstorm coverage this amendment intent is to cover folks who are in flood areas now that are currently covered by levees that for no fault of their own femurs come in and decertified they had regulations two years ago that said they were fine they now have regulations they've changed the regulations on these folks now and let me answer your question so it's not my intent to affect in any way the when portion of the power well how does a if the if the gentleman asked in i'll yield back to you but how the where in your policy does it say they won't get the discount on the wind coverage when my lender requires me to carry the flood insurance then i'm also going to thema for the windstorm insurance i would you know i just doublechecked of the seven there is no discount mr frank the laws of all the amendment would change things the only thing i'm in imagine since the gentleman is right it was silent it silent on the when part which means it doesn't change it it explicitly changes the flood part only and look at lines eighteen mississippi since you are in the business you know that if you have a federally backed mortgage and you live in a flood plain you're happy about flood insurance the wind policy will be totally voluntary it is an option to those people who wish to there is nothing in the law to require people to bother with gentlemen of california time expired the question is on the moment offered by the gentleman from california those in favor please by i the eyes have at those opposed gentlewoman from florida i thank the chair and i yield myself as much time as i might consume the gentleman is recognized thank you this amendment can missions a g a o study to examine the effect of the new multi peril coverage option which is a stablished as an option in this bill on state insurers and catastrophe funds those like those in my state of florida this amendment worked very well with the initiative of chairman frank and my colleague from florida ms brown weight in their very thoughtful initiatives it but it builds upon it and the particular problem in my state of florida is that the state insurance company citizens now holds one point three million policies citizens is supposed to be an insurer of last resort but because private insurance companies have left the state they've withdrawn from the market citizens has ballooned to over forty percent of the property wind insurance market citizens however does not have the reserves this with sufficient financial reserves we believe to pay the level of claims that would result from a catastrophic hurricane in the event of a serious storm citizens may be forced to turn to public funds again the new multi peril option i know it's in dispute now but however you feel about it  we need to get to the bottom of the effect it will have on our state insurers and catastrophic plans it could offer new find a fiscally sound new fiscally sound choice for those in high risk areas it has the potential to help address wind insurance availability so that the public is not on the hook for claims when the next storm hit if the new option is successful and making insurance available to areas where private insurers refuse to go auction option could relieve the pressure on state insurers like citizens in florida but serious questions remain to be answered about how the state and federal programs will interact will state and juries insurers leave room in the market for the for an actuarily based federal program to achieve high enough enrollment to make a difference will state policies change to help their citizens take advantage of the federal multi peril program how will enroll meant ra of state plans change to reflect the new federal entrant into the market these are important questions for both congress and states to ask there were also undoubtedly be interactions between state and federal programs that will affect in a role in rome and in ways that we cannot anticipate mr speaker the study commission in this bill will provide vital information to help officials at all levels of government work together to better understand and administer the new multi peril amendment i find it ironic actually that this amendment which has its merits is being advanced but that other amendments that are sort of similarly situated weren't placed in order so exam for example this amendment says that in nine months the g a o is going to be charged with the responsibility essentially of looking back for the past nine months and looking at the impact on state insurance programs great really no argument there but if looking back is a good idea isn't looking forward a good idea to isn't a prospect of look forward at the possibility something that we ought to be doing  just find it concerning that we're willing to put a potential program put the brakes on a potential program and be very reflective when we at this very moment in time as we sit here today as we stand here today we have the opportunity to accomplish this task by asking the g a o to look forward and look at the impact of this this is part of the amendments that were unfortunately ruled out of order and were not allowed to be brought to the house and we're going to be denied an opportunity to have an up or down vote on the when program as mr henschel ing had suggested in his amendment and yet we're being said we're being told well you know what take a glance back after nine months and let's sort of see how we're doing and oh by the way we tend to ignore what the g a o says anyways since they've put the national flood insurance program on a high risk watch list essentially and without any managerial changes or untrusting that group that is under a watch with this great responsibility and i think this amendment really brings to brings that real concern to mind that those of us on this side of the aisle were not being given the opportunity to really debate this must virginia thank you mr chairman i yield such time as i may consume are in listening to the debate over this amendment my question becomes if we move forward and make a wind part of one of the  under this program and then we study through the gentle lady's amendment the effect this has on state insurance and we find out after it's already been put into effect that it's too costly or it's damaging the insurability at the state level and other issues what are we going to do that this is where we go to my prima my argument in the beginning that we're really entering into this prematurely because we don't we have so many unanswered questions and so with that i would like to reserve the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute i'd like to ask the author of the admin if she'd be willing to accept an amendment that we also asked the g a o to examine the effect on the taxpayers of the united states all the perils created by this legislation in the financial risk this exposes the taxpayers too because again i think it's vitally important for this house to recognize that the potential liability this legislation exposes the taxpayer to this mr baker said earlier there's about one thousand trillion dollars worth of insur property around the coast of the united states the flood insurance programs already twenty billion dollars in debt and the united states according to g a o already faces potential liabilities direct and indirect not potential direct and indirect liabilities of fifty trillion dollars that works out to one hundred seventy thousand dollars per person every household united states would have to buy four hundred forty thousand dollars worth of t bills today just to pay for the explicit and implicit liabilities united states and and finally i would just  remind the majority that something that the my hero thomas jefferson said in his first inaugural address because of repeated attempts is this majority of shut out all amendments by the minority thomas jefferson said that the although the although the of the majority is in all cases to prevail that rule to be rightful must be reasonable and must always protect the rights of the minority some of which to already has not shown from florida you know thirty seconds to the chairman of the committee gentleman from massachusetts secondly c b o says he's wrong this is written unlike the for the when part is written like the flood part to require actuarially sound policy premiums to be breakeven and c b l certifies that it's there so the notion that this is a thing trillion draw even billions to our debt is simply wrong according to c b l gentleman's time has expired gentlewoman from west virginia i'm not for the speakers are you back about my time gentlewoman from florida thank you just to close rather than any attention placed on mars i'm glad that we here in the congress were able to place some attention on our hot our coastal areas in this country that are at risk of from catastrophic loss night urge approval of m  one ten dash three fifty line offered by mr bloom an hour of oregon pursuant to house resolution six eighty three the gentleman from oregon mr bloom and i are in a member opposed each will control five minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon thank you mr chairman i am in fact encouraged with some of the discussion that is here today if we sort of cut through some of the areas of where people are cranking and i understand it i think we are looking at some broad areas of agreement that at the end of the day we're going to have a stronger flood insurance program will be able to answer some of these questions i have an amendment that i think will further strengthen this because as we learned during katrina there's more work to be done to make sure that the flood insurance program is able to fulfill its mission of providing flood insurance and helping communities reduce that flood risk now i think i am pleased that the underlying legislation make some very important reforms to the program  i've been involved with for the last six years what i propose in this amendment is an adjustment to legislation to help ensure that bhima is better prepared for current and future risks and that people have the information that they need to reduce their own risk the amendment simply requires fema to take into consideration the impacts of global warming current and future when updating and maintaining flood insurance program rate maps the flood insurance maps are significantly outdated over seventy five percent of them are at least ten years old not only are they outdated but they estimate risk by extrapolating solely from historic loss as my friend from louisiana mr baker pointed out earlier unfortunate looks like the future will bring new weather patterns a recent report from the intergovernmental commission on climate change the leading group of climate scientists from around the world indicates that with climate change future hurricanes will become more intense with a larger peak when ski speeds and heavier pursue potations changes in snowpack and sea level rise will also have a significant impact on flood risk these impacts are not currently considered in the flood pennine map modernization effort my amendment will improve upon this mapping program by ensuring that fema is prepared to be two to  these improve the mapping accuracy it will require the director to take into consideration the impacts of global warming on floods storm and drought risk and take into consideration the potential future impacts of global climate change weather related events and use the best available client science in assessing flood risks and updating fema maps i reserve the balance of my time what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia rise is mr chairman i'd like to claim time in opposition science from on global climate change and weather related issues does fema currently have this technology available where does this technology exist for fema and with what type of accuracy can you predict that fame will be able to predict i mean i know famous in the business of declaring war floodplains arsenal has a lot of science connected with this where is this technology coming from what sophistication of the equipment exists and how do you think these these will be right excellent question around the world scientists are a part of this consensus and we're replying tools one of the problems we have this administration is they've been trying to stifle as you know scientists within the administration speaking out on this and we have undercut investment in these resources the fact is that there's better information now for climate change i have no problem whatsoever of our being able to invest to increase it further but there is a global scientific consensus there is investment in nasa there are already resources within the federal government they are not currently used now by fema the stuff that we've got now let alone what we're going to have in the future well my question would be if that's available to fema now to be able to more accurately predict the flow ebb and flow of water across the united states in the coastal regions why isn't that being used by fema right now if that's available well as is it our friend mr baker pointed out when he was arguing a few moments ago they use a different pattern a different model right now what we're doing with this legislation is we are requiring them to change the model use the information that's available right now by the federal government hopefully the bush administration won't try and stifle it and use that to be part of forecasting current and prospective right now they don't do it in their modeling and there's no reason why they can't this legislation would require it so then and then if going further from what you're saying is well what you're really saying is changing the entire fema modeling perspective or putting this on top of what is already existing it seem what we're saying now is that we are in a world that everybody else acknowledges is rapidly changing it looks like climate change global warming is a reality and just using straight line extrapolat to disc two to determine hundred year flood plains or five hundred year flood plains doesn't work because it's changing much more rapidly than past patterns would expect so we ought to use the best available science here and around the world to look in what's likely to happen in the future fema doesn't currently do that they look at flatline projections of past activity not looking at using the best available science for what's going to happen in the future aren't thank you i take i have a lot of questions about the answer to the question i just asked but at this point yield a minute to gentleman from georgia from georg gentlewoman from west virginia really doubt themas expertise in solving this problem and hope that during the legislative process of this you could maybe the shore up the language to say that they all have somebody with a lot better scientific in organizational minds than they would be in this i mean i keep thinkin thema katrina not a good idea to let them study anything in fact there's a whole slew of amendments here that i probably won't be speaking of but it gives instructions and directions to do this and that i don't have the faith in theme which your side apparently does i think this is in fact like asked in the post office to do an efficiency study i just not a good idea but i do believe you should put in there something about rising tides because you don't have anything about tidal levels and state of georgia we have a seven foot florida has about a  this is something that isn't unknown there are the g a o found that eleven out of eleven share insurance companies that they surveyed already incorporate this into their risk model fema can do this using the private sector and it can use government data that the bush administration has been suppressing now in other areas open it up let these clients scientists that work in other parts of the government advise fema or contract with the private sector it's not hard to fire the information today gentlemen from west virginia general from georgia thirty seconds gentleman amendment has has great merit but i i question the fact that he's he's already mentioned that the data that we're using to predict floods in the future the data that we're using to come about insurance rates in this in this flood flood bill how can we then add on a whole nother wind as another peril when we when we're not sure that the data that we're using to predict future weather forces is accurate at all and i  tools i mean i i'm sorry he's beating up on the administration but i understand it they haven't shown that they're very adept but think of this as longer term legislation there will be a new administration there will be professional who are there the point is whoever's there they need to use the most up to date modern information to think about what's going on in the future the science is already available in parts of the of the federal government right now that could be used the information is available that the private sector is already using all this amendment says notwithstanding i share your concern about who's running it now but that will change i guarantee you that when it changes and even until it changes we can give them a new mandate to look at the bigger picture and factor climate change in and we'll i'm open to working with the gentleman in terms of whether it's contracted it's federal information it's from other international sources the point is they currently do not do it we haven't instructed them to do it this is one thing we can't blame on inept fema administration it's something that congress needs to change and with your help we can approve this summit approve this amendment will change their marching orders we'll have the big picture and it's one of these things that we can agree on work on together we'll all be better off i urge approval of the amendment questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon those in favor please say i those opposed say no opinion the chair the have it the amendment is adopted it is now in order to consider amendment number six printed in part b of house report one ten desh three fifty one for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise but your speaker have a moment at the desk clerk will designate the a moment and then  six printed in part b house a point number one ten dash three fifty line offered by nine year patrick murphy of pennsylvania pursuant to house resolution six eighty three the gentleman from pennsylvania mr murphy that you and a member opposed each will control five minutes the chair to picture family distraught in a home and tatters and rain that just won't stop if that family ask for help either from their insurance company or from fema they would face a maze of bureaucracy and stead of relief as of right now there was no one who will fight for families or business owners who seek assistance in rebuilding at their catastrophic storm we're trying to change at here today with this amendment we are looking to create the office of the flood insurance advocate someone to fight for all of us when we need help the most modeled after the successful taxpayer advocate service at the i this office would fight the battles for weary rain soaked families and businesses looking to rebuild increasing the flood insurance advocate our measure would help cut through the red tape the national flood insurance advocate would do two major things the first report to congress problems facing the flood insurance program and second determine the most effective way to create the office of the flood insurance advocate nationwide mr speaker families and businesses back home need our help i now you'll two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york a colleague and a bulldog call ition mr mica curie jim of new york is recognized for two minutes thank you the speaker i rise to join my good friend from pennsylvania mr murphy in strong support of this amendment and the underlying legislation i'd like to think the distinguished chairman of the financial services committee for producing a bill that updates the national federal insurance program to meet the needs of the twenty first century it improves flood mapping increases financial accountability and  comprehensive responsible public policy that will benefit thousands of americans in the highest risk areas mr chairman across my district in upstate new york the increasing frequency in destructive power of rain storms and snow melts in recent years has caused flooding disasters which have seriously damaged homes and businesses in a number of communities some of these communities in the subsequent a river basin like the city of oneonta suffered a fate last year similar to the areas in pennsylvania situated in the delaware river basin the city of oneone experience very damaging flooding in june of two thousand and six caused by severe rainstorms however it is now in september two thousand and seven and there are local homeowners and businesses still wrestling with themas burdensome claims process waiting on settlements they were assured as national flood insurance program policyholders the speaker the same is true for the local city government in oneonta it took almost one whole year after the disaster for fema to fully reimburse the city for repairs to public infrastructure severely damaged during the floods even after many months of persistent and regional fema office the city was left with no recourse and it to seek the assistance of my office for intervention finally after encounter encountering hurdle after hurdle for a year the city rizzi received their reimbursement from fema we should ask ourselves should we not strive to create more efficiency in an agency that is still learning lessons in the aftermath of katrina and rita mr speaker the amendment mr murphy and i are offering today will study the feasibility of creating an independent office within fema its primary task will be to help local homeowners and business owners in upstate new york and across the u s to navigate gentleman's time has expired i yield to my colleague another additional minute gentlemen new york to recognize for one minute i think my colleagues in upstate new york and across the u s to navigate the often tedious and complicated federal flood insurance claim system within a national flood insurance program the i'm in a stable has a national flood insurance advocate which would be tasked with providing insurance policy holders across the u s a type of on the budget meant to represent the public interest by investigating and addressing complaints the amendment also requires additional flood insurance advocate report to congress with analysis of the major problems facing the national flood insurance program this national flood insurance advocate is based on successful model of a taxpayer advocate service which is helped countless constituents navigate the internal revenue service mr speaker i urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this amendment inert support and passage of the bill  gentlewoman's recognized for five minutes thank you i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas mr called recent gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes like mr chairman i'm glad we're considering this amendment to have the have famous consider give us a comprehensive report on the problems facing the flood insurance program we already established at this legislation in essence is going to create a public private partnership in which the insurance companies are going to collect a premium the tax payers going to pay the bill we've already established as mr baker pointed out earlier that the  there's a potentially one thousand trillion dollars worth of valuation of property out there along the coastlines that are again the risk that the taxpayers are assuming the tria legislation terrorism risk insurance legislation the liberals  leadership in this house push through last week puts the taxpayers but tinchy on the hook for up to one hundred billion dollars and i wanted if i could to just get an answer to my question the time that i've got the other than social security and medicare and not getting the moon the mars program the chairman mentioned because there is no such program it can get the chairman or anybody else on that side if i any single piece of legislation that has created a bigger potential risk to the taxpayers then this bill this and i won't say boondoggle but this piece of legislation creates potentially a trillions of dollars where the only old yes or where there is any piece of legislation you can identify other than so security or medicare that creates potentially trillions of dollars worth of liability on the taxpayers  the general namita finish virtually every piece of legislation we deal with because this legislation has two parts one part which will reduce in existing liability that is there is already out there a flood insurance liability this bill unanimously agreed to by on the committee who worked on it will reduce that in the flood part with regard to water this will raise premiums and restrict placement with regard to the new part the when part it will create no ability because as i've said several times the bill pennsylvania over the last three years your alley was hit with three floods misreads came to our office because her insurance policy was rated with the wrong corless this equally simple mistake cost her an extra ten thousand dollars per  actuarially sound that's true that's in the bill that you produced here however the lawless are requires that the flood insurance program be actuarially sound and it is twenty billion dollars in debt and the legislation before the house asked the federal government the taxpayers to assume a potential liability for the shut nineteen trillion dollars worth of insured property of valuation a property just along the coast legitimate or if i could sure i control the town i've only got a brief amount of time it's be important to remember that the taxpayers united states are already facing liability of fifty two point five trillion dollars according the government accountability office and it's just irresponsible it is dangerous to pass legislation like this creating a massive new expansion of an existing program that's already twenty billion dollars in debt at a time when the when the country faces massive debt massive deficits is just irresponsible and dangerous and i just want to point out to the to the house and to the to the people out there listening mr chairman that this legislation is fiscally or sponsible it is dangerous and i urge the house to defeat it it's which the flood insurance policies are set is different this one in this bill that when policy it's a much tougher requirement that it be accurate sound and she be oh i'm like the gentleman texas can read the bill my brand this is a brand new liability that we're passing on to my daughter to the children of america that of people of the united states who are already saddled with a fifty point five trillion dollars worth of liability and it's just a responsible it's unacceptable and it's outrageous to create a massive new program like this that passes that could create a potentially liability in the trillions of dollars and that's my point there is never been a more expensive nor more massive creation a potential liability of the taxpayers than this legislation before the house today and that's my it's now in order to consider a minute number seven printed in part b of house report one ten dash three fifty one for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise mr chairman i have a minute the desk clerk will designate the m m m and then the number seven printed in part the house report number one ten dash three fifty line offered by mr taylor of mississippi pursuant to house resolution six eighty three the gentleman from mississippi mr taylor and a member pose a chill control five minutes chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi i thank the chair and i thank the chairman of the committee for allowing this amendment to be considered and hopefully for his cellphone to speak to anyone who's traveled to south mississippi south louisiana in the wakes of hurricanes r katrina no we have an incredible housing shortage today one hundred thousand mississippi families are still living in fema trailers they're grateful for the trailers they'd rather be someplace else part of the problem isn't that big in particular for renters th addition to homes being destroyed a heck of a lot of rental properties were destroyed prior to this amendment if you are a condo owner or building a condo you can build a condo with as many number of units as you'd like and each one of those units can be insured up to the value of the federal flood insurance program it's one hundred units each one can be insured up to two hundred fifty thousand dollars on the other hand if you're considering building rental property you have two strikes against you number one in the wake of hurricane katrina and rita this private sector that so many people say you know being so good to us have now said that just for wind insurance it's going to be three hundred dollars per unit per month even for a modest apartment secondly if you're considering building a building that you can insure that building for only five hundred thousand dollars whether it's one unit or a thousand units you can only get five hundred thousand dollars for the coverage for that entire building it is a disincentive for the private sector to rebuild and to build the skills of housing that we need this amendment it's all about parity if we as a nation can ensure condominiums for folks who can afford to buy them then we as a nation ought to be making available insurance for folks who can't afford a condo but who need to rent a place to live what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia ross thank you mr chairman i rise in opposition to this amendment claim time gentlewoman direct enough minutes thank you mr chairman i rise today in opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from mississippi the bill we're debating today is troubled i think and because of the deeply in debt florence flood insurance program and now we are debating we are not debating because we were unable to debate on the floor on the full floor of the house whether we should include wind in this windows in this bill as a peril but what this amendment does is further expand that coverage that is very debatable i think premature has been unstudied and i believe this would be very unwise to include this amendment a s a coverage expansion we've talked about the fact that the flood insurance program owes the u s treasury eighteen billion dollars we've talked about the fact that at a hearing in july on whether we should add when to the n f i b that the national association of insurance commissioners insurance experts environmental groups floodplain management groups treasury and fema all six opposed the initial expansion and i suffice to say they would certainly oppose or they could certainly oppose and even further expansion of this that this amendment represents i think that the wind insurance premiums are supposed to be actuarially sound enough and the chairman of the full committee has made that point several times the majority of the f i p policies are supposed to be actuarially sound and yet the nonpartisan g a o says that they are not actual areally sound and we know that very few government insurance programs are ever actuarily sound so i would mr speaker i'd like to encourage the gentlewoman let's deal with the facts if you have an organization that opposed to this amendment namely organization but let's don't suppose for anyone whether they're for it or against it i thought it would be useful to correct them first of all this bill and this amendment adds not only doesn't add to the federal government's liability it diminishes existing liability the flood program was allowed to get deeply in debt this bill with respect to flood says that there will be higher premiums and there will be fewer buildings in the floodplain areas so we're clearly reduces it supported in that respect by environmentalists and tax payers the wind part that's why when we did the when program we wrote a much more specific and binding set of instructions that will be actuarially sound the fact is that the force that made the water program to be in debt are correct in this bill and that is not simply the opinion of the authors of general mississippi or this committee it's key it c p o the congressional budget office's certification so the notion that this adds to liability is simply wrong it will reduce the outgo with regard to the water program and with regard to the one program it is actuarially sound and in this bill if it begins to run a deficit the program cuts off so an analogy between the when funding in the water funding is flatly wrong they are written differently we have learned from our mistakes and so and that's true of this amendment to the gentlemen to drop in remember that when greece coverage subject again to the very strict rules that say will be actuarially sound now i have no particular hope that this is go sink in everywhere but it does seem to me it is useful to have the fundamental facts out there on the record gentlewoman from west virginia thank you mr chairman i take heed to the gentleman words from mississippi and i tried to sort of re correct my initial assumption that they would oppose the amanat apologize for that but i would like to place in the record a list and of letters from folks who do oppose the bill in general because of the wind addition that would be friends of the earth's natural wildlife federation u s public interest group american surance association property casualty insurance financial services roundtable consumer federation of america research reince or other reasons sure it's association of america i'd like to have this insert into the writes i'd like to ask for a record for so it's called six of rule eighteen further proceedings on the amendment offered by of a gentlewoman from west virginia and general followed offered by the gentleman from mississippi i'm sorry will be postpone eight printed in part the house report number one ten dash three fifty line offered by mr taylor of mississippi pursuant to house resolution six eighty three the gentleman from mississippi mr taylor and a member opposed each will control five minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi thanks mr and mr chairman in the course of today's debate i think a lot of members are learning a lot about insurance that they kind of wish they didn't know and force a lot of folks in my district learned a lot in the wake of that storm that they wish they knew some told you before the united states navy has modeled hurricane katrina and according to the united states navy there were four to five hours of hurricane force winds that hit south mississippi before the war ever got there now that's a fact in the united states navy we have a policy under the national right your own program we as a nation allow the private sector to sell that policy even though we back that's not a problem because down on administration costs we also have a line in that contract with those private firms and says you will do a fair adjustment of the claim think about i can you think of any another person that can send a bill to the federal government up to two hundred fifty thousand dollars plus another hundred thousand dollars for contents and no one ever questions it and yet we gave the insurance industry this incredible responsibility and i can tell you they misused it so while in the but it says there has to be a fair or just that's a long unfortunately in the policies that they wrote for people that were multiple pages thick buried in that policy is something called co causation which says in effect that after those four to five hours of hurricane force winds hit south mississippi if on a residence there is a single tube on for left standing the roof is gone the windows have been blown in the car to go on the house is gone there's one to go for left standing then it there is a concord causation of wind and water and they don't have to pay it's in their policies under oath there have been insurance agents who admitted they don't even know is in the policy if the insurance agent didn't know do you think an individual has a chance there was an extremely influential senator on the other end of this building a l of grief from the university of mississippi he did know this in their federal judge center a federal judge he did know is in there if an extremely influential u s senator for a federal judge said no what chance corrugated box salesman hale what chance of a shrimper hale a housewife a schoolteacher the fact of the matter is that's wrong and the taxpayers ended up paying the bill that the insurance company should have paid because they stuck it to the taxpayers of the flood insurance policy every time this amendment would tell the insurance companies that if they want to do business with our nation through the federal flood insurance program that they can no longer a concurrent causation clause in a car check because it's completely contrary to the contract they serve with a nation this is going to be a fair adjustment of the claim if after four hours of hurricane force winds the house is almost gone but there's one board left in wave comes along and knocks at last bore down under their rules the taxpayers pay on to what's fair in right they ought to pay for what the when did and let the taxpayers pay for what the water did we recognize there's a problem we're addressing that problem and only a shill for the insurance industry can turn around and say that this is right if you really are concerned about the treasury then you ought to be concerned about the treasury be and ripped off by insurance companies by letting their agent be the sole determining factor who's going to pay in sticking out nation with the bill and this is an opportunity to close that diligently i don't mean anything critical but the general george you missed the kinks and said why don't we try to make the private companies live up to the sponsibility and stop them from walking away this amendment is the first chance we get to do that because what this amendment does is not extend federal coverage but try to hold those companies which are voluntarily participated in the federal government to a reasonable standard with who gone to their own coverage so this is a chance to hold the private companies to the so those opposed say no then you in the chair the have it and the amendment is adopted it is now in order to consider memet number nine printed in part b of house report one ten dash three fifty one for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois arise mr chairman i have an amendment at the desk clerk will designate the a moment and then  recognizes the gentleman from illinois now i thank you mr chairman and i yield myself as much time as i may consume gentleman's rock and i thank the rules committee for making this amendment an order and thank chairman frank as well of my amendment as a commonsense simple amendment that will bring fairness to famous remapping process if my amendment is adopted fame would not be able to adjust premium rates or require the purchase of flood insurance until all remapping has been completed for an entire district of the corps of engineers affected remapping under the current system one geographic area of a floodplain or watershed can be updated while another geographic area of the same floodplain or watershed may not be remapped for a few years if you look at the st louis maps will be available for review in december of this year for the l and i side of the mississippi river but will not be available for the missouri side of the river for two to three years the remapping process should not be stopped but  be implemented for the entire floodplain or watershed together as opposed to the current piecemeal approach mr chairman i urged mike colleagues to support this amendment and reserve the balance of my time with anyone seek opposition to this ought to be in a watershed and as he so aptly put that you know if flood one floods come across rivers though they'll flow across banks on both sides and so as we have to address how to do the compensation it only makes sense house report number one ten dash three fifty line offered by mr gene green of texas pursued the house resolution six eighty three the gentleman from texas mr green and a member opposed h will control five minutes and chair recognizes the gentleman from texas by tropical storm allison after it swept through texas and up the east coast causing substantial flood damage thousands of my constituents along with everyone else both homes and businesses the good news was some of these offices were protected by the national flood insurance program the bad news was it me my constituents who needed flood insurance could not afford to purchase a policy we all know that the flood insurance program plays occur or lessen the impact of a major flooding disaster but to make the program more effective we need greater participation from americans of all incomes and h r twenty thirty one twenty one require sima to conduct a survey to review the national flood maps and evidently these updates then if our previously and designated homes as being located in flood prone areas many low income families with such designation of their homes means having to purchase flood insurance that easier either on affordable or difficult to immediately budget for on modest means armament seeks to bridge that insurance gap between those who can afford flood policy and those who cannot and still be able to expand the people who are paying into the system the amendment simple that would provide a limited five year phase in a flood insurance premiums for low income homeowners or renters whose primary residence is place within the floodplain through an updated  dating of the flood insurance program maps these homes can be valued at no less no more than seventy five percent of the median home income value for the state in which a property is located some him and make the national flood insurance program more affordable for low income homeowners increase participation in the program and decrease the likelihood of a taxpayer bailout bailout and then of a flood i believe the amendment will bring security and peace of mind to many hard working families who don't live in mansions but live in their basic homes and need help gentleman from texas somewhere now will find themselves in a flood plain not because they moved but because the designation is deferred and this does not exempt them from having to pay the insurance it does in certain cases the gentleman californias and this one has to do with the mapping with new maps of updating maps and announce them to phase in the result will be more people paying in and more people moving in a flood plain who will be having to pay flood insurance the remapping means there will be more restrictions on future building there but i did want to stress that we did not in this bill and not in any of the amendments give any reductions to people already covered but we have said again where people did not move in but found themselves where they gentleman from arkansas thank you mr speaker first of all i want to thank that this thing with chairman of the committee on financial services for his magnificent leadership on this issue of modernizing and reforming famous flood insurance program i rise today at all for this minute along with my colleagues mrs emerson and mr hulshof from missouri mr costello and mr hare of illinois and mr ross of arkansas th amendment addresses concerns that we have heard from property owners local governments small businesses realtors lenders others regarding famous flood maps and the uncertainty that they have caused in our local communities terry and technically deficient blanket warming note that payment currently uses has caused confusion as to whether or not some areas are in a flood plain or not where the flood insurance is needed or not this is placed unnecessary burden on property owners and threatens economic development in some of the most impoverished areas of the nation this amendment dramatically improves famous current policy requiring any note placed own flood maps to more fully and accurately inform the property owners about the protection value of their lives this man will continue the objective of educating property owners reminding them of the importance of honestly assessing their risk reminding them that they may consider optional part just of flood insurance even if they are not in a special flood hazard area i believe that this is a reasonable in which mine tines the important objectives  and thank you mr speaker and i want to thank my colleague from arkansas for his leadership and my colleagues on the financial services committee for their efforts to improve the national flood insurance program mr speaker the berri amendment as a commonsense approach towards both increased with risk awareness and sound decision making the lack of preparedness on the federal state and local level exposed by hurricane katrina certainly suggests a real lack of awareness of the risks posed by living in the shadow of levees appropriately this amendment recognizes the important role that congress and the administration must play in increasing risk awareness however i would be negligent if i did not relate my concern regarding the direction in which i sense the now no flood insurance program is addressing the decision to participate in the national flood insurance program should be entered into deliberately and after careful consideration not and i stress not based on blanket warnings from fema as a nation taxpayers have contributed billions to build up our levee and flood protection system at the same time our local communities have taken on the added burden of meeting local cost share requirements the substantial investments were based in part on the savings from removing the need to purchase flood insurance mandatory requirements to purchase flood insurance should be carefully studied blanket one size fits all warning from an organization even an organization like thema should be entered into only after thought after thoughtful consideration and ample review in my view the very amendment would bring these principles to bear on at least one bureaucratic decision and i urge its adoption and i reserve the balance of my time gentleman from arkansas berry for offering this amendment it's a bipartisan the members what i would call a common sense amendment i don't have to tell you mr chairman that the federal emergency management agency they need help and  their this program out this is the same federal agency that's got eight thousand brand new fully furnished mobile homes that in a cow pasture in hope arkansas several years after hurricane katrina mobile homes never got to the thems and we had a tornado on the mississippi river there in dumas arkansas it took it took thema three weeks to figure out how to move thirty a two and a half hours down the road and now fema is trying to wreak havoc on our national flood insurance program the gentlewoman from missouri is absolutely correct it seems to me that what the most trying to do here is is pay for their flood insurance program by forcing people to buy insurance that they know is never going to have a claim and this is a step in the right direction in trying to provide a commonsense fix to another mess it's been created by the federal emergency management agency and i'm pleased to stand here with my colleague from arkansas and missouri in support of it do no missouri for two minutes i have appreciate my colleague from the show me state from yielding and i rise in support of the barry ross herr emerson hall soft costello amendment we have tasked the federal emergency management agency with educating the public of the flood risk to their homes and businesses and i think we are agreeing and support their continued efforts in the education campaign so long as it's done based upon the best modeling and sound science available but i do not support fema pushing homeowners into purchasing flood insurance when they don't need it this is exactly what fema seems to be doing with the zone x shaded flood plain note zone  shaded is the area behind a certified one hundred year five hundred year levee but still within the one hundred year flood plain within the zone scheme attaches a note the purpose of which i believe seems to intimidate homeowners into purchasing flood insurance through a a strongly now if you talk to fema they will tell you that those notes don't require individuals to purchase flood insurance and i guess i could say my beautiful wife renee doesn't require me to buy an anniversary present but there are some things that a just seem to be understood and especially my concern as has been expressed is that when you have certain lenders or others who see this warning this stark warning that they may in fact  require homeowners when in fact the law does not again i acknowledge what my colleague and friend from cape girardeau has said i am for flood insurance it should be for instance mandatory in special flood hazard areas but we have areas in this country where tremendous resources have been used to create a very adequate flood protection system mrs emerson's district is one of those systems that are constructed and maintain and certified by the federal government and so individuals that live can work together on both sides the to do commonsense things it's unfortunate that we have been put in the position of federal agency because of severe mismanagement to where we have to to  sponsors thank the committee chairman and ranking member and hope that everyone will be and support of this very commonsense amendment there is no excuse for fema putting at risk the economic development up and down the mississippi river around any other area that is protected by a one hundred year five hundred year levee and that would happen if we would not take this action so twelve printed in part b of house support number one ten three fifty one offered by mr walls of minnesota pursued house resolution six eighty three the gentleman from minnesota mr walls and a member oppose digital control five minutes chair recognizes the gentleman of minnesota well thank you mr chairman and i thank you to the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for offering this incredibly important piece of information on modernizing the national flood insurance program on the evening of august  into the mornings of august nineteenth devastating storms swept across the midwest seven of my twenty two counties in my congressional district are now federal disaster areas as up to eighteen inches of rain fell in the twenty four hour period on those communities seven individuals in my district will last their lives countless others were injured thousands of homes were destroyed millions of dollars in damage to roads and bridges were washed away literally overnight and during that night many minnesotans found out how quickly they needed to become experts in the national flood insurance program so i congratulate the committee for taking up this important legislation i thanked them for doing the modernization and one of the improvements of course that you're hearing so much about is the improvements to the mapping of the one hundred year the five hundred year flood plains and i would like to just my amendment does on this we're getting the five hundred year flood plains and they're dealing with areas that would be flooded or could be flooded if a levee or dam fails but they do not require fiume at this time to map areas in the hundred year flood plain that if not for a flood control measure other than a dam or levee could flood and my amendment simply ask for those areas to be mapped and when a flood control measure fails it's obvious that it's catastrophic whether it be a flood wall or a levee in new orleans or we found out in minnesota a culvert in st charles minnesota or a storm sewer and hokum minnesota the impact of that is devastating so this amendment is very simple it adds one sentence to this map areas in the hundred year flood plain including any area that would be in the flood plain if not protected by a dam levee or other manmade structure this does not put any new requirements on residents living in those areas or put any additional burden on residents who live near dams or levees the amendment simply requires the middle make information available about the risk of flooding that might occur if a flood control measure other than a dam or levee would fail some of the incidents we're talking about culverts storm sewers certain bridges and certain elevated rural roadways the recent floods in minnesota show the need for communities to have a comprehensive information plan on the risks that they face this amendment would help do exactly that and i are my colleagues to adapt this small change that could make a big difference in how people adjust to the circumstances based on the potential of flooding with that i yield back mr chairman i yield back the balance of his time report number one ten dash three fifty line offered by mr stark of california pursuant to house resolution six eighty three the gentleman from california mr storch and a member oppose each will control five minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from