Every aspect of the program I believe must undergo significant revision for it to survive and to continue on a sustainable path.

What happened to the mapping program that was going to go on just a few years ago and everybody was talking about?

Now, if you are not going to charge for the risk, who is going to be charged for the risk?

It is my understanding that FEMA has created a new category of what you call grandfathered categories for homes that have been mapped into riskier areas.

And how do we change the distribution of the risk? Do we do that by mapping and by identifying and broadening the amount of money coming in? How do we do that?

Discuss how the newly grandfathered category works. Is it a permanent category?

But if we do not get--first, define what actuarially sound means, and get to this, it seems to me that every time there is a catastrophic event and you are hit with everything, that it is leading the fund toward bankruptcy rather than…

Updated maps are important for two reasons: first, they warn developers and homeowners about the risk of developing or living in a floodplain; second, they ensure that participants are paying fair prices for flood coverage.

Why should the American taxpayers subsidize these policies, or risk, for people who, a lot of them have second, third homes, knowing that they are in a risk area.

Is part of the problem... the lack of information that they are really in a floodplain area or marginal area?

I worry, am concerned at times that the arrangement could dilute Army control over these critical systems or even put their budgets at risk.

I too would join you and Senator Cochran in welcoming General O'Reilly and we look forward to his testimony.