On the recordJuly 15, 2010
I stand in support of this gentleman's amendment. In April, my subcommittee held a hearing on flood and wind insurance legislative proposals. And at that hearing, the gentleman from Mississippi testified about the way the insurance industry abused the flood insurance program following Hurricane Katrina by claiming that if so much as a drop of water touched a home, that all the resulting damage was the result of flood and not wind, even if there was damage to the contrary. Insurers were able to maintain their bottom line at the expense of the financial solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program. Nobody has worked harder on these issues than he has. He deserves support for this amendment, and we will continue to support his instructions about what we should be doing in the future.
