On the recordJuly 15, 2010
Thank you for that clarification. Reclaiming my time, I would just additionally say that I would think, through the continuing education of the real estate schools and the licensing boards throughout the different States who have these issues, that this would already be something that's covered. Again, I will go back to my original premise, $250 million in 5 years at a time of record debt and deficit and high unemployment, to me, is an improper expenditure at this time. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. {time} 1310 Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank the gentlelady from West Virginia for her questions and comments and would certainly add that the costs of this program and certainly the Federal deficit and debt itself are of deep concern to me and the people who sent me here a little over 18 months ago to represent them. My amendment raises no costs whatsoever. It simply says there's an option that if the NFIP program does share information with local community leaders and local entities that they include the local real estate community as well so that they can better provide that information to the people they represent, and I think it's a way to certainly instill confidence in the real estate markets that do exist in floodplain areas. So I think it's a good, commonsense solution and proposal and doesn't cost the taxpayer any money.…





