that the five-year reauthorization be considered by the senate. i just don't understand why this is something that can't be accomplished based upon the nature of this legislation, its importance, its value to the country, and its bipartisan support, and so every once in awhile, when we have to admit how dysfunctional this place is, this seems to be the perfect example of dysfunction, and if there's something i can do, senator vitter, senator tester, to assist to get the five-year reauthorization bill to the senate floor, i'm your ally, and i appreciate the testimony i read and heard expressing the value and importance of accomplishing that, and what mr. sampson said does make sense to me, the ability to continue to write these policies in this uncertain environment diminishes as congress fails to act on so many occasions, so i appreciate you having this hearing to

highlight the importance of this legislation, and i'm pleased that you would allow me to join you for this brief period of time. >> i've got another question here. there's some that have suggested that a two-year straight extension would be better than the reform of the existing insurance program. i think, and i think both senator vitter and senator moran eluded to it, i think we have an opportunity here to reform this program and put it more firm ground with a long-term extension. i would just like, and this is basically dr. sampson or mr. jensen or all of you can talk to this, but beyond improving the program, can you discuss some areas where reform on this bill

are important to the constituencies that you represent, what else does it provide? >> thank you, senator. in addition to the reform, as you mentioned, there are some issues with increasing maximum coverage limits. currently, the coverage limit on a home is for flood loss is $250,000 as a maximum indemnity limit. that is increasingly becoming a problem and an issue as we see higher values in homes again. as well, we are looking at business interruption, it's important to note that there is a study called for in the bill that talks about business interruption coverage within the commercial sector. we think that's very valuable as well. >> in addition, you heard testimony on the previous panel of folks that were placed in areas that, in fact, were not in a floodplain. some of the things that might

happen would be in the streamlining would be the ability for folks who were not in floodplain areas but were charged for those areas would have an opportunity to come back and get reimbersed on an expense basis to the nfip, so that would help us for the folks either misrepresented initially or just don't know what they are doing at the present time. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, i would say that from the company perspective, the number one concern is the -- is the fiscal reforms, and i would not underestimate that at all. i think the bill, also though does address the repetitive lost properties. i think it's absolutely essential, as the previous panelist talked about, the repetitive loss properties where you have 1% of the properties that account for 30% of all the claims in the nfip. the reform bill does address

that, and i would say that that is a critical component. the increase in the amount that fema can increase premiums to incrementally move toward a sound rate, while important, i would say what's more important than that, though, fema has been unwilling to raise the premium prices even by the amount that they are currently authorized in legislation, which is 10% a year, so even more important than raising the cap in legislation of what they could raise prices i think is a signal to the marketplace that they will actually do that in incremental steps. the longer you artificially suppress these rates, the longer the impact on the consumer down the road, so in addition to what's in the legislation, this committee and other committees of jurisdiction encourage fema to use the authority they currently have, i think, is critically important. >> thank you, ms. murdoch, in

your testimony you cite an interesting statistic that for every dollar spent on flood mitigation, $5 are saved, in your testimony you make the distinction between gray and green flood related infrastructure investments, could you just elaborate on the distinction between gray and green infrastructure investment and the relative costs of both? >> sure. we're talking about gray, we're talking about hard systems like levies and dams, bulk heads, sea walls. what we're more and more focussed on is implementing projects where we allow natural systems, floodplains, wetlands, coastal wetlands, barrier beaches, oyster reeves, to also perform flood mitigation services. so we're doing a lot of projects like that, both in the mid part

of the country, a lot of flod plain restoration, some of that involves just setting back levies far enough from the river to allow floodplains to perform their natural function, and then along the gulf coast, we have a goal of building 100 miles of oyster reeves along the alabama coast. the cost comparison compared to gray infrastructure is very new, and we're actually starting to work and partnership with insurance companies to really measure those out. we have some preliminary figures on the oyster reef, but it's very new, and i don't think it accurately yet reflects what the two true cost-benefit of the green versus gray would be. >> thank you very much. senator wicker is coming here in just a second, and i want to make sure to get his perspective for his questions in.

in lieu of that, i want to say this, first of all, and he will be here momentarily, i would just like to say thank you, guys, for your testimony. yep, we got you, we're waiting for you, roger, you're good to go. go ahead and get organized while i talk for a second. i want to thank you for your testimony. we want to make sure we get this thing considered and move forward. i think, as you do, mo, this is a critically important piece of our economic recovery, and i think the longer we put this off, i think, is just a missed opportunity. so the coalition that has formed here and the work that you're doing on the hill, don't underestimate it, it is critically important to put pressure on everybody that serves in the senate to allow us to put pressure on leadership, to take this bill up sooner

rather than later, and with that, senator wicker, you have comments, questions, have at it. >> right. thank you, mr. chairman, and i have been back in my office watching the hearing while trying to get my desk cleared. i wouldn't be surprised if some other members of the committee also were availing themselves of this opportunity, but i just had to rush down and add my support for what you're trying to do, mr. chairman, and to thank all of these members of the panel for their excellent remarks. and i -- i guess it was the representative from the realtors who -- i'm not sure, but someone made a very cogent point, you know, mr. chairman, we need a bipartisan accomplishment in

this senate, and we have it in our grasp to do this on a very important issue. the american people are looking at us. they are looking to us. they expect us to come to washington and actually engage in accomplishments. this is an opportunity for us to do that. a good vote in the house, strong support in this committee, and the opportunity is right there, so for those members of the leadership within the sound of our voices, i just had to rush down before we gavel to a close and say that i absolutely hope we can do this. i would mention that the committee leadership has been very generous in working with me and others on -- on the so-called coastal act, which is a small step toward using

science that's already out there to get us toward a resolution on this wind and water issue that is often a problem when a hurricane comes along, but you've made great points. this is not just a bill for people along the oceans and the gulf. this is a bill for the entire united states of america. it's a bill for the taxpayers, for heaven's sake, and so senator tester, thank you for your leadership and that of senator vitter and i appreciate moran coming on too. i don't have questions, because the questions i would have asked had been asked while i was listening, but thank you very much, and let's keep this up and let's redouble our resolve to actually get an accomplishment for the taxpayers and for the american public. >> well, thank you, senator

wicker, we certainly appreciate your long support in working on this bill, it's been critically important, and i think you're right, mo brought it up, it is a good bipartisan win, and it's something that we need to do that will help do a lot of good things for a lot of folks out there and plus fix some fiscal problems that this program has. i want to thank this panel, i want to thank the previous panel for their testimony, the hearing record will remain open for seven days for any additional comments anybody might want to add for that or any questions that folks want to submit for the record. with that, thank you all very much and this hearing is adjourned.