mr. cleaver for his five minutes. >> thank you. just one question, and i'd like to yield the balance of my time to the gentle lady from new york . i'm still on the $18 billion, and there's been some suggestions that perhaps reinsurance could be a way to eliminate future debt. i'd like to get the feel of your response to that from both of you. , either of you. one of you. [laughter] >> well, the issue of reinsurance the thing in the draft that was interesting is, you know, it's an opportunity for fee fima to do experiments. we looked at this a couple years ago, and there wasn't an appetite at that time. it's worth revisiting. the way it current works is nfip while it's an insurance program, it doesn't function like private insurance because private insurers purchases reinsurance to cover that catastrophic level of risk. what happened, and we saw this happen in katrina because representative hurt's point, it wasn't running a deficit because it was self-funding until 2005, and treasury became the reinsurer because any losses over and

mr. cleaver, would you like your time back? >> i think his time is expired. >> oh, sorry. >> now recognize mr. dole for five minutes? >> thank you, madam chairman. >> from illinois. >> we're delight that you're here from illinois. obviously the chairman doctor t -- the chairwoman, the ranking member and myself are delighted to have someone else here from illinois. >> thank you for the invitation. >> ydo you have any suggestions on the repetitive loss properties and how to make them less of a liability? >> yes. this is also an issue that we have looked at over time. and while great strides were made with amendments that were made in the 2000s to address repetitive loss properties, the number of properties has continued to increase and we looked at february numbers and they're continuing to increase. there are a couple of things that we would propose be considered that deals with mitigation offers and what happens when those offers are refused or not responded to. and in terms of allowing fema perhaps to -- to apply surcharge abov

mr. cleaver, would you like your time back? >> i think his time is expired. >> oh, sorry. >> now recognize mr. dole for five minutes? >> thank you, madam chairman. >> from illinois. >> we're delight that you're here from illinois. obviously the chairman doctor t -- the chairwoman, the ranking member and myself are delighted to have someone else here from illinois. >> thank you for the invitation. >> ydo you have any suggestions on the repetitive loss properties and how to make them less of a liability? >> yes. this is also an issue that we have looked at over time. and while great strides were made with amendments that were made in the 2000s to address repetitive loss properties, the number of properties has continued to increase and we looked at february numbers and they're continuing to increase. there are a couple of things that we would propose be considered that deals with mitigation offers and what happens when those offers are refused or not responded to. and in terms of allowing fema perhaps to -- to apply surcharge abov

mr. cleaver is recognized. >> thank you for your generosity, madam chair. this will be very short. i gave up caffeine for lent, and so i have a headache, and i've got to get on the airplane, and i'm going to have a double headache because i'm on this wind versus the flood. can somebody explain to me what you did to determine whether a house was blown away or washed away? i mean, because as you may -- i'm sure you know, there were throngs coming to us about that issue, and as i said, we saw steps remaining, the only thing remaining. i mean, can you, you know, measure something on the cement? i mean, help me, somebody. >> if the structure is no longer there, then they are going to be -- the adjusters are going to -- the wind and water adjusters are going to work very closely together and look at the proximity to water lines, perhaps, perhaps was there a surge that had occurred, which then definitely would be the cause of loss was water. if there was a tornado, or through wind-driven rain that it was determined that the house was destroyed by wind. but they would pull weather reports,