National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3980) to establish a National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3980, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and his staff for their leadership and support for allowing me to bring this important piece of legislation before the Committee on Science. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), who introduced this bill with me, and all of the cosponsors of H.R. 3980 for their support.

Windstorms in the United States, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, continue to cause high levels of injuries, deaths, business interruption, and property damage. Unfortunately, the level of losses due to the windstorms increase each year and will continue to escalate unless technology generation, education, and public policies are improved.

On May 11, 1970, tragedy struck my hometown of Lubbock, Texas. An F5

tornado ripped through downtown Lubbock. Six people were killed, and 500 were injured. The tornado had winds estimated in excess of 200 miles an hour and damaged or destroyed a large portion of our city.

In a few moments between 9:35 p.m. and the time the funnel lifted into the cloud, the tornado devastated a community along an 8\1/2\ mile-wide path. It wrought havoc along a track that was 1\1/2\ miles wide in downtown Lubbock to one-fourth mile wide as it passed over the National Weather Bureau's office located at the airport. The twister was responsible for $125 million in damage, and an estimated 15 square miles of the city was damaged or destroyed.

The National Weather Service estimates that between 1995 and 2002, hurricanes, tornadoes, and thunderstorm winds caused an average of $4.5 billion in damage every year. Texas alone averages 124 tornadoes every year, which is more than double the average of any other State.

Over this past Memorial Day weekend, for example, 175 tornadoes were reported across the country, bringing the preliminary total for May to 544. The storms were responsible for 8 deaths and millions of dollars in damages in 12 States.

June 1 was the official start of hurricane season, and forecasters are predicting an above-normal Atlantic season. Officials anticipate 12 to 15 tropical storms for the season, with six to eight systems becoming hurricanes, with two to four of those becoming major hurricanes.

Last year, Hurricane Isabel, one of the storms to affect the United States, caused 17 deaths and more than $3 billion in damages. Technological advancements in the second half of the century have contributed to better, more accurate severe weather watches and warnings from the National Weather Service, ultimately saving countless lives. Advancements in computer technology also led to progress in numerical weather prediction, allowing meteorologists to apply physics in replicating motions of the atmosphere.

But even as we build on our current weather prediction successes and create new resources to predict windstorms at a greater rate, the United States continues to sustain billions of dollars each year in property damage and economic losses due to wind storms, and the human costs are all too painful.

Over the last 5 years, Texas Tech University Wind Engineering Research Center has received funding under a cooperative agreement with the National Institute For Standards and Technology to research the detrimental effects of windstorms on buildings and to reduce the loss of life from windstorm events. Their work has led to many accomplishments on the national scope. This year alone, they will receive $900,000 to carry on research to improve the economy of shelters and wind-resistant construction.

A variety of cost-effective windstorm hazard mitigation measures exist, and many more are undergoing important research and development at universities like Texas Tech University across this Nation. However, these efforts are not being coordinated at the Federal level to improve the general public's understanding of windstorm impacts, and we are not doing a good job of encouraging implementation of cost-effective mitigation measures for our citizens.

Improving the wind resistance of buildings can only be achieved when there is a demand for wind-resistant construction by homeowners. Hurricane Isabel, the tornado in Lubbock that was so destructive more than 30 years ago, and the 544 tornadoes in the month of May alone are serious reminders of how vulnerable we are and how serious we should be about severe weather safety and preparedness.

Here is what we can do about it. The objective of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program is to achieve measurable reduction in loss of life and property from windstorms. In a coordinated effort between academia, the private sector and the Federal Government, this legislation will improve distribution of current research findings, develop cost-effective and affordable windstorm-resistant systems, and develop outreach techniques for the general public.

The aim of this act is also to enable the marketplace to form incentives. Improving our understanding of how wind impacts buildings, enhancing the scope and detail of damage data collection, and measuring the degree to which varying mitigation techniques can lessen that impact will make it possible to quantify the value of mitigation. This information will give policymakers, private industry, and individual homeowners the tools to make decisions that take windstorm vulnerability into consideration.

An investment in windstorm impact reduction will pay significant dividends and will save lives, decrease property damage, and reduce the cost of Federal disaster relief in the future. Therefore, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3980.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to just summarize a little bit about this bill and to also let folks know that this bill has a lot of endorsements from people that are very active in this type of engineering: the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, the Manufacturing Housing Institute, the National Association of Wind Engineering, Applied Technology Council, and the International Code Council. These are the organizations that are actively involved in this kind of research, and

they wholeheartedly support and endorse this bill.

One of the things that this bill does is it creates a national windstorm impact reduction program, and it improves our understanding of windstorm issues. And it also brings about a collaboration of the private sector and the public sector so that we can begin to commercialize a lot of the important research that is going on. It really does not do us any good to do a lot of good research in this country if we do not get it into the hands of the people that can actually use that, and those are the homeowners and the building owners around this country.

It also brings some oversight to the process and creates a National Advisory Committee who will oversee the various research. They will be reported back to and given an opportunity to give progress reports to the Congress to make sure that we are providing adequate oversight for the important research dollars that we are providing for this type of research.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science.

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to close by saying that this bill consolidates and coordinates windstorm research that has been going on throughout multiple agencies and brings oversight to that process, and I think that is very important. I think the American people expect us to oversee the moneys that we are appropriating and authorizing; but it also is a public and private partnership, and the whole goal of this bill is to make sure that we get the important research out of the laboratories and into practical solutions that are going to be saving lives and reducing property damage.

So I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 3980, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the following votes on Wednesday July 7, 2004, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote No. 329, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Flake Amendment, to prohibit the use of funds in the appropriations bill to implement the Commerce Department's new restrictions on gift parcels to Cuba and the amount of personal baggage allowed for travelers to Cuba.

Rollcall vote No. 330, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Weiner Amendment which would have increased COPS funding but at the expense of the U.S. Census Bureau.

Rollcall vote No. 331, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Hefley Amendment, an amendment to eliminate funding for the re-engineered design process for the 2010 Short-Form Only census.

Rollcall vote No. 332, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Kucinich amendment, to expand the membership of the President's ``Manufacturing Council'' to include representatives from unions and the steel industry.

Rollcall vote No. 333, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Paul amendment, an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill to pay expenses for any U.S. contribution to the United National Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Rollcall vote No. 334, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Farr amendment, directing that none of the funds in the appropriations bill may be used to prevent the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont or Washington from implementing state laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana.

Rollcall vote No. 335, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Paul amendment, which would have prohibited the use of funds to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.

Had I been present for the following votes on Thursday July 8, 2004, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote No. 336, I would have voted ``nay'' on the rules of debate for H.R. 4755.

Rollcall vote No. 337, I would have voted ``nay'' on the rules of debate for H.R. 3598.

Rollcall vote No. 338, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 3980 to establish a National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.

Rollcall vote No. 339, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Sanders amendment, which would have restricted the investigative powers of the FBI and homeland security, and restored some of the basic civil liberties revoked by the PATRIOT Act.

The Sanders amendment would have repealed some of the most dangerous provisions of the PATRIOT Act, which allow the government to monitor the reading and research habits of citizens in libraries and bookstores. It is clear that there is potential for abuse of individual rights in every community across the nation, and there has been mistreatment in my own. I am appalled by the behavior of the House leadership in administering this vote. It was made clear that even if I had been present to cast my vote of support, the vote would have been held open for as long as it would have taken to strong arm enough members into defeating the legislation.

Rollcall vote No. 340, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Akin amendment, which prohibits funds in the appropriations bill for HIV/ AIDS programs that do not explicitly oppose legalizing sex trafficking and prostitution.

Rollcall vote No. 341, I would have voted ``nay'' on the King (IA) amendment, providing $1 million for the enforcement of provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act regarding receiving and providing information to the federal government on the citizenship or immigration status of an individual.

Rollcall vote No. 342, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Smith (MI) amendment, which increases funding for scientific and technical research and services of the National Institute of Standards and Technology by $20 million. The amendment offsets the increase by reducing funding for U.S. contributions to international organizations by $20 million.

Rollcall vote No. 343, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Hefley amendment, an amendment to reduce funding for the U.S. Court of Federal Claims by 50 percent.

Rollcall vote No. 344, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Hefley amendment, an amendment to cut total appropriations in the bill by 1 percent.

Rollcall vote No. 345, 1 would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 4754.

Rollcall vote No. 346, I would have voted ``yea'' on the passage of H.R. 4754, to make appropriations to the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and other related agencies for the fiscal year 2005.

Rollcall vote No. 347, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to adjourn.

Had I been present for the following votes on Friday July 9, 2004, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote No. 348, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

Rollcall vote No. 349, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to adjourn.

Rollcall vote No. 350, I would have voted ``nay'' on ordering the previous question.

Rollcall vote No. 351, I would have voted ``nay'' on the resolution providing for consideration of H.R. 2828.

Rollcall vote No. 352, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to reconsider.

Rollcall vote No. 353, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to adjourn.

Rollcall vote No. 354, I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 2828.

Rollcall vote No. 355, I would have voted ``yea'' on the amendment to authorize $120.6 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and 10 percent yearly increases for FY06-08 and to allow the Federal cost-share for MEP Centers in the FY05-08 to increase up to one-half on a case-by-case basis as determined by the Administration.

Rollcall vote No. 356, I would have voted ``yea'' on the amendment to prohibit funds authorized from being used to require centers participating in the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program to re- compete for funds that already have been approved.

Rollcall vote No. 357, I would have voted ``yea'' on the amendment to establish a Manufacturing and Technology Administration within the Commerce Department and to direct the President to appoint, with the consent of the Senate, an Under Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing and Technology, an Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and an Assistant Secretary for Technology.

Rollcall vote No. 358, I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 3598.

Mr. Speaker, we need to defeat this rule so that I can offer an amendment to simply say that no committee in any year can spend more than $25,000 on just postage. That would be $50,000 a Congress. Why would such a limit be needed? Why is the $25,000 limit needed? After all, in the year 2002, the average committee spent only $2,104 on postage. The largest amount spent by any committee during the 107th Congress on an annualized basis was $6,807.

I know the gentlewoman from New York cited the amounts requested by committees. They requested a bit more than these figures. But when we look at what they actually spent, no committee needed to spend in the average year more than $6,807 in the 107th Congress.

But a new phenomenon has arisen. The Committee on Resources has decided it needs more resources. In the 107th Congress it spent $2,483 per year on postage. For the 108th Congress they requested a quarter million dollars per year for postage; $500,000, half a million dollars, for the whole 108th Congress.

Think of this from a fiscal responsibility standpoint. That is a 4,445 percent increase over what they requested before. Maybe that is not too bad. After all, 4,445 percent increase in the cost of a government agency, no fiscally responsible person would object to that. But do not compare it to what they requested last Congress. Compare it to what they actually spent. Then it is a 9,968 percent increase. Maybe somebody with some fiscal conservatism would be concerned about that, a committee which in the last Congress spent $2,483 on postage now wants to spend $250,000 on postage.

We do not know what they are spending all this money for. It is hard to get the information. But we do know that last quarter, just in 3 months, the committee spent $49,587 on postage, and when they spend money on postage, they inevitably have to spend money on printing, and, yes, they spent $40,732 on printing.

What did they use the money for? Not to carry on committee business in the sense of telling the press what the committee is doing, writing to experts to see if they can gather information. This is not individually sent-out letters, no. These were mass mailings into individual Members' districts, $250,000 per year. What kind of mailings went out? Here is an example that was referred to by the gentlewoman from New York. We will see that this mailing went out to Arizona. Our information is that it went it to the gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. Renzi) district, who happens to be one of the most targeted Members in the entire Congress by one political party. It praises three Members of the Arizona delegation for cosponsoring a bill, and if we read it very carefully, it attacks or implicitly criticizes a fourth Member of the Arizona delegation for not cosponsoring this bill. I might add it is a terrible bill, but the mailing praises those who cosponsor it. Our information is that it went just to the gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. Renzi) district; so the fact that it implicitly criticizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) is not of great significance unless he has statewide ambitions I am unaware of.

In any case, what does this mailing do? It lauds a Member. Some of these mailings are going out in violation or possible violation of the blackout period. So we are used to not sending out mailings 90 days before an election. Apparently the committee chairmen can. This mailing seems rather benign in that it lauds a Member, and it does so only on one issue.

Mark my words: If we do not draw the line now, the next piece will be a hit piece, and it will not be limited to one issue. It will not even be limited to a committee's jurisdiction. It will be an attack piece sent out a day or a week before an election.

How is this all different from the Member communications that we are aware of? Because many of us send mail to our constituents. First, a Member gets a limited Members' representational allowance. We are responsible to our districts, to the recipients of that mail. If the mail is informative, then I can tell my constituents we sent them informative mail that came out of our budget, which we could otherwise have used to hire personnel. But a committee chairman is not responsible to the people who receive the mailing, so they could look at it and say this is wildly uninformative. It is a terrible waste of money. It says it was paid for at taxpayer expense. I do not like it, but it does not matter because my Member did not send it. It comes out of the budget of some Washington committee.

Second, the MRA funds are at least distributed relatively equally by party. Each Member gets their own account. This $500,000 went solely to one political party. And it is not just $500,000. If we do not draw the line now, it will be 5 million, it will be 25 million. It will not be one committee; it will be every committee.

Members also know what information their constituents need to receive. Committee chairmen, with all due respect to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), I do not think he is an expert at what information people in the gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. Renzi) district need to hear. Then we are going to be told that these are to announce field hearings. I might add this piece of mail has nothing to do with any field hearing. But we could have a rule that we have these slush funds, but only if we are announcing a field hearing.

A field hearing should be a field hearing, not an excuse for propaganda, not a district-wide town hall on behalf of an endangered Member or a targeted Member.

Finally, I know here in Washington that our targeted watchdog groups publish lists. They criticize those who spend money on postage and printing. They wonder whether that is a good use of government resources.

Well, wait a minute. None of these groups caught this. They will attack a Member for spending $100,000 on postage. How about $250,000 on postage?

We need to do something about it, and we need to do something about it today. If you vote for this rule, you are voting for giant political slush funds, not just of half a million dollars, but for as large as they are done by whichever party controls this House. You cannot say you are going to deal with it tomorrow if you vote against dealing with it today. Vote against the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2608) to reauthorize the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2608 authorizes two important interagency programs to coordinate the federal government's efforts to mitigate the loss of life and property from earthquakes and windstorms. I'd like to thank Congressman Neugebauer for all of his hard work and effort as the author and driving force behind the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. I'd also like to thank Congressman Lofgren for helping me craft the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program reauthorization and shepherding it through the legislative process.

Damaging earthquakes are inevitable, however infrequent they may be. Total annualized damages from earthquakes in the United States are estimated to be about $4.4 billion in direct financial losses. The 1994 Northridge earthquake in California (magnitude 6.7) was the most costly in U.S. history, causing over $40 billion in damages.

Further, all or parts of 39 states are within zones where the probability of an earthquake occurring is great. Recent research indicates that areas in the eastern and central United States are at greater risk of earthquake occurrence than earlier evidence indicated. The threat from earthquakes is constant and far reaching. Indeed, earthquakes are clearly not just a state or regional problem, but a nationwide problem, demanding nationwide mitigation. Accordingly, the federal government mitigates earthquakes through the comprehensive National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, also known as ``NEHRP''.

Over the past week, significant earthquake events in California and Washington have garnered our attention and concern. NEHRP-supported monitoring equipment managed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the national Science Foundation have resulted in an unprecedented harvest of data from both the Mr. St. Helens volcanic activity as well as the 6.0 Parkfield Earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. This information will undoubtedly lead to important advances in our understanding of earthquakes, and ultimately in our ability to prepare for and respond to them.

But much room for improvement still exists. Our vulnerability to earthquakes continues to increase. Widespread developments still occurs unabated in areas of high seismic risk. Despite the existence of new knowledge and tools produced by the program, development, adoption, and enforcement of pertinent building codes have been incremental and slower than expected. The private sector has not had adequate incentives, and state and local governments have generally not had adequate budgets, to adopt NEHRP innovations.

It is clear that NEHRP needs to be strengthened. Several aspects of program leadership and coordination continue to be an ongoing problem. Knowledge and awareness of these needs within the Office of Management and Budget, relevant appropriators--and even to some degree NEHRP agencies--has been too low. Many outside of the small community of earthquake interests are unaware that this coordinated effort even exists. These factors are addressed in the legislation before us today.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Science,

Washington, DC, October 8, 2004.

Hon. Don Young,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I appreciate your support for the Senate

amendment to H.R. 2608, the National Earthquake Hazards

Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2004. As your letter

indicates, the Senate amendment includes provisions from both

the House version of H.R. 2608 and H.R. 3980, the National

Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004.

I agree that by permitting this bill to be brought before

the House and not objecting to its passage by unanimous

consent, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

does not waive its jurisdiction over certain provisions of

H.R. 2608, as amended by the Senate.

Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

Sherwood L. Boehlert,

Chairman.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, October 8, 2004.

Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,

Chairman, Committee on Science,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Boehlert: I understand that H.R. 2608, the

National Earthquake Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of

2004 has just passed the Senate and incorporates provisions

contained in H.R. 3980, the National Windstorm Impact

Reduction Act of 2004.

I note that in Title I of H.R. 2608, as amended by the

Senate, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management

Agency is directed to: ``operate a program of grants and

assistance which would enable States to develop preparedness

and response plans, prepare inventories and conduct seismic

safety inspections of critical structures and lifelines,

update building and zoning codes and ordinances to enhance

seismic safety, increase earthquake awareness and education,

and encourage the development of multi-State groups for such

purposes.''

As you know, both of these measures contain provisions

within the jurisdiction of the Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee. I recognize your desire to bring

these important matters before the House in an expeditious

manner and I, therefore, do not object to passing them by

unanimous consent. By agreeing to this, however, the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure does not waive

its jurisdiction over H.R. 2608, as amended by the Senate.

I would appreciate it if you would place a copy of this

letter and your response in the Congressional Record when the

bill is considered on the House Floor. I would also like to

incorporate into this letter, by reference, the letter

included in the Record when the House of Representatives

considered H.R. 3980 on July 7th and 8th, 2004.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Don Young,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 707 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 707 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4755, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2005. It is a fair and appropriate rule and should be approved by the House so we can move on to consideration of the underlying legislation.

H. Res. 707 provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It also provides that the bill shall be considered as read.

H. Res. 707 waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill.

The rule makes in order only those amendments put in the Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution. H. Res. 707 provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report.

Finally, H. Res. 707 provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the chairman of the subcommittee. He has worked very closely with his ranking minority member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran of Virginia), in crafting this bill, and for that he deserves our support. This appropriations bill is one of the more challenging bills to manage, and he does so with respect to the institution in which we all serve.

I do want to specifically note that this is a fiscally responsible bill, and I commend the gentleman from Georgia's (Chairman Kingston) management oversight that will certainly ensure that organizational changes are managed better within the agencies of the legislative branch of government.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for a fair amendment process for consideration of the legislative branch appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that we did have this discussion in the Committee on Rules about the printing yesterday. It just came up yesterday for the Republicans being criticized forever for rushing things to the floor. This seems a bit quick for the Democrats to do so. None of us on the Committee on Rules, Republican side, have seen that yet, but the committee of jurisdiction is actually the Committee on House Administration, and I think

it would be appropriate to let the authorizing committee have a shot at this to take a look at the problem before we move to address it on the House floor in an appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the gentleman came very close to impugning the motives of the chairman and the actions of the committee. I would just suggest that he tread a bit more lightly on that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I feel certain that the gentleman was not referring specifically to me, because I do not have Federal health insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am in no way trying to defend or impugn any question of what the Committee on Resources did, but I think the appropriate place to have a look at that is through the Committee on House Administration or through the bipartisan Committee on Franking. I expect that will be done. Not on the floor of the House.

I know they do not want to miss an opportunity to make political hay over this, but the fact of the matter is, this is an inappropriate place to have that discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.