Multiple Peril Insurance Act of 2009

I thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee for yielding me this time, my friend, Ms. Slaughter.

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

Madam Speaker, this will be the 34th time I have handled a rule on the House floor, and this will be the 34th time I have yet to handle one open rule this session of Congress. In fact, over the 130-plus rules this Congress, we have not yet debated an open rule. I guess I could add the word yet, but I would presume that moving forward during this session of Congress I don't think we expect to. What a shame, Madam Speaker.

I don't believe that closing debate or limiting amendments or shutting down Members of Congress who are elected by their colleagues and peers back home to come and represent them, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, makes a lot of sense. As a matter of fact, I think it's wrong. Yet today here we are again with my handling of the 34th time this session a closed rule.

I would once again question this agenda. I would question the agenda of the majority party, the Democratic Party, that we already know is about taxing, spending, and more rules and regulations, and more debt to this great Nation. But I think that it's important to look at how bad process delivers a bad outcome. And today that's exactly what we're looking at again, another flawed process to bring something to this floor that should be treated more respectfully than the topic that it is.

But I am going to use my time also to talk about some Republican ideas. One thing I have the opportunity today, Madam Speaker, is to call for a vote on the previous question to allow for this week's YouCut winner. We've over the weeks heard about YouCut.

YouCut is a Republican idea that's an online idea. It's a voting tool, a tool where people who are back home have an opportunity to pick what they consider to be wasteful government spending, something which this Congress is incapable of doing because the agenda does not allow for making wiser choices or even feedback from our colleagues about how we would cut and make this government more efficient. Over a million Americans have voted this week alone.

This week's YouCut winner is the elimination of subsidies to first- class seats on Amtrak's long-distance routes. This initiative would yield $1.2 billion in savings over 10 years. And these people who have voted are hardworking Americans who are paying attention to what we're doing here in Washington. They don't want to have their tax dollars subsidize first-class travel on Amtrak.

I have long advocated for reforming Amtrak, especially the long- distance routes. These routes lose money year after year after year. They continue to receive money from the Federal Government, and Amtrak has no incentive to improve their operations as long as Uncle, that's Uncle Sam, is willing to pay.

This Congress I have introduced H.R. 5377, a bill that would require Amtrak to eliminate service on long-distance routes whose total direct costs are more than twice the revenue. That is, where the costs are more than twice the revenue that comes in, the Federal Government should not be paying for that. The taxpayers should no longer be footing the bill for Amtrak's inefficiencies. And today you're going to have a chance to hear from the Republicans about how we think we ought to streamline this government and provide savings to the taxpayer.

Additionally, we're here today to discuss H.R. 1264, which would expand the National Flood Insurance Program, known as NFIP, to include wind storm insurance coverage. But once again today, based upon the agenda that this Democratic majority has, it would create a massive new government program to offer government-paid coverage backed with taxpayer dollars. And while this legislation may be well-intended, I have no doubt that it would have a crushing impact on a very fragile U.S. job market that would add billions to the Federal deficit. That's why we're talking about YouCut today.

We're talking about YouCut today because the bill we're getting ready to pass here in just a few minutes is not even paid for. And our friends in the majority keep talking about, oh, we pay for things. We make the tough decisions. Well, another day in Washington where another tough decision is not being made by the leadership of this House, and the agenda of taxing and spending and more debt and long-term destruction of the free enterprise system is exactly what's on the floor of the House today with this bill.

Transferring these liabilities from the private sector to the NFIP would be fiscally irresponsible. The NFIP currently owes the U.S. Treasury over $18 billion--yet we're going to give them some more, we're going to empower them some more--the amount that it's been forced to borrow from the American taxpayers to pay claims and expenses in excess of the premiums collected.

Since 2006, the Government Accountability Office has included the NFIP on its list of high-risk government programs in need of comprehensive reform. And here today we're empowering a program that's on the high-risk series and encouraging them to do more business, taking business from the free enterprise system.

Additionally, the Property and Casualty Insurance Association of America, known as PCI, estimates that the legislation will eliminate 41,775 private-sector jobs so that Uncle Sam and the government can add jobs.

Madam Speaker, that is the hallmark of this Democrat majority. It is to empower the government against the free enterprise system. We saw this in May numbers, when the May numbers came out, 431,000 net new jobs. And our friends in the Democrats come down every day and say, Look at us, look at all these jobs we're creating. Yeah, 431,000 jobs in May, but of that figure 400,000 were government jobs. They were census jobs, they were temporary

jobs, and you're trying to fool this country. In Texas, if we were in the Texas legislature, that would be deceptive advertising. It should be deceptive advertising in Washington and be against the law.

With an unemployment rate at 9.5 percent and a loss of over 3 million jobs since January of 2009, now is not the time to be diminishing more. That's 41,775 jobs is the estimate. By increasing the taxpayers' exposure also, this program is $22.1 billion in premiums that could be taken out of our economy. But it doesn't stop there. More than $20 billion of investment in mutual, municipal, State, and local bonds will completely dry up. A line of business that the free enterprise system handled that the government did not need to. And government at all levels, State, Federal, and local, will lose billions in tax revenue from the free enterprise system.

During the last Congress, the Senate rejected this proposal by a vote of 74 to 19. Even the administration, shockingly, even the administration voiced opposition to adding wind to the NFIP, citing concerns that it would threaten the long-term viability of the program. Exactly right. It's called bankruptcy. Never forget the taxpayer is there, so it probably won't go bankrupt.

With the current Federal crisis, the financial crisis, and the government crisis, and record unemployment, why would the majority party be pushing for legislation to make unemployment worse? Or would this simply be to help the U.S. Treasury? I don't know. But either way it's government jobs. And I guess we should be careful and not complain too much, because I guess Uncle Sam needs the help.

Madam Speaker, the voices of the American public have been clear. Americans want pro-growth solutions that will encourage job creation and investment and that would keep Americans competitive with the world. Instead, today we find 41,000 more jobs that will dry up in the free enterprise system, jobs back home.

This legislation further diminishes not only these jobs but adds billions of dollars to our national debt. That is the hallmark of this administration and this Congress: more taxing, more spending, more taking of jobs from the free enterprise system to the government, and perhaps worst of all, a debt we may never, ever pay for.

When my friends on the other side of the aisle start to promote positive solutions instead of federalizing more sectors of our free enterprise system, they can count on receiving our support. I can't do it today. Today's another vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Richmond, Virginia, the minority whip, the favorite son from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Clarendon, Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) makes a great point, and we can today on the floor of this House of Representatives add to this bill with its own merits by saying let's also, as we're adding billions of dollars, at least simplify government and cut a billion off of what it does. It makes sense to me, and I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) for his great YouCut suggestion.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wheaton, Illinois, Pete Roskam.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentlewoman if she has any further speakers.

I wanted to ask the gentlewoman if she had additional speakers. I received a good answer. Thank you very much. I appreciate the gentlewoman.

I have about 45 or 50 more speakers, and I will consume my time.

I have a number of speakers. We did not receive enough time in this rule to be able to provide enough time for our speakers. It's a very important topic for us, and I understand that you don't have any speakers, but we've got a bunch. So, yes, ma'am, I do intend to use my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Madam Speaker, you know, it sounds like the gentlewoman from West Virginia gave us a good way to think of things, and that is, too much of a good thing may not be good.

What this rail service is about, Amtrak, I believe, is a pretty good idea, but too much of a good thing, where you can't properly manage it or pay for it, where it gets larger than what the mission statement is, is a bad problem. And, you know, Madam Speaker, the Republicans are on the floor of the House today and we're called to Washington every week and we can handle that, but day after day after day after day after day after day after day we handle small ideas and little issues.

Today, we're handling an issue that the gentleman from Mississippi deeply believes in and, in fact, he will have an opportunity not only to have his ideas on the floor but he will get a vote on those ideas. Republicans have now, in our fourth year, been saying to this Speaker and this majority leader and this Democratic majority that we believe that this body is entitled to have an agenda that the majority wants.

But we believe it should be balanced. We believe it should include some tough decision-making, not just more spending, not just pet projects, but, rather, things which will empower people back home to have confidence in what we are doing here in Washington. And Republicans have, once again today, through YouCut, through the leadership of our minority whip, Eric Cantor, presented ideas on this floor and every single Member will have an opportunity to vote on that.

Republicans believe that we should have to make tough decisions. Republicans believe that you ought to come and read the bill. Republicans believe that that Rules Committee that's up there, if you say your agenda is going to be open and honest, that you ought to mean it. Republicans believe that there ought to be an opportunity for Members to come and have their ideas heard.

We are taking seriously what we think is a duty and an obligation to come and talk about how we can make our jobs that we do more serious by streamlining, providing feedback to Federal money that's being spent. It's an incredible amount of money that not only is being spent out of this town but way too little, if any, is about reforming and making the government more efficient. We think that that's what we should be about.

We think that we should be about providing ideas, giving money to this government, but with the expectation of performance that would allow streamlining and efficiencies and not giving away services at less than what their real cost is.

I reserve the balance of my time.

By the way, the gentleman from Mississippi is a very dear friend of mine with whom I engage on a regular basis. I just want the gentleman to know that while I know that under Speaker Pelosi we don't have any process with appropriations to strike or amend any appropriations bills, for 12 years I brought an Amtrak cut bill to this floor. So I will be providing that information, and I look forward to the gentleman joining me as soon as we get a Republican majority that will allow that to take place on the floor of this House, an open process.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York for not only this time but getting through this thing.

Madam Speaker, as you can see, Republicans, and at least one Democrat, have a lot to talk about. I wish we had more time today. Republicans would have liked a lot more time to make sure that we could talk about not only this bill, but the implications that are on the floor.

Republicans continue to offer, Madam Speaker, commonsense solutions to rein in the current spending spree, a spending spree that's now in its fourth year by this Democrat majority. We, like the American people, would like transparency and accountability and common sense, creation of jobs, not the extension of unemployment benefits that are not paid for.

We believe in people having jobs, and if this majority were serious and if this administration were serious, they would do the things that work rather than the things that don't work. They are doing things that don't work, Madam Speaker, and that is what this Democrat majority will be held accountable for. It's really a sad thing to hear person after person who has lost his job, and people whom I know, and to see the malaise this country is in.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

The legislation before us today brings more uncertainty to the long-term solvency of the NFIP. This legislation risks more American jobs and adds more to our State, local, and Federal deficits. It is true, as the gentleman spoke of, that States take this on. It is a State's responsibility, not the Federal Government's, but that is part of what this agenda is all about. For this reason, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Madam Speaker, if I was a shill for the insurance industry, and apparently we have our share on the floor today, I would do everything but talk about what the insurance industry did to south Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina. I would forget, if I was a member of the Rules Committee, the 12 years that they controlled the floor of the House of Representatives, the 12 years that they could have cut the Amtrak subsidy had they wanted to, but they didn't.

So let's get back to what we are going to talk about today. And, again, I thank the leadership for bringing this to the floor.

If you had visited south Mississippi in August of late 2005, gone to a little town called Bay St. Louis, you could have driven down the street and seen this house. It belonged to some folks named Corky and Molly Hadden. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit south Mississippi. So the Haddens left this because their Nation warned them that a bad storm was coming, and came home to this.

Corky is a financial manager; he is a smart guy. He had lot of insurance, he thought. As a matter of fact, Corky had $650,000 worth of insurance on that house. The problem was under the rules of the National Flood Insurance Program that Mr. Sessions agrees needs changing, and I am trying to change today, we paid the private sector, State Farm, All State, Nationwide, we pay them to sell the policy; they get a premium. We pay them to adjust the claim.

The problem is no one bothered to think that wait a minute, we are letting that claims adjuster decide he is playing God. He can say the wind did it, which means his company has to pay, State Farm, Nationwide or All State; or he can say the water did it, which means the taxpayers have to pay.

You are right, Mr. Sessions, we should not have paid that $18 billion. The reason we paid that $18 billion is a bad set of rules that allowed companies like State Farm, All State, Nationwide to stick the taxpayers with their bills. So 18 months after this event, Mr. Hadden, who had $650,000 worth of insurance on that nice house, was paid nothing by his insurer, State Farm Insurance Company.

Again, if you are a defender of the insurance industry, if they are helping you with your campaigns, you sure as heck don't want to talk about that, do you?

The next house, if you had gone a little bit further down the same street, you would have seen one of the oldest houses in Bay St. Louis, built around 1800. So from 1800 to 2005, no telling how many hurricanes it survived. It belonged to the Benvenutti family, a pretty old house.

This is what it looked like when they left because their Nation told them to get the heck out of there, there is a bad storm coming. Let's see what they came home to. This is what they came home to.

You know, for most people, including Mississippians, your house is your biggest investment. It is, to a large extent, an extension of yourself. So the Benvenuttis, realizing that that house meant a lot to them, had a lot of insurance, or so they thought, $586,000. When they filed their claim, for almost 24 months they were paid nothing on their wind insurance.

Now why is this significant? Well, NOAA, the Navy Oceanographic Lab and others went back and looked at the events that were called Hurricane Katrina, and NOAA tells us that for 4 hours before the storm surge arrived in south Mississippi, that house, the house before it, was subjected to hurricane-force winds for 4 hours before the water ever got there. Yet the insurance

companies wanted to turn around and blame everything on the water. Why? Because they could stick the taxpayers with the bill.

The next house is a more typical home, more modest home. This one is about a mile inland, about a mile inland, pretty good ways from the water. Beautiful home. This is what the folks who lived there, when they left, looked at last.

This is what they came home to.

It's not just three houses; it's not 30 houses. It was 30,000 houses that this happened to. So, again, these folks, knowing this was a big part of their lives, had $249,000 worth of insurance. Their insurance company was slightly more generous than the previous two times and offered them $10,000.

Now, Mr. Sessions points out that, incorrectly, that maybe government shouldn't be doing this. Well, maybe he doesn't talk to his folks in his State capital often enough because if he had he would know that his State is already doing this.

In the aftermath of Katrina, on a State-by-State basis, the insurance industry pulled out, left a vacuum. People had to have some form of wind insurance; and so on a State-by-State basis, the State picked up that obligation.

In the gentleman's State of Texas, the Texas wind pool in 2004 had an exposure of $20.8 billion. That has expanded to $58.6 billion. That's not private sector that's going to pay that bill; that's the Texas wind pool. They are on the hook for that.

In my home State of Mississippi, it has gone from $1.6 billion to $6.3 billion. I can't speak for every State, but I can tell you that pretty well equals the Mississippi State budget. If there was a catastrophic storm in Mississippi that hit all three coastal counties on one day--and, by the way, that's happened three times in my lifetime--it would break the State of Mississippi.

Now, at some point they are going to come up and say, well, they have got reinsurance, okay. Almost all the reinsurance is out of the Bahamas and the Caymans. So let me ask you a simple question: If the Benvenuttis couldn't get a company out of Illinois to pay their claim, if the Haddens couldn't get a company out of Illinois to pay their claim, if the other family couldn't get a company out of Illinois to pay their claim, does anyone really think a company from the Bahamas is going to willingly write these checks? Who is kidding whom?

On a State-by-State basis, Florida has gone from $2.2 billion to $436 billion; South Carolina, $6 billion to $17 billion; Georgia, the gentleman from Georgia's State, $565 million to $2.1 billion, a 265 percent increase, not private sector, State liability.

So why do we want to do this? Because, quite honestly, the purpose of insurance, to people who pay their premium, to live the way they are supposed to, but they want the certainty that if something bad happens to them, they are going to get paid.

Secondly, why should the Nation do it? Because, quite frankly, it would break any one of these States. The chances of every coastal county in Mississippi getting hit all in the same day has happened three times in my lifetime. In 2004, Florida had four catastrophic storms, hit almost every square inch of the State. But the chances of the same storm hitting every State on the same day is minuscule. And if it does happen, don't worry about paying claims, it's just going to be called Armageddon.

So what we are proposing is a program that, instead of letting the private sector collect the premiums and the Nation pay the bill, would allow people to, as an extension, as an option to their flood insurance, pay for a wind option. That way if they come home to nothing, if they come home to a substantially destroyed house, it doesn't matter if the wind did it, it doesn't matter if the water did it; the fact is they built their house the way they were supposed to, they built it in a place that was safe, they paid their premiums, and they are going to get paid.

The last point of course the insurance industry doesn't want to tell you, so I will. In the same year the National Flood Insurance Program lost $18 billion they made $48 billion in profits. Why? Pretty simple. They collected the premiums; you, the taxpayer, paid the bill. You paid the bill for the FEMA trailers because, again, a typical insurance policy says if your house is destroyed, if your house is damaged to where you can't live in it, they will pay to put you up. But when they denied these claims in full, as they did thousands of times, then someone had to do something. President Bush, to his credit, stepped forward and said we're going to make FEMA trailers available. That cost the taxpayers $4.3 billion; $7.2 billion for temporary housing; CDBG grants totaling $15.4 billion. And what was one of the prerequisites to get a CDBG grant? You had to have insurance and you didn't get paid. So who paid that bill? Uncle Sam, you, the taxpayers paid that bill. Lastly, SBA disaster loan, $7.6 billion. So for a total bill of $34.5 billion. It wasn't $18 billion the Nation lost that year, it was over $50 billion. We are trying to change that. We are trying to come up with a program where the premiums pay for the program.

So, again, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this to the floor.

I would remind my Republican colleagues that in the 12 years that they ran the House, I don't ever recall a vote on cutting the subsidy for Amtrak. I would have voted with you, but I just don't remember your bringing it up.

So let's talk about this problem this day. I would remind my Republican colleagues that on a regular basis they come to the floor and say, you know what? We shouldn't be doing all these things that don't make sense, all these things that don't contribute to each other. Amtrak is not an insurance problem. This is an insurance program. It is a single-shot bill to do one thing, and that's to let those people who want to buy wind insurance as an option to their flood insurance so that they will know that if they paid their premiums, they built their house the way they were supposed to, if something horrible happens they will get paid.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1549 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). And all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1549.

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

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1549 provides for consideration of H.R. 1264, the Multiple Peril Insurance Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, there is not a person in the Chamber today who can forget the terrible destruction left in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina 5 short years ago. Lives were lost, homes were destroyed, businesses closed. Schools and hospitals were underwater. Our Nation has never been the same.

The damage that Katrina inflicted on New Orleans and across the Gulf States left thousands of people homeless. There were refugees spread across more than a dozen States. I think I speak for all of us when I say the storm left an indelible mark on our collective psyche.

Although the storm and accompanying flood exposed many troubling failings, one of the most alarming was the fact that so many people who believed that they had adequate insurance, in fact, were not covered for Katrina's destruction.

Why? Because insurance companies engaged in a maddening shell game with homeowners about their coverage. Damage that seemed obviously caused by water would be attributed to wind, while wind damage was chalked up to flooding. The stalemate left far too many people with no claim.

The apparent loophole in coverage made it very difficult for many families to rebuild in the months and years after the storm. The same problem has cropped up after other hurricanes or large storms have struck over the years.

In the aftermath of Katrina, Congress worked collaboratively on legislation to address the coverage gap; and 3 years ago, legislation to do just that was approved by the House. However, the plan was unable to win passage in the Senate, so we are here again to try.

Despite the challenges, it is our contention that taxpayers will actually end up saving significant amounts of money if this type of coverage is made available to Americans.

In the aftermath of Katrina, the Federal Government spent more than $34 billion on rental assistance, on vouchers, trailers, grants to homeowners and Small Business Administration disaster loans to homeowners.

Had there been a public option available to allow property owners to purchase insurance that provided seamless coverage of hurricane losses, some of that cost might have been avoided. With this bill we accomplish that goal.

The bill creates a new program within the National Flood Insurance Program to purchase both flood and wind storm insurance under one multi-peril policy, or to purchase wind storm coverage to supplement their already existing flood insurance.

It is a bipartisan bill and has been endorsed by the National Association of Home Builders, and the National Association of Realtors. The bill is also PAYGO compliant, since the program is required to pay for itself.

The most important thing to remember about this legislation is it simply gives Americans the option of buying coverage of getting some peace of mind.

The issue is far too important for us to wait around for the next round of storms like Katrina or Ike or Gustav to roar ashore and leave far too many families with nothing. This bill is a simple and effective way to permit people to purchase insurance so the next storm does not leave them high and dry.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

We don't have hurricanes in Rochester, New York--for which we are extremely grateful. But all of us were affected by Katrina. All of us saw what happened to the city that we all loved. New Orleans belongs to every American. All of us have friends here in the House and some in the Senate who lost everything they had. These were people who had insurance on their homes. They thought they were covered. But because the fact the insurance companies said no, they would come to your house, which may have been completely overwhelmed with water, and say that was wind damage; we don't cover that. With the whipsawing back and forth, so many people lost everything they had.

As I said in my opening statement, the government paid $34 billion to try to house and maintain people until we could find a permanent solution. If by passing this bill we can avoid that kind of expenditure again, I would call that money well spent. This program is self- sufficient, it is paid for by the premiums.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

At this moment, I do not.

May I inquire of the gentleman if he's ready to close?

May I inquire if the gentleman is ready to close?

Thirty-five or 50?

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, the sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Taylor.

I yield the gentleman an additional 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman 3 additional minutes.

I reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Texas closes.

Madam Speaker, I want to remind those persons listening, particularly Members of Congress who are going to come to the floor to vote, that we are not voting on Amtrak cars. We are talking about legislation to try to protect those Americans who are victims of hurricanes and other related natural disasters from losing everything the way the gulf coast victims of Katrina have. The bill will help ensure that the insurance loopholes will be closed and that hardworking Americans won't be denied legitimate claims when they desperately need them.

I call for a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank the Republican whip for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6 p.m. On Tuesday, Madam Speaker, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of all suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider Mr. Taylor's bill, H.R. 1264, the Multiple Peril Insurance Act of 2009. We're also expecting to consider several items from the Senate, including Senate amendments to H.R. 4213, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act; and Senate amendments to H.R. 4899, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, we expect to consider several bills addressing the oil spill in the gulf, including H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act; and H.R. 5716, the Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling Technology Research and Development Act.

I say to the gentleman that will, again, depend on what our colleagues in the Senate send over to us and whether or not we can complete the business that we have before us that I've announced by Thursday. In the event that we don't have legislation coming back from the Senate that we needed to deal with on Friday, or our business that is scheduled does not take longer than Thursday, then it is possible that we would not be in session. But, again, I would caution Members that we have 2 weeks left to go and those days will be scheduled and will be utilized if needed.

In addition to the bills that we've already mentioned for next week, including the unemployment extension, the supplemental coming from the Senate, and the Science and Technology bills addressing the oil spill, we'll also likely consider a number of other bills addressing oil spill legislation. In addition, I expect we will consider several bills from the Appropriations Committee. I've talked to the chairman about which bills would be most likely for floor action before August, and he's looking at the Veterans and Military Construction and the Transportation-HUD bills.

As the gentleman I'm sure knows, they have marked up now seven, I believe is the accurate number of appropriations bills--excuse me. I think it's nine because they marked up two today, or are in the process of marking them up today, and I expect by the end of the day there will have been nine appropriation bills marked up. They will proceed. But I think those two bills are probably the first ones that will come forward.

Those bills, as you know, have not been reported out of committee yet and I've not discussed with the chairman his plans on how he would hope to bring those to the floor. I will be discussing it with him probably the latter part of next week, and perhaps we will have more information for you next week. Again, we expect the bills to come to the floor not next week, but the week after.

I thank the gentleman for his question and for his observation and for his assurances as well in terms of the number of votes we may have available for that alternative.

I say to the gentleman that it is my intention that certainly by the time we leave here that we will have made sure that the troops have the resources they need to prosecute the mission that we have given them as a Congress and the administration. There's no doubt that we will have 218-plus--a large plus, I think--of votes to accomplish that objective.

As the gentleman knows, however, we have passed a supplemental which does fund the troops. It wasn't the Senate supplemental. The House obviously has its own view on policy, and I'm sure the gentleman would want the House to prosecute its policies and redeem the majority of the House's view and try to reach agreement with the Senate.

The House acted on the supplemental before the break, including all of the President's request for troop funding, as the gentleman knows. It also included the administration's request for FEMA, Haiti, oil spill, and border security. In addition, as the gentleman knows, we added money to take care of almost 140,000 teachers and offset the additional money with spending cuts. So those were paid for. I'm hopeful that the Senate will not make significant changes to the bill that the House passed and will be able to pass that bill before the August work period begins. Again, however, I want to emphasize that I am fully committed and intend to ensure that the troops have the resources they need.

With respect to the gentleman's observation, he is absolutely correct. I was hopeful we would do it before Memorial Day, and then I was hopeful we would do it before the July 4th break. Interestingly enough, however, as we kept going along and I kept in contact with the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, Mr. Dicks, as to when the funding was needed, the date kept moving. And the date that we now have, as the gentleman probably knows as well as I do, is August 7. But certainly I want to see us pass the funding for the troops and for the prosecution of the effort that the Congress has supported and the administration has set forth for our troops prior to that time.

I thank you for that effort. We will look forward to working with you to make sure that our troops are fully funded.

Will the gentleman yield?

We have a very strict leave policy in my office, but we were convinced that getting off for his wedding was an appropriate use of that leave. Austin is a wonderful member of the staff. I am very pleased that you mentioned it. He has a wonderful new bride. His demeanor has changed markedly. He is much happier, and we're all happier to work with him. So Austin, congratulations to you.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

Madam Speaker, given the schedule the gentleman just announced, I would ask the majority leader whether he expects the House to be in session next Friday.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman just explained that we do only have 2 more weeks left in the month of July for legislative business. I would ask the gentleman if he could

expand upon the schedule for those 2 weeks and what we might expect for those following weeks.

Madam Speaker, I would ask if those appropriations bills coming to the floor will be brought up under an open rule.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman mentioned the troop funding in his schedule for next week. I know originally the goal was to fund our troops by Memorial Day. That didn't happen. Then it became the goal of July 4th, and that didn't happen. I know that the gentleman and I are both committed to getting this critical funding for our men and women in uniform, and I would just suggest to the gentleman it is probably the most direct route to getting our mutual goal accomplished of getting this bill across the floor, that perhaps he and the majority ought to consider taking up the Senate-passed legislation and send it right to the President.

I can say, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman that the Senate bill does have 218 votes on this House floor, and would ask if the supplemental is coming to the House floor next week, whether that is his intention, to go ahead, take this route, expedite it, so our troops can get the money they need.

I yield.

I know the gentleman is in receipt of the same information that I am about the urgency now being communicated to us for the need for that money to be delivered. I would say, Madam Speaker, I probably have a little different view as to the intentions of the Senate to try and deliver on stripping out the House amendments that were attached to the supplemental bill, and would say, again, to the gentleman, House Republicans stand ready to vote in an expeditious way on the Senate-passed bill in its original form, and I look forward to being able to deliver that.

I yield.

Madam Speaker, as we're discussing the schedule for next week, I believe it's important to announce the eighth YouCut vote that will take place on the House floor next week. Over 1.3 million votes have been cast on YouCut to date at the RepublicanWhip.House.Gov/YouCut Web Site. We will vote sometime mid-week on one of five proposals selected by the people of America. The first would be to eliminate mandatory GPO bill printing, which is a $35 million savings. Another would be to eliminate Senator Dodd's health care clinic earmark in the Obama Care health care bill, estimated to save another $100 million. Next would be, Madam Speaker, an effort to prohibit subsidies for long- distance ``first class'' sleeper train tickets, estimated at a cost savings of $1.2 billion. Another, Madam Speaker, could be to reform the Energy Star program effort, which requires companies to pay for the cost of the program, saving the taxpayers $655 million.

Another could be, depending on the vote and the will of the American people, an effort to prevent LIHEAP payments to fraudulent claims, an estimated savings of hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayer.

Madam Speaker, I would say the gentleman's party has been extolling the virtues of cutting $7 billion from the President's $1.12 trillion FY11 budget, $7 billion. And I would say to the gentleman--I know we've had a lot of discussion about YouCut and the amount of money that we are attempting to cut from the Federal deficit through our program, and, in fact, at this point that total is now reaching $130 billion. I know that many in his party have been dismissive of this program, saying that that's not real money in Washington. And I will just point out to the gentleman, if individuals on his side of the aisle think that $7 billion reaches a significant milestone, I would say as well, $130 billion of proposed cuts would do just as well, if not better.

So, Madam Speaker, I would like to, at this point, take a quick moment to congratulate someone who works together with our staff tirelessly behind the scenes, someone on the staff of the majority leader, Austin Burnes, who got a moment to get away from the floor prior to the recess to attend his own wedding. We wish the gentleman great success and best wishes in his nuptials.

Well, I am told and hopeful as well there will be many more nuptials on your staff, I would say to the gentleman.