Kathy Castor

Ms. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I urge approval of the National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 1585, and this rule. This bipartisan bill improves military readiness and demonstrates our commitment to our brave men and women in uniform, including a 3.5 percent pay raise for these brave folks, a commitment to the National Guard and our Reserves, and an expansion and great improvement in the health care provided to wounded warriors who return from the battlefield. The bill also increases oversight and restores accountability over the waste and fraud that has occurred in the war in Iraq. Madam Speaker, this bill will make America safer and stronger. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 860 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the bill. H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

Ms. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee, and I rise in support of the Energy Independence and Security Act and this rule. Today, we break the stranglehold that Big Oil and the special interests have had over Washington, D.C. and over our country's energy policy. We're going to hear many maneuvers today and protestations, delay, resistance, points of order because this is a fundamental shift in the Nation's energy policy. The contrast between the policies of the past and our forward-looking bill could not be more clear. Remember just 7 years ago when the administration's Energy Task Force met behind closed doors? It consisted of oil executives, and the administration fought to keep everything secret. Renewable sources of energy were not a priority, the Earth's climate change was not a priority, and the recommendations involved more drilling, more mining, more of the same, which led to record gas prices for our families, and record profits for oil companies, and disastrous national security consequences. In contrast, our ground-breaking effort today sets our country on a path towards energy independence, particularly from the Middle East and the most volatile parts of this world. Better gas mileage for automobiles is the cornerstone of our bill. That alone will save families from $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump, and that is great news for our neighbors back home. What has been missing is the political leadership and the political will to make this happen in America. So today we will cast aside the politics of the past and for the first time in decades set the right priorities for America. This bill repeals the subsidies to the big oil companies and instead invests in renewable energy and biofuels technologies. And to the folks back home in Florida, whom I have the privilege to represent, we're going to demonstrate here today that there is no need to put our tourism economy and beautiful beaches at risk to more oil drilling offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead, we're going to rely on American ingenuity and resourcefulness. The status quo in Washington is not acceptable anymore, and we will chart a fundamental new direction on energy policy.

Ms. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to herald the life and philanthropic contributions of Richard ``Dick'' Bowers, and to express our gratitude for his achievements at the University of South Florida as well as in all of Florida. Bowers, a native of Tennessee, served in the United States Army and retired with the rank of captain. He received his bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Tennessee and his doctorate in education from Vanderbilt-Peabody College. Bowers taught at various institutions ranging from King College in Bristol, TN, to the University of Rangoon, in Burma, on a Fulbright scholarship. In 1963, Bowers moved to the Tampa area, where he assumed the University of South Florida's first ever athletics director position. During his tenure, Bowers oversaw the creation of the university's baseball field, golf course, and SunDome basketball arena. He was honored in 1982 for his Outstanding Contribution to the Sunbelt Conference, which he helped form. After 17 years, Bowers moved from the athletic director position and became involved in the University of South Florida's college of business, where he was associate dean, professor, and director of development. Bowers was also very influential in the Tampa Bay area through his philanthropic work. He served as president of the Gold Shield Foundation for 18 years, which raises money for families of fallen police officers and firefighters. In addition, Bowers took leadership roles in numerous other community organizations including the United Way, the National Youth Sports Program, the Tampa Chapter National Football Foundation, the Hall of Fame Bowl Selection Committee, the Northside Bank Board, the Florida State Department of Education Task Force in Physical Education, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the Tampa Sports Club, and the Hispanic Business Institute. We honor the life of Richard ``Dick'' Bowers for his outstanding contribution to our wonderful Tampa Bay community, the University of South Florida and the entire State of Florida. Dick Bowers' life serves as an inspiration to all who knew him and his contributions and achievements will impact the lives of all Floridians in the future.

Ms. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 813.

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the ranking member from the Rules Committee, because 1 year ago, the American people demanded a new direction, to make America safer, to help restore the American Dream, to restore accountability and fiscal responsibility to the people's government. This 110th Congress has brought new faces, new energy and a steadfast commitment to a new direction. In January, the first female Speaker of the House in American history gaveled open the Congress in honor of America's children, and we will keep that commitment today by acting on the Head Start bill in this rule.

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 813 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, by passing the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 and this rule, we will build on the great success of Head Start for America's hardworking families. I would like to salute the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, George Miller; subcommittee Chair, Dale Kildee; the ranking member, Mr. McKeon; and Congressman Castle from the committee, and all the committee members from Education and Labor for their wonderful work on this Head Start bill. I would also like to thank the parents across America who are struggling to provide all that they can for their children. We are on their side. This Democratic Congress is charting a new direction with wise investments in education and health care for our kids, which are certain to pay dividends in the years to come. Madam Speaker, this is an important day for America because Congress is going to keep the promise that it made four decades ago to children who are born with the same potential but, because of their life circumstances, are in need of a little extra attention, health care, nutrition and the guiding hand of a knowledgeable and talented teacher, which together provides them with a true ``head start.'' I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 813 Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional legislative days after adoption of this resolution. (The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 109th Congress.) The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Ms. CASTOR. I am happy to debate the record of this Congress under Democratic leadership. The Congress is focused on a new direction, first, to make America safer. We have already taken action to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations to protect America from terrorism. This Congress has passed the largest veterans health care funding increase in the history of the VA. We have adopted energy security legislation that will reduce the threat of global climate change. We continue to hold the White House accountable for this unending war in Iraq. In addition, this Congress is restoring the American Dream because now the law of the land is the largest college age expansion since the GI Bill in 1944, where we raised the Pell Grant and we cut the interest rate on student loans. It has been this Congress, and this is important if you are keeping track of the record of this Congress, it was this Congress that raised the minimum wage for millions of Americans. We have also adopted an innovation agenda promoting 21st century jobs in a global economy. We have sent aid to the gulf coast for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and for the millions of Americans that continue to struggle day to day with the impact of those disasters. And we are fighting for health care, to expand health care to 10 million more American children. Madam Speaker, we have also adopted a widely acclaimed and landmark lobby and ethics reform bill. And it has been this Congress that has returned to financial sanity and fiscal responsibility by adhering to pay-as-you-go discipline, no new deficit spending. So I am very pleased to debate the record of this Congress on the floor of the House. We will work in a bipartisan way to build consensus. More than two-thirds of this legislation has passed in a bipartisan manner. We will strive to find common ground where we can, like here on the Head Start bill. But where we cannot, we will stand our ground, like on the Iraq bill that we will bring later today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to continue the debate on this important rule, the bipartisan Head Start conference report, by recognizing for 1 minute a member of the Education and Labor Committee, my good friend and colleague from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

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

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I am the last speaker for our side, so I will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Florida has made his closing remarks.

Ms. CASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 813 provides for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007. This is the standard rule for a conference report. It waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. It also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Madam Speaker, for over 40 years Head Start has served as the premier educational and developmental program for America's children, more than 20 million American children and their families. Head Start works. Head Start works because it is a well-researched, comprehensive initiative that combines all of the children's educational needs, their health care needs, and it requires parental involvement. Years later, after four decades of Head Start, the research shows that children that participate in Head Start are more likely to graduate from high school than their peers. Head Start is a comprehensive approach to child health nutrition and learning, and it is one of our best tools in the struggle to close the achievement gap. The achievement gap for children in poverty in America must be tackled, and Head Start tackles the achievement gap through cognitive social and emotional child development, each of which is a key contributor to entering elementary school ready to succeed. Today, 20 percent of America's 12 million children under the age of 6 unfortunately live in poverty. We know that a family's income level greatly affects their child's access to educational opportunities. The reality of poverty for so many American children in poverty is tied to their low success rates in schools. But in America, family income simply should not impede a child's educational opportunities, and this is where Head Start comes in to level the playing field. Back home in Florida in my community in the Tampa Bay area, over 5,300 children are served by Head Start. But we've got thousands of children that are eligible and are on the waiting list. Why are they on the waiting list? Because previous Congresses have failed to properly support our Head Start kids, and this White House has flat-lined budgets over the years; so our kids merely have been treading water. There have been no improvements or increases in funding since 2003. And with inflation, it has been very difficult to maintain the well- known, high-quality elements in Head Start. But the good news is that this Congress will change that today and make the smartest investment in our country's future workforce. And the research statistics bear repeating; children that participate in Head Start are more likely to graduate from high school. We're going to put more children on a path to success today when we pass this bill and this rule. We're going to improve teacher and classroom quality. We're going to strengthen the focus on school readiness. We're going to expand access so children that are on the waiting list can enter Head Start classrooms. We're going to strengthen those all-important comprehensive services of health care and nutrition. We're going to increase the number of children in early Head Start because the research also shows that it is critical for child brain development that they have interaction by the age of 3, when their brains are developing. We're going to focus on allowing more homeless children to enroll and do a better job for children who are just learning English. This year marks four decades of success for this holistic wraparound initiative that empowers all of us. These children are eager and ready to learn if we give them the tools. The administration's slow-motion cuts to Head Start will now be reversed because this Congress, in a bipartisan way, but led by Democrats, is committed to raising strong and healthy children, and Head Start prepares our children to succeed in school and in life. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a member of the Education and Labor Committee and an outspoken advocate for America's kids, Ms. Woolsey.

Ms. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, the Medicare open enrollment period begins tomorrow, November 15, and runs through the end of the year. Across the country, private HMOs have placed large newspaper ads and are running TV ads to convince seniors to sign up for their private Medicare insurance. I am here to advise seniors to be very cautious. These private HMO insurance salesmen are on the streets and are oftentimes luring our seniors into private Medicare coverage that they do not need. If they leave traditional Medicare and sign up for a private HMO, oftentimes they will lose access to their doctor. Be very cautious. Sons and daughters, grandkids across America, help your parents and grandparents sort through this myriad of options under private Medicare. In Florida, you can seek independent advice from the Department of Elder Affairs and the SHINE Volunteers. Seek independent advice and be very cautious with these private Medicare options.

Ms. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend and colleague, Mrs. Capps from California, for yielding the time, and thank her for her ongoing efforts and advocacy on behalf of the health of America's children and all Americans all across this country. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 760, supporting the goals and ideals of Children's Health Month. As cochair of the Congressional Children's Health Care Caucus, I am pleased to offer this resolution along with my colleague from the other side of the aisle, Mr. Reichert of Washington, who is the cochair of the caucus. This has been an important year for work on children's health issues. As grandparents and parents and teachers and doctors and nurses and all community members understand, our work on behalf of children's health is constant, notwithstanding the fact that we are going to recognize a certain month here today. We are working on behalf of children's health in so many collaborative ways, and we want to encourage more. We are encouraging families and schools to focus on healthy living habits and healthy nutrition for children. We are working to combat childhood obesity and to promote exercise and physical activity. We are continuing our concerted efforts to keep our children and teens from smoking. We are working to educate families and raise medical awareness about critical childhood illnesses such as asthma and diabetes. And, so many across this country are working to help parents and other families sign their kids up for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, and those activities must continue. But our concerns are not limited only to the physical health of our children, but also to their mental health and their behavioral health. I note just today that two new studies were released relating to early childhood behavior. We have got to remain at the cutting edge, and we have got to continue to encourage our talented researchers in my home State in Florida, Mrs. Capps' State of California, and all across the country to continue their work. In addition, all too often our children are victims of abuse and neglect and do not receive the special care required to meet their health care needs and their mental health care needs. Here in the Congress, we are working to ensure that these disparities are eliminated and that our children receive all the support that they need. We would like our neighbors back home to know that we care about their families and the well-being of their children, and we will continue to draw attention to these issues and work hard to amend these problems. Mr. Speaker, today as we acknowledge Children's Health Month and the importance of its meaning, we remind our neighbors and this body of the special attention needed for children's health. We salute the parents, pediatricians, nurses, and all community members that work every day to care for our kids, for their physical and mental well-being. We commend those institutions that have honored the goals of this special month, and we acknowledge the importance of supporting America's children by reinforcing our sincere dedication to providing access to health care for our kids, ensuring preventative care, seeking cures for debilitating diseases and chronic conditions, and promoting healthy lifestyles for America's children.

Ms. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. I greatly appreciate the assurances by the chairman; and with those assurances, I'd like to thank my colleagues again from Florida for this very innovative, thoughtful tool to reduce property insurance rates. And at this time I will withdraw my amendment.

Ms. CASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that, over time, will keep insurance rates down by directing that State and local governments not approve intensified development in high-risk areas like our coastal high-hazard areas. Insurance premiums are on the rise for many reasons, but one of the most significant reasons for skyrocketing costs of insurance is developer overbuilding in high-risk areas. Developers and homebuilders have crowded on to the coasts and into the flood plains, fire zones, and other high-risk areas, without considering the consequences. The subsequent consequences to the folks that we represent have been very expensive. These developers set up homeowners and businesses for financial ruin and personal tragedy when they locate in areas that are at high risk of natural disasters, and the developers are profiting at the expense of every policyholder whose premiums continue to rise without relief once another disaster hits. Unfortunately, State and local governments have been too often complicit in this irresponsible behavior. The amendment I offer today requires that States that participate in this innovative risk pool adopt policies to limit development in high- risk areas. It would also end the practice of rebuilding properties after a catastrophe with development that is of a greater size or a greater density or intensity, because the right to rebuild in high-risk areas is not the right to expand. Now, this bill, carefully crafted by my thoughtful colleagues from Florida, provides States with an innovative tool to tackle the property insurance crisis. And my amendment improves the bill by preventing any greater problems down the road. The amendment aims to stop developer overbuilding that will lead to even greater disasters in the future and higher property insurance rates. Now, I do appreciate the suggestion from the chairman of the Financial Services Committee that this amendment can be improved still, and I'll yield to the gentleman, because I am interested in your advice and assurance that maybe down the road, if I happen to withdraw the amendment, that we can work to improve.

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. CASTOR

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

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, we're here on the Homeowners' Defense Act of 2007 and this rule. This is an innovative solution crafted by my very thoughtful colleagues from Florida, Representative Ron Klein and Representative Tim Mahoney, to tackle the rising cost of property insurance. While the problem is especially acute in the State of Florida, it is not limited to the State of Florida. Look all the way up the coastline from Florida to Georgia, up through New York. Everyone is suffering these double-digit percentage increases in their property insurance bills. Look across the country to California and, yes, to Texas. Florida is not alone and the gulf coast is not alone. What this requires is some innovative, thoughtful thinking that sometimes is all too often missing here in Washington, but thankfully this new Congress has elected some self-starters who have experience in business and know how business and government can work together to bring real solutions for the American people. These times of crisis demand innovative solutions, and my colleagues from Florida and the Financial Services Committee that passed this bill in a bipartisan vote, that has brought this to the floor today that we can act on will provide a voluntary, not all States participate, it's a voluntary national insurance risk consortium that will allow States to tap private capital. Despite the protests from the other side of the aisle, the way this bill is crafted is the taxpayers will not be on the hook for additional disaster claims. To the contrary, this is an attempt to alleviate having to come back to the Congress time and time again in a time of natural disasters. Now, will we be able to solve natural catastrophes in this bill? No. But is it a smart tool to plan ahead, to try to put some money aside early and create a backstop? Yes. So I thank all of my colleagues from Florida, especially Representative Klein and Representative Mahoney, because we have got to do something, and this is a simple and effective way to tackle the rising costs for property insurance. I ask my colleagues to support the rule and to support this innovative solution. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material referred to previously by Mr. Sessions is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 802 Offered By Mr. Sessions of Texas At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional legislative days after adoption of this resolution. (The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 109th Congress.) The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Texas if he has any additional speakers.

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 802 provides for consideration of H.R. 3355, the Homeowners' Defense Act of 2007, under an open rule with a preprinting requirement. This rule allows for floor consideration of any amendment that is in compliance with the House rules and the Congressional Budget Act and has been preprinted in the Congressional Record. Mr. Speaker, in the face of natural catastrophes that too often strike our communities, the Congress today will initiate a new planning effort through H.R. 3355 and this rule. This new effort will assist our communities and hopefully tackle the rising cost of homeowners property insurance. My colleagues from Florida, Representative Ron Klein and Representative Tim Mahoney, have led this bipartisan effort. I thank them for their tireless work and leadership, their leadership that should help our neighbors back home and folks across this country find affordable and available homeowners insurance. Following some of the most expensive natural disasters in our Nation's history, like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and Wilma and the fires and the floods and the earthquakes, homeowners across this country have been subjected to wild fluctuations and horrendous cost increases for their property insurance. Insurance premiums are out of sight. They have skyrocketed. Well, we understand. We feel it in our own bills. I hear it from the retired older woman in West Tampa back home who has owned her house for 30 years and is on a fixed income. But this exponential increase in insurance that she has suffered may force her to sell her long-time home. I also hear it from the hardworking folks in south St. Petersburg who have been cancelled by their insurance companies after decades of paying their premiums without making any claim upon that insurer. Due to all of the policy cancellations, we now have a crisis. Insurers have fled the State. In some areas, insurance premiums have gone beyond what any reasonable person would consider anything that they can handle in their everyday lives. A rate increase of over 600 percent is not unheard of. Some of our neighbors are having to rethink their retirements because they can no longer afford to live in their homes. But if they tried to sell, nobody can afford to buy those homes. And, unbelievably, the State of Florida is now the largest provider of homeowners property insurance in our State. This problem is not limited to the State of Florida, however. Across the country over the past 5 years, homeowners insurance premiums have increased by over 45 percent on average. In Florida, that average increase is over 77 percent. And there seems to be no end in sight unless we work to create innovative options, like this bill, that will bring stability back to the marketplace and sanity back to insurance premiums. Over 3 million loyal policyholders, many of whom have never submitted a single claim, have received letters from their insurance companies, nondescript envelopes that carry the message, ``Your policy is not eligible to be renewed.'' Last month a story caught my eye entitled, ``Home Insurers Canceling in the East.'' It said that insurance companies have essentially begun to redraw the outline of the eastern United States somewhere west of the Appalachian Trail. Faced with the risk of their citizens being priced out or thrown out of private insurance markets, States have begun to take action. The State insurance program in Massachusetts has doubled as a result of the insurance crisis. My home State of Florida is now insuring 1.3 million policyholders. But the States did not ask to be put in this position. They tried to reason with the private insurance companies. They created incentives, they pushed, they urged them not to leave folks high and dry and to keep insurance available and affordable. Even though the insurance industry made record profits the year of Hurricane Katrina, private insurers have still left the gulf coast. Times of crisis like these often lead to innovative solutions, however. My colleagues, Representative Ron Klein and Representative Tim Mahoney, national insurance risk consortium that will allow States better access to private capital as a backstop for these huge, catastrophic losses. The consortium will help States work together to bundle that risk into bonds that can succeed on the private capital markets. Because this program is voluntary and relies on private investment, the new consortiums should not expose Federal taxpayers to any risk whatsoever. Catastrophe bonds through the consortium will help stabilize insurance markets, bring down premiums, and move forward in providing available, affordable insurance to our constituents. The bill, with foresight and commonsense, also addresses the worst- case scenario, because, God forbid, there will be another catastrophic event and States will be on the hook to pay claims. And most of the time this will not be a problem, but there are some disasters for which no preparation is enough. In those cases, historically this body, the Congress, has written emergency assistance bills, and it is right that we should do so. But this bill allows States to take control of their own fates by lessening the need for those Federal disaster appropriations by making Federal loans available to help States pay claims when that colossal disaster happens. This is a compassionate, fiscally responsible way to ensure that Americans are not left without aid in their time of greatest need. This bill is a simple, effective way to tackle the crisis of skyrocketing property insurance. I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 802.