Ron Klein

Mr. KLEIN of Florida

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I would like to thank my good friend from Washington, who has been working on these issues and talking and moving toward getting the Congress to act on behalf of the American people on energy issues for 10 years-plus. And as you and I have talked about this this year, I have learned a lot from you. I know that I personally have had 20 years of my own personal beliefs that Americans can accomplish anything. You've talked to me about the Manhattan Project. We all know about Sputnik. And these were callings of a generation ago to say when America wants to do something, we want to focus our scientists, our education, our entrepreneurs, all the elements that come together so that Americans can accomplish anything, we did it. And this is the moment in time in the national security side in making sure that we never have to make another foreign policy decision based on where the next drop of oil is coming from; the new economy side, and that's the job creation that you are talking about and many people are talking about, the entrepreneurs at home in our communities that are developing the GM Volt and the other car companies and all the entrepreneurs that are developing the alternative means of furnishing energy that are different from fossil fuels; and certainly the environmental side. And being from Florida and your being from the other corner of our country, we have a great sensitivity to our environment. And I represent a coast of 75 miles at sea level; so we are particularly sensitive that we do everything we can to make sure that our environment is protected, that we don't do things to affect the global temperature, which may, in fact, change the level of the ocean and, of course, do a lot of other damage. These are very exciting times. And, again, as a member of the freshman class and with Democrats and Republicans in our class, we have all come to that same conclusion that you have come to along with many others and the leadership of this Congress to say this is not a choice of drilling more off the coast of Florida or in Alaska. Those are false choices. When you hear the discussion that we have to drill or we can't become energy independent, that's ridiculous. What we really need to be doing is focusing, as this bill does, on alternative renewable energy sources. And one of the things that I am very excited about also is the correcting of something that Congress did a year or so ago, and I know you were against this at the time, but it was passed by the leaders at that time in the Congress and the President signed it. The President correctly said a couple of years ago in his State of the Union we are addicted to oil. So what did Congress do over your objections and others? They basically gave some $15 billion or some number like that to the oil companies to subsidize them for more oil drilling. Now, we all believe in a capitalist system. We believe in for-profit and companies prospering. And the oil companies right now are making more money than any company in the history of the United States. So I find it particularly offensive as a taxpayer like everybody in the country to have to add frosting on the cake and give Federal tax subsidies to those oil companies over and above that. That's not right. And what this bill does, and I know you are going to talk about this, is it redirects that type of incentive, those tax incentives, to change consumer behavior, to incentivize our entrepreneurs and our scientists to come up with the kinds of products that will move us toward energy independence, because it is all about this next generation. And when I speak to kids in school, I know we charge them up and say this is your calling. This is something that we as adults and our children have to really work together to make sure that we do this together. So I'm very happy to be here in support of what you are doing tonight. And I look forward, when you are done with that, talking about a specific kind of energy alternative that is very exciting that I have been watching in my community. But I appreciate your bringing this up tonight.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I am going to give you a plug because not only did Al Gore obviously earn the Nobel Prize for what he did, but Mr. Inslee you have also taken upon yourself not only to work in this Congress, but you also have independently written about this subject and you have brought forward a publication called ``Apollo's Fire.'' I don't know if you talked about it in the very beginning. I am going to give you a little plug because I have had a chance to take a look at it. It is an inspirational book that talks about what we have talked about tonight and where the country is going. I will read one quote which I thought was very self-descriptive, and this is a quote out of your book. It says: ``A new Apollo Project for energy is really a mission to rebuild our economy. Smart energy policy is, in fact, good economic policy. The two are inextricably intertwined. Done right, solving our crisis of climate change and oil dependence can create tremendous opportunity for America and the world, not only by avoiding the severe economic harm of climate disruption, but also by driving new investment into local and metropolitan economies, increasing social justice and reducing economic disparity by creating new career ladders and skilled domestic jobs across the economic spectrum.'' And I think in that quote you have captured a lot of what America is interested in: the environmental issues, the impact on our whole society and the job opportunities that go on. It doesn't touch the national security issues because I think people clearly already know it is a bad deal for us to depend on other countries. But the internal things that operate inside the United States, our economy, our daily lives, our jobs, the fact you are spending $60 for a tank of gas on something that is creating problems in the economy, in the environment, and instead we can go in a totally different direction. The book you have entitled ``Apollo's Fire'' I think lays it out very nicely. And I just wanted to mention that because I commend you and I recommend the Members of this body to take a look at that because I think it lays it out very clearly in a very simple fashion so that Americans can take that charge and move forward with it.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise to express concern about the lack of progress that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has made on the issue of hurricane tracking and prediction. Yesterday, the House passed a resolution honoring the 200th anniversary of NOAA, celebrating NOAA's many accomplishments. I voted for this resolution because the work of the men and women of NOAA has been and continues to be critical to keeping my constituents and the rest of our country safe from the threats of the hurricane season. However, I continue to be uncomfortable with the management of NOAA's decision to spend $4 million for a public relations campaign about its anniversary celebration. To spend $4 million dollars at a time when resources should be applied to assessing and supporting one of the most critical weather tools in hurricane tracking and prediction, the Quick Scatterometer (QuikSCAT) satellite, is completely unacceptable. The detailed daily snapshots provided by QuikSCAT allow climatologists, meteorologists, and oceanographers to better understand global weather abnormalities and to improve weather forecasting. In one day, QuikSCAT collects data covering 90 percent of the Earth's surface. Without the data provided by QuikSCAT, hurricane forecasting would be 16 percent less accurate 72 hours before hurricane landfall and 10 percent less accurate 48 hours before landfall. This decrease in accuracy would lead to larger stretches of coastline under evacuation warnings and more local resources utilized. That is why I helped author H.R. 2531, which authorizes $375 million to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for the design and launch of an improved QuikSCAT satellite. The new, next- generation satellite would maintain weather forecasting and warning capabilities and improve data capabilities for future weather-related disasters. The bill also requires that NOAA provide annual reports on the status of the satellite to ensure that Congress has sufficient time for authorizing and funding a replacement when necessary. As a Member of Congress with over 70 miles of coastline in my district, I feel it is my responsibility to ask NOAA how we got to this point where a valuable satellite is on its last legs, and why our taxpayers are footing the bill for a PR campaign when hurricanes remain a daily threat to Florida and the entire region. I join in the celebration of NOAA's accomplishments for the last 200 years, but I urge them to be responsible with resources so that they can be effective for the next 200 years and beyond.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Improve & Expand Small Business Assistance Programs for Veterans Act of 2007. America's veterans have given their best for this country, for the freedoms that we cherish so much, and we must give them our best in return. This legislation would expand the Small Business Administration's Office of Veterans Business Development in order to facilitate better business outreach to our Nation's veterans. The legislation requires that the SBA open two additional Veterans' Outreach offices in the coming year and expand opportunities for women veterans. It would also allow veterans to obtain reduced fee SBA loans. Approximately 5 percent of the 80 million small businesses in this country are owned by veterans. Veteran-owned small businesses have a higher success rate than other small businesses, perhaps because of the strong work ethic and value system that the military imbues in its soldiers. I support this legislation because it will help veterans to enter and compete in today's business world, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation today.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I rise today to honor Adrianne Karanusic, a registered nurse at Broward General Medical Center, for receiving the Florida Hospital Association's 2007 Hospital Hero of the Year Award. A nurse of 18 years, Adrianne showed amazing compassion and dedication to a Croatian patient who spoke no English and fell critically ill from cancer while working on a cruise ship. Adrianne, who speaks Croatian, made herself available as an interpreter and would even call the patient's family in Croatia from her personal cell phone to keep them up to date. But Adrianne's support and overwhelming compassion for her patient did not end there. Concerned with his mounting bills, she contacted Croatian churches in New York and California, ultimately raising over $10,000 for his medical expenses. She even took a week off to accompany them back so she could explain his clinical ailments. Adrianne's incredible kindness and dedication is the epitome of a ``Hospital Hero,'' and I am proud to honor her today on the floor of the United States Congress.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor our Nation's veterans. This is a day to reflect and give thanks to those who have served the United States of America. Their dedication and courage to protect America's freedoms should never go unnoticed or unappreciated. This week, I was proud to introduce the Military Service Tax Relief Act, which provides tax relief to members of the military and their families. This bill permanently extends a current provision that allows military members called to active duty to make withdrawals--penalty- free--from their retirement plans. It also continues to allow members of the military to include combat pay as earned income, thus allowing more military members to further capitalize on the Earned Income Tax Credit. Furthermore, this year, I have been advocating for assured healthcare for veterans and I helped pass the largest budget increase in the 77- year history of the VA, which boosts funding for veterans' services by $6.7 billion over last year's level. This funding will help cover the VA's increasing patient load and improve health care facilities and treatment for service members and veterans. This money is increasingly important to Florida, where we have 1.8 million veterans. And, last year, over 50 veterans moved to Florida every day, making it the fastest growing veterans' population in the country. Florida also has over 100,000 returning soldiers who served in Iraq or Afghanistan. In wartime, as our men and women come home, we need to realize that they have new needs, and we must find new solutions to help return them to productivity in the workforce and in our communities. With the influx of many more disabled soldiers coming home, I supported legislation that includes $62 million to hire new claims processors to address the 400,000 claim backlog and $20 million to help speed up administering initial disability exams. On this Veterans Day, and on every day, I honor America's veterans and soldiers and continuously express my sincere gratitude for their sacrifices.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I don't agree with the amendment because what it does is it creates an unnecessary regulatory burden. You already have in place the Treasury. Our Treasury Department in Washington would look at it. There's a default. Under the current language of the bill. Take a look at the language of the bill. It specifically says they would not be entitled to another loan, so we've already taken care of that problem. As it relates to the State itself being in default, the State is independent of a State risk catastrophe fund. So the fact that the State of Illinois doesn't repay something to the Federal Government doesn't necessarily or should not necessarily put a burden on an independent organization that has a State risk catastrophe fund that does not operate under the full faith and credit of the State of Illinois. So, again, I support the notion that a deadbeat should not receive more. But, again, we are dealing with States and organizations where we've already taken care of the problem or that we are looking to solve a problem that really isn't there. So I would suggest that this amendment should be opposed. It's unnecessary and duplicative, and I think we've already addressed the problem very clearly in the legislation.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Illinois' proposition that if you are in default, you probably shouldn't be able to get anything further because maybe you haven't acted responsibly. But there are two faults that make this amendment unnecessary. Number one, if a State is a recipient of a loan and it has defaulted or hasn't made the terms of payback, that has nothing to do with a State risk catastrophe fund, which is independent of the State. Most State risk catastrophe funds are not backed by the full faith and credit of the State. They're separate, independent organizations. So one has really nothing to do with the other. The fact that the State of Illinois may not have paid back something that it had received from the Federal Government should have nothing to do with an Illinois risk catastrophe fund if it has been doing whatever it's supposed to do. So I think that's number one. Number two, the notion of the one disaster and then the Illinois risk catastrophe fund defaulting or not paying back, we have already taken care of that problem in terms of a future disaster that hits Chicago. And that is the Treasury who would be responsible for authorizing the second loan would not grant that. It is already provided in the content of our bill. So I do support the proposition that if you are in default, you probably shouldn't be a continued further drag. And I think that we have taken care of that in the bill, and I think it's not necessary to pass this amendment.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I'm looking back at the amendment. And the point I was trying to make, which I think is pretty clear here, is that it says ``under any loan previously made under this Act or any loan provided by any agency or establishment of the Federal Government to the program,'' that's the risk catastrophe fund, ``or the State for assistance in connection with a natural or other major disaster.'' First of all, a question for you is the money that goes to a State, are you talking about FEMA money?

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Then what are you referring to? What is the default you're speaking of, then?

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I would like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut for coming up to a response to what I think the gentleman from Illinois was raising; that is, we want to encourage mitigation. We want to encourage reduction of the scope of the hazard. I think all of us understand that the more you can do to protect your home in terms of the roof, if it's an earthquake zone, the foundation, lots of different kinds of risks out there, but the more we can do to solidify that, the less deductible you are going to pay as a homeowner, which is good for you as a homeowner, the less risk you are creating for the insurance underwriter, the less payout, the less the State is going to have to take responsibility if there is a State risk catastrophe fund. With a Federal system to back it up, beyond that, in terms of the State catastrophe bonds, it reduces that as well. The whole purpose of this is to reduce that. What the gentleman from Connecticut has come up with in a broad-based way is to bring in the international code, council building codes, which is an organized effort, well thought out, well designed. Instead of having the secretary of the Treasury, which I am not quite sure who or what qualifications he or she would have to make an independent judgment of whether a building code makes sense or not, let's put professionals, the experts, the people who understand building codes, let's put them in the middle of this thing and say this is the standard by which we will judge whether a State is doing what it is supposed to do to reduce that risk. I think that's a very sound, logical way of solving the problem, encouraging the mitigation, reducing the hazard. I think it's something that deserves to be supported. I would like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut. Hopefully the gentlewoman from West Virginia and the gentleman from Illinois will join us in what I think is something that addresses their concern, and probably we can all come together and say this is a solid way of doing it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my friend, and all of us are freshmen here, Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Roskam, we're all new to this process, but with all due respect to his approach here, the problem with the amendment is that this takes the Federal Government and puts its stamp of approval on local building codes. And from my perspective, I don't think we want the U.S. Treasury or FEMA or anybody else to be responsible for making decisions on local building codes. These are very localized functions, certainly will encourage mitigation, and we've got some standards in place and our colleague from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) in a few minutes I understand is going to be offering a very good amendment which deals with some Federal standards that are outside the Federal Government's role, but some trade industry standards on building code which relate to mitigation and reducing the hazard and reducing the potential exposure. So while I do appreciate the fact that Illinois may have different issues than Iowa, that has different issues than California, there's different issues in Florida, we certainly, in my view, don't want to federalize, if you will, the building code process. And it's something that I believe that we should allow local governments, within the confines of standards that are adopted by the industry, to reduce exposure to natural disasters. I think that's a better way to do it. So I would suggest that this amendment be opposed and that the Members of the House vote against it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. And just to respond to a couple of points there, the building up of reserves and the passing of savings to consumers are not necessarily inconsistent points. One of the goals of this bill is not to make more money for insurance companies, many of them are doing just fine, it is to try to create stability in the market at an actuarially sound rate. I take your points, and they are well taken in terms of making sure we learn from mistakes. I commit to the fact that we will continue to work through this and make sure that it is based on sound actuarial principles by which definition usually sound actuarial estimations do take into account future anticipated events. I commit to that point.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us is testament to the fact that this legislation is truly a work of bipartisanship. Democrats and Republicans came together as this legislation began to work its way through the process. A number of interested Members reached out to us with well-thought suggestions on how to improve the underlying bill. I am pleased to say we were able to incorporate many suggestions into this amendment, including the adoption of a provision that the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) has been developing over the last couple of years. This amendment would establish a high-level natural catastrophe reinsurance fund which would be authorized to write reinsurance contracts to cover catastrophic natural disasters. The addition of such a fund would add a third layer of protection to the legislation, which could further help to increase availability and stabilize rates for homeowners. The fund would provide reinsurance contracts for coverage that is available after the qualified reinsurance program has sustained losses resulting from a 1-in-200-year event. Coverage would be provided on an actuarially sound basis and would not displace or compete with the private market. This provision will go a long way with providing high-level protection for States coping with natural disasters. The amendment also provides for a study and conditional authorization for the inclusion of commercial residential lines of coverage. It is important for us to make sure that renters are not left behind following a disaster, and this provision takes us in the right step of determining how capacity restrictions impact housing affordability for renters. I know this was a concern brought up, and I am glad to include it in this amendment. I am also pleased that we were able to include a provision suggested by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) which ensures that qualified reinsurance programs will engage in responsible reserving. This provision would use an NAIC-developed formula to ensure that participating States will be operating in a sound fashion. We also wanted to make sure that States would not become overly reliant on programs established under the legislation, and this addition will add a safeguard against that concern. Again, I would like to thank those Members who have come forward with suggestions on how to improve the bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. You're saying ``the State for assistance in connection with a natural or other major disaster.'' To the State. You're saying if there's a default in money that went to the State.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to acknowledge Chairman Barney Frank, who, without his guidance and leadership and thoughtfulness and process of good ideas, we wouldn't be here today, as well as Tom Glassic, Kathleen Mellody, Lawranne Stewart, Peter Roberson, Patrick Givens from Congressman Mahoney's office, and Garrett Donovan from my office, and all the staff and experts from around the country who have participated in this very carefully thought out piece of innovative legislation. We are very honored to be here today, because the bill that we have before us is a comprehensive step in the right direction. As a Member of Congress from south Florida, I have lived under the threat of natural disasters for some time. It was only when I came to Washington, however, that I began to discuss this issue with Members from other parts of country who also shared stories about disasters that their constituents faced, earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes. It was then that I began to realize that this is not a regional problem; it is a national one. I further reflected on the fact that the Federal response following a major disaster is very predictable. We open up the Treasury and start spending. This spending is entirely necessary, but often is delivered with only few restraints and comes equally from taxpayers in every corner of our country. So even if you are not in a high-risk region, you are still impacted by the event. Under this bill, participating States would be better protected, again, States that only opt in on their own if they choose; and they would be increasingly able to provide services for those who are not able to find insurance on their own. The State-Federal partnership would present States with the tools necessary to responsibly, fiscally responsibly, manage their risk before disaster strikes, while also ensuring that States can quickly and efficiently respond to homeowners' insurance claims following a natural catastrophe. This legislation employs several new ideas to help States address the property insurance crisis, such as the transfer of States' insurance risk through the use of catastrophe bonds. By utilizing an innovative capital market approach, the bill allows investors to assume some of the risk, while at the same time putting the burden on local homeowners to do all the necessary mitigation responsibility they have to reduce risk to their own home, to the State, and to the Federal Government. This is a fundamental rethinking of disaster planning and response, and it is long overdue. Our bill works because it's voluntary, actuarially sound, and stabilizes the market by ensuring that homeowners will always get their claim paid while capping the State liability. In addition, our bill is fiscally responsible. The Homeowners' Defense Act will end the policy of Federal bailouts following natural disasters. The steps taken in this bill provide us with a blueprint of how States can responsibly plan for catastrophes ahead while also providing them with a path to recovery. As I have said time and time again, the status quo is no longer an option. I urge Members of this body to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, with the indulgence of the gentlewoman from West Virginia, I yield such time as he may consume to my cosponsor, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).