Peter Roskam

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Link Elementary School of Elk Grove Village, Illinois, for being named a No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School for the 2006-2007 school year. Principal Barbara Schremser, Link faculty, students and parents--you should be very proud of this remarkable accomplishment. At a time in our Nation's history when the efficacy of our education system is often questioned, it is a great comfort to see a school that truly commits itself to finding ways to teach our children and provide hope for our Nation's future. The No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon Schools Award is a distinction given to the public schools throughout the country whose students score within the top 10 percent on state assessments. This year, of the more than 97,000 public schools in the United States, just 287 schools were recognized with this distinct honor. In the State of Illinois, 19 schools were members of this elite group. The Blue Ribbon School Award recognizes what we all know: the Link faculty and staff are some of the best and brightest in the Nation. With the motto ``to think, to learn, to achieve and to care,'' Link has shown steady academic progress and achieved exceptionally high test scores. In awarding the 2006-2007 Blue Ribbon School Award, the U.S. Department of Education recognized Link's success in helping students consistently achieve at very high levels, as well as its continued commitment to narrowing the achievement gap. As we strive to educate our current generation of children and prepare our nation's future leaders, Link Elementary School stands out as a shining example of scholastic and institutional excellence. I am proud to represent Link Elementary School in the United States Congress and I look forward to their continued achievements. Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues please join me in congratulating the talented students and dedicated faculty and staff of Link Elementary School for receiving the Blue Ribbon School Award.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to address a new development surrounding our Nation's airports. I represent Illinois' Sixth Congressional District, which is the home of Chicago O'Hare International Airport. O'Hare is the world's second busiest airport, and a week ago agents from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Unit, a division of Homeland Security known as ICE, as well as Cook County sheriffs deputies, raided warehouses and secured areas at O'Hare, arresting over 27 alleged illegal aliens who had received fraudulent identification badges from a local employment agency. These illegal individuals had access to the tarmac, to cargo, as well as other secure areas putting them in direct contact with aircraft. That is why I am an original cosponsor of legislation introduced by my friend and colleague, Mr. Kirk from Illinois. It gives authority for any airport Federal security director to designate airport areas that he or she certifies as a critical area for transportation security as a special security zone. Once an area at an airport is declared a security zone, it is off-limits to illegal aliens. Once an area at an airport is declared a ``special security zone'' only the airport's Federal Security Director can issue security badges to these zones. This legislation also states that only U.S. Nationals who have been cleared by Basic Pilot Program verification system can be given security access badges to these zones. We must be tough when it comes to airport security because it is our first line in defense here at home against terrorists who want to kill more Americans. I ask my fellow colleague in the House to join me in securing our airports and cosponsor this vital piece of legislation.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROSKAM. Reclaiming my time, I thank you. I just submit that the language, as I understand it in the manager's amendment, doesn't achieve the goal that you and I are seeking.

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman. Another term is the term ``commercially reasonable rate.'' It is also not defined anywhere, and I would just submit that is another area that we ought to be looking at. The other notion is that State programs should be required to charge actuarially sound rates and build up reserves based on a 1-in-200 year standard used elsewhere in the manager's amendment. My concern is we run into a situation like we have with the flood insurance program. We should learn from that mistake. The weakness of the flood insurance program was that it contemplated simply anticipating the actual output, as it were, the actual claims, rather than thinking from an actuarial point of view where you contemplate the unanticipated. The way we have to do this, the way this process has to be set up, is it has to literally anticipate the unanticipated. And the way the manager's amendment is currently crafted, it doesn't do that. In other words, it doesn't allow the building up of reserves over a period of time so that the fund itself is actuarially sound and that it can sustain an unexpected loss, the massive storm, the unbelievable event that is literally not contemplated. There are two things that are inconsistent within the bill, it seems to me. There is this lower view of contemplation of what you can build up. But it also says you have to pass on the savings to the consumer. So, literally, the fund is not able to build up the reserves that are necessary in anticipation of what can't be anticipated. With that, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I had previously presented or put at the desk 11 amendments to the manager's amendment that I am not going to be offering this afternoon. Instead, and in the interest of time, since I wasn't seeking roll calls on them, anyway, I just raise a series of questions that I am putting forward in good faith. They have been brought to my attention by our staff. Some you may have answers for; some you may have contemplated. Others you may say, let's think through that a little further, because my sense is, while the House is about to act, this is still very much a work in progress on Capitol Hill when it goes to the other Chamber. The first question I had is the term ``capital liquidity shortage.'' It is a term that is used exclusively in the text of the bill itself, but it is not defined anywhere else. It is not a legal term of art that I am aware of. We have done some Google searches on the Internet, and it is a phrase that is unique to this bill. It is not defined. My concern is that it could create, really, the maximum liability that could be incurred at any time. I am wondering if the gentleman from Florida is open to further defining ``capital liquidity shortage''? And I will be happy to yield.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to commend our colleagues on the other side of the aisle from Florida as good advocates for their districts in recognizing that Florida has a serious problem. I think that if everybody had that same confidence that Federal taxpayers weren't going to be involved and that this ultimately was an insurance program that was going to be completely clearly funded, the money was going to come in, it was actuarially sound, and it was going to go out, a lot of us would say ``no harm, no foul, great.'' But a lot of us have a real sense of concern because what we have done is we have looked at Florida, and my conclusion is that part of the problem of Florida and the difficulty that they are facing is because of governmental intervention in the insurance marketplace. It seems to me that the State of Florida came in and began to manipulate the marketplace insofar as other companies then ultimately made decisions, ``look, this is too high maintenance, this is too complicated, we are not able to price this appropriately, we are out of here.'' We heard testimony during the Financial Services Committee from folks who said the depth and breadth of building in Florida, in many cases, is simply inappropriate, building in very risky areas. Now, the bill speaks to some to mitigation, but I think we can do much better. And over the course of this afternoon, in a series of amendments that we intend to offer, some of them on the manager's amendment and some of them specific roll calls that we will be seeking, we are going to try and drive the conversation toward market solutions to this problem. We are told time and again, I have heard both speakers this afternoon on the other side talk about an opt-in, talk as if this is a voluntary program. Well, I will tell you what; it is not a voluntary program for the Federal taxpayers that I represent. Federal taxpayers that I represent, I believe, are ultimately going to be on the hook for the liabilities and the commitments that are made either explicitly or implicitly through the language of this bill. I urge a great sense of caution not to get caught up in the emotion of this, but to be clear-eyed and clear-thinking in how we debate this, and ultimately to oppose this bill in its current form.

Mr. ROSKAM. The gentleman has an incredible gift of clarity and insight, and that is exactly it.

Mr. ROSKAM. Reclaiming my time, I think part of the reason we are in this state today and one of the reasons we are having this conversation is because of, really, a lack of some of those commonsense approaches towards their problem in the past, which is now why Representative Klein and Representative Mahoney feel in good faith that they have got to come here on behalf of their constituents, and I understand that. I would submit that this amendment brings some clarity, brings a little bit of pause, brings some reality to this so that over a period of time a future Congress doesn't have to come in and request an abundance from the Federal Treasury due to mismanagement and squander.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, this is what I characterize as the skin-in- the-game amendment. The bill currently has no retained loss requirement for participating State reinsurance funds before they can get a catastrophic loan from the Treasury. Once the trigger is met, a fund may qualify for a loan without having any skin in the game. To improve fiscal accountability, States should be required to first sustain a loss before receiving a loan from Treasury, similar to paying deductible in an insurance policy. The loans could be better put to use helping States manage their losses above the retained loss requirement. This amendment says that before a State insurance fund can access one of the loans created in the bill, it must first retain sufficient losses amounting to a 1-in-100-year event with respect to State catastrophe perils. This amendment will encourage State funds to handle a predictable level of loss before putting Federal taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars in catastrophic loans. With no retained loss requirements, State insurance funds will have no incentives to price their risk with a catastrophe factor but, instead, rely on post-event debt financing from the Federal Government and Federal taxpayers. Adding the retained loss requirement in this bill will also encourage States to utilize the global reinsurance market instead of turning directly to the Federal Government to capitalize their funds. Currently, Florida is the only State with a reinsurance fund that would qualify under this bill. The bill would undoubtedly spur the creation of other State funds, and requiring States to have skin in the game will encourage these new funds to properly capitalize instead of taking out a huge loan from the Feds after every natural catastrophe. Without loss requirements, State insurance funds will have no incentives to actuarially price their risk since they will be getting cheap loans to assist them in paying their claims. I urge the adoption of the amendment and yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. ROSKAM. I yield to the chairman.

Mr. ROSKAM. Finally, I would also like to draw attention to the notion of, sort of what I am characterizing in my fear as that repayment is a myth fear. Under the manager's amendment, if a State program is somehow going to incur losses that exceeds its maximum liabilities, shouldn't it have to show how it is going to prevent that in the future? And there is no point in the manager's amendment where there is that reporting requirement. Again, I don't think that is onerous. I don't think it is difficult, but I think it would be a good idea to require a State before they make a claim or before they default to come forward and say, look, this is how we are going to avoid this in the future. I think it is a de minimis reporting requirement. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman. Another observation is that States should pay the cost of the consortium. Now, as drafted, the cost of the consortium is by Federal taxpayers. There is no payment mechanism in the manager's amendment for the consortium to be funded by the States. I think that is an oversight and it should be revisited. The manager's amendment sets up $120 million over 6 years, I think, but I think there should be a way for the States to pony up. At least theoretically you can contemplate where the Federal Government would create this consortium, and maybe nobody's in. At that point it would be a foolish enterprise. I think there has to be a way. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ROSKAM. Finally, on the basis of time, and I will be happy to continue the conversation with you and the chairman, in my view, I think the grace period for States is too long for their mitigation efforts. For those States currently with a program in place, the manager's amendment says all of these mitigation components are excellent, but we are going to give you 5 years to get your act together. My suggestion would be let's shorten that up. Let's make it 2 years, and I think that is still very gracious, to follow on the word of grace. But 5 years is almost the length of the entire program that is being proposed. That is a suggestion regarding a way that I think the bill can be improve. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ROSKAM. I yield to the chairman.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today I offer an amendment essential to stopping this Congress from running down a road that I've expressed caution about earlier today, and that is causing further government involvement in self-sufficient, available, and reliable private markets. Congress recently passed the National Flood Insurance Reform; and while I didn't agree with the wind provision inclusion, it made crucial strides in reducing damage from flooding and storms, especially in areas suffering repeat events. However, H.R. 3355 does not specifically prescribe mitigation guidelines. In title II, it merely alludes to Treasury providing a general directive; and, in my view, that's not good enough. Currently, H.R. 3355 only requires the reinsurance fund receiving the loan to provide coverage for properties that adhere to applicable State building codes, leaving open the possibility that States with substandard codes, or even lacking codes, can still access the loans. Instead, Treasury should be required to certify that the State has implemented best practices building codes for the applicable exposures, taking into account the State's geography, catastrophe risk and building patterns, which is what my amendment does here today. This would not be a national building code, but rather, a regionally specific criteria for program participation. The language in my amendment also gives broad flexibility to the Treasury to certify whether State building codes are appropriate for the types of risks they face. It doesn't apply specific, bureaucratic and unreachable one-size-fits-all standards for the Treasury to abide by. The language is necessary because the current language in the bill would create an implicit guarantee that would result in an inequitable Federal subsidy for certain State insurance programs and policyholders, thus creating no need for local municipalities and developers to stop development in risk-prone areas. This was made very clear during the testimony that we heard in the hearings several weeks ago. The further subsidization of rates would undermine economic incentives to mitigate risks. Individuals facing subsidized rates would be encouraged to take on risks that are inappropriate, specifically putting themselves in harm's way because they don't bear the full weight of the potential damages. Now, I represent citizens from Illinois, and we would never choose to participate in this program. And let me tell you, the view from Lombard, Illinois, is very different from Key West, and God bless the folks that live in Key West, but I don't think that the residents I represent should be in a position to subsidize someone else's view. Why should Illinois bail out States that can't address their own problems? While I'm sensitive and I admire my colleagues from Florida, I do believe that some of this is simply an exacerbation of government programs that have completely failed. Many other States have taken into account and addressed market issues based on increasing private market participation. South Carolina introduced policyholder or catastrophe savings accounts to assist consumers and address cost issues. Louisiana and South Carolina addressed rating and regulatory matters by encouraging greater competition among insurers rather than rate controls that discourage private market competition. Louisiana has committed financial incentives for insurers to underwrite or take policies from the residual market and write-in coastal areas. Several States have also improved building codes and their enforcement as part of the long- term solution to catastrophic risk. Floods are the majority of disasters that my congressional district faces, and we haven't sat by and waited for the government to help. The State of Illinois has one of the strongest floodplain management programs in the country. Illinois leads all Midwest States for the number of NFIP-participating communities, flood insurance policies, and flood insurance claims. Illinois outpaces the other States in local floodplain assistance, mitigation activities, and flood control projects. Specifically, two cities in my district, Des Plaines and Mt. Prospect, were badly hurt by floods in August of this year. But they didn't suffer as much as they could have, because they are moving forward on major flood mitigation efforts by building levees on the Des Plaines River. This project will move hundreds of homes and businesses out of the floodplain, thus reducing the amount of damage during flood season and lowering insurance rates for homeowners. There's been an unprecedented population growth and significant development in coastal and disaster-prone areas in recent decades, and total property exposures have increased dramatically. We certainly cannot anticipate what storms will be like in the future, but we can and should take steps to reduce and lessen these risks. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Longfellow Elementary School of Wheaton, Illinois, for being named a No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School for the 2006-2007 school year. Principal Paul McKinney, Longfellow faculty, students and parents--you should be very proud of this remarkable accomplishment. At a time in our nation's history when the efficacy of our education system is often questioned, it is a great comfort to see a school that truly commits itself to finding ways to teach our children and provide hope for our nation's future. The No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon Schools Award is a distinction given to the public schools throughout the country whose students score within the top 10 percent on state assessments. This year, of the more than 97,000 public schools in the United States, just 287 schools were recognized with this distinct honor. In the State of Illinois, 19 schools were members of this elite group. The Blue Ribbon School Award recognizes what we all know: the Longfellow students, faculty and staff are some of the best and brightest in the nation. In addition to exceptional test scores, Longfellow has shown steady academic progress for the past 3 years. In awarding the 2006-2007 Blue Ribbon School Award, the U.S. Department of Education recognized Longfellow's success in helping students consistently achieve at very high levels, as well as its continued commitment to narrowing the achievement gap. As we strive to educate our current generation of children and prepare our nation's future leaders, Longfellow Elementary School stands out as a shining example of scholastic and institutional excellence. I am proud to represent Longfellow Elementary School in the United States Congress and I look forward to their continued achievements. Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues please join me in congratulating the talented students and dedicated faculty and staff of Longfellow Elementary School for receiving the Blue Ribbon School Award.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to raise awareness of the imminent need for Congress to extend and make permanent the research and development tax credit. The R&D tax credit is set to expire at the end of this year. At a time of increasing globalization, America's prosperity depends more than ever on its capacity to innovate. For decades, our Nation's leadership in research has led to discoveries that have dramatically improved living standards around the world and given rise to new industries that have in turn created millions of new jobs. Other countries are well aware of the significant economic benefits that flow from R&D activities, and many have created strong tax incentives designed to attract R&D investment around the world. In fact, 10,000 American companies will be able to take advantage of the permanency of the R&D tax credit. In my district alone, small and medium manufacturers, technology companies and leading research institutions will greatly benefit from this tax credit. Let's not play politics with the lifeblood of our economy. Let's join together, both sides of the aisle, to extend the R&D tax credit.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and urge my colleagues to join with me and our colleague Mr. Kirk in cosponsoring H.R. 3901, the Emerald Ash Borer Municipality Assistance Act. What is an emerald ash borer, you may ask. Well, it is a nasty little bug that has found its way on to our shores, which has a very aggressive disposition towards ash trees in particular. It is a native of China, and there are no known natural predators here in the United States. If you think of the districts that we all represent, many of them have beautiful canopies of trees that line our streets and create wonderful natural ways all throughout our districts. Yet this bug has shown up in Illinois, my State; Indiana; Michigan; Ohio; Pennsylvania; Maryland and West Virginia. As one researcher of the Morton Arboretum, which I represent, said, ``The emerald ash borer doesn't just kill a majority of the ash trees it encounters; it seems to kill them all.'' This legislation creates a revolving loan fund whereby municipalities have access to those moneys, and they use it in order to take on this scourge.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to recognize an outstanding young man from my Congressional District, Cadet Colonel Daniel Roman, for his remarkable achievements as a member of the Civil Air Patrol. In just a few days, Daniel will be presented with the General Carl A. Spaatz Award. The Spaatz Award is the Civil Air Patrol's highest cadet honor, presented to cadets who demonstrate extraordinary leadership, character, fitness, and aerospace knowledge. For every one thousand cadets, only two are selected for this distinct honor. Daniel first joined the Civil Air Patrol in July 2000. From his first moments in Fox Valley Composite Squadron IL-274, Daniel has exhibited a true love of flying. His hard work and commitment paid off as he was chosen to attend Officer Training School in Wisconsin and Air Education Training Command at Laughlin Air Force Base in Texas. Throughout his time in the Civil Air Patrol, Daniel has set an example for others. For over 7 years, he committed himself fully to learning and developing the skills of a seasoned member of the Civil Air Patrol. On June 15, 2007, Daniel successfully completed the Carl A. Spaatz Exam, the final stage of a long and grueling journey through sixteen rigorous skill tests. Having overcome this final obstacle, he now joins the ranks of the Civil Air Patrol's best and brightest, a recipient of the General Carl A. Spaatz Award for outstanding cadets. Daniel, today I join with your family and friends in offering my congratulations for this well deserved honor. You've made us all proud. Finally, Daniel, I want to challenge you to maintain the dedication and commitment that has taken you so far already. Although the road ahead of you surely contains many more challenges, you have shown that you can and will overcome each obstacle as you pursue your dreams. Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, please join me in congratulating Cadet Colonel Daniel Roman, recipient of the Civil Air Patrol General Carl A. Spaatz Award.