Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor William Lichter for his 29 years of devoted service to the Village of Lombard, Illinois.

In early life, Bill served as Assistant City Manager for Mentor, Ohio and Administrative Assistant in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Vermont. He then earned a Master's degree in Political Administration from American University and is also currently a Ph.D. candidate at Northern Illinois University.

Bill Lichter began his service to the Village of Lombard on January 7, 1985, when he became its ninth Village Manager. Since that day, he has served with vision and fortitude for over 22 years.

Through the years, Bill has been an insightful observer, keen in his understanding of the long-term challenges facing the Village. Throughout his career, he has tackled these challenges with deft skill, deep understanding, and strong personal integrity.

While Lombard has gone through change after change over the years, one thing has remained the same. Bill Lichter has kept a steady hand to the wheel, advising the Village Board and working tirelessly for the benefit of his community.

Bill has had many accomplishments over the years, though they are too numerous to list exhaustively. Chief among them, however, are his success in improving the Village's long-term financial forecasting and management and his rewarding efforts to promote local economic development.

Bill Lichter has been an advocate for the people of Lombard since his very first days in office more than two decades ago. In his time with the Village, he has affected countless lives and left an indelible impression on Lombard and its residents.

Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, Bill Lichter is a remarkable man who has dedicated his life to serving the people of Lombard. Please join me in honoring this unsung hero for his extraordinary career and wishing him every happiness in the well deserved respite of his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, a special word of thanks to the majority leader, who worked hard to get this resolution on the floor, and to him I'm deeply grateful.

You know, there's been a lot said about Henry Hyde over the past several weeks, particularly since his passing and in the weeks prior to that when he received the Medal of Freedom from President Bush in a White House ceremony that he was unable to attend due to his illness.

And we've often focused in those comments on his conduct here in the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to give just a little bit of a glimpse of what he was like back at home, because the same shadow that was cast here in the Capitol was similarly cast in the Sixth District of Illinois, which is the west and northwest suburbs of Chicago. There, he was Henry Hyde who would be routinely introduced at various gatherings, and in partisan gatherings he would oftentimes get a standing ovation from a very grateful group of Republicans. But all across the aisle, both sides of the aisle, people were able to approach him, and they would often think of him, really, as an alderman for that area, or almost a city councilman. And by that I don't mean anything to negate his status, but simply, his accessibility as a Member of Congress, which was something really to behold. You could routinely find him in his district. He would fly back and forth every week into O'Hare Airport, which was right in the middle of his Sixth District of Illinois.

And I think that he was one of those people that, when you think about Congressmen, you think about the very best and the very brightest. And I would submit that when, from 1974 all the way up through his retirement, when people contemplated Henry Hyde, he was contemplated in a way that was a positive reflection on this institution. When people thought of him, they thought, You know what? That's the way a congressman is supposed to be. That's the way a congressman is supposed to handle himself. That's the way a congressman is supposed to interact with people on his own side of the aisle and, even more importantly, with people on the other side of the aisle.

His legacy is one, and his name will inextricably be linked with the pro-life movement. He was a passionate advocate, as we all know, for the unborn.

He did his duty in the impeachment of President Clinton. But those things, while they're formative, and they're very interesting, and they are who he was, sort of the lead gets buried if you stop the Henry Hyde story there, because he was someone who was also very active and a partner in trying to reach out to come up with the funds and the support to take on HIV/AIDS globally.

And he was far ahead of his time. He was one who broke from his ranks and voted in favor of the Family and Medical Leave Act, much to the chagrin, at the time, of many in his party who subsequently have come to see the light of that courage of his convictions.

And so, Mr. Speaker, in closing, this is a time of reflection and it's a time of honoring the legacy of a great man. And I think the words of Paul Johnson, a great British historian, come to mind when he wrote a history of the American people. And the British historian Johnson said, to paraphrase, he said this: All kinds of factors go into how history comes out. Just all kinds of things. But without question, the single most important factor are the people who are in charge at the time.

And I think all of us today rise and acknowledge that Henry J. Hyde and the oath that he took and the way in which he carried himself in office was a great credit, not only to this institution, but a great credit to our country.

Madam Speaker, I am saddened to rise today to honor the life and service of an exceptional young Peace Corps Volunteer Blythe Ann O'Sullivan of Bloomingdale,

Illinois. On December 6, 2007, Blythe passed away while serving the people of the Republic of Suriname in South America.

After graduating from Bradley University, she decided to join the Peace Corps.

Blythe was sworn in as a Volunteer on August 3, 2006, after 4 months of intensive training. Leaving her loved ones and comfortable life in the United States behind, Blythe bravely took on the challenge of sharing her knowledge and expertise with the Brokopondo people.

As a small business and community development advisor, Blythe dedicated herself to improving the operations of a local water project and building a community center for the women in the village where she was staying.

While serving in Suriname, Blythe recognized how extraordinarily blessed we are in the United States, saying ``I am so humbled by the challenges the Suriname villagers must conquer day after day. Here, each waking moment must be spent satisfying basic needs.'' Blythe's dedication to improving the lives of others is an example for us all.

Blythe's ready smile, compassionate care for the people of Suriname and efforts to bring them hope have affected countless lives. Blythe's efforts will forever be a tribute to her life and service.

Madam Speaker, I wish to offer my deepest sympathies to Blythe's parents, John and Joan, and the entire O'Sullivan family. They are in my thoughts and prayers during this difficult time.

Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in mourning the loss of an extraordinary young woman, Blythe Ann O'Sullivan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3505, the Securities Law Technical Corrections Act of 2007, a measure to make technical corrections to the various securities laws, and I thank Mr. Scott for his support for this measure and also Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for advocating that this come to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression, Congress enacted the Federal securities laws of the 1930s and the 1940s. Over many years, Congress has amended these laws to adopt innovation and growth in the securities industry. Securities laws have become incredibly complex and technical due to the intricate and global markets we have today.

The goal of these laws is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets, and to facilitate capital formation and promote competition. These laws range from governing over the initial issuance and registration of securities to the oversight of financial reporting and registration of people involved in the sale of securities. The laws also regulate the purchase and sale of securities, securities brokerage firms and securities exchanges, and they also have been responsible for the rules of the creation and operation of mutual funds and those laws governing the operation of investment advisors, all good things.

As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to review laws that we pass to ensure that they are current and that they are up to date. Most importantly, Congress needs to clarify that these laws are well- crafted so that agencies who administer and enforce them are able to do so without causing unnecessary confusion to investors, to market participants and the courts.

Keeping the security laws current is a worthwhile undertaking. One such example where there is need to update our securities laws which are included in this legislation is to address the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. It was repealed, as Mr. Scott mentioned, in the 2005 energy bill because it was no longer necessary.

But it was originally adopted to deal with circumstances that existed in the 1930s and 1940s when the commission was restructuring the utility industry. At that point, a number of holding companies would have owned minority stakes in utilities and other holding companies and they may have held substantial equity assets that caused them to meet the investment company definition at that time.

Today, virtually all utility holding companies operate throughout wholly owned subsidiaries and, thus, do not have investment company status issues any different from any other type of holding company. So utility holding companies no longer need to be treated differently than any other type of company for purposes of determining whether they meet the definition of investment company.

H.R. 3505 makes almost 50 technical changes to the Federal securities laws. Mr. Speaker, I want to note that the Securities and Exchange Commission supports these changes.

Once again I want to thank my colleague Mr. Scott, along with Ranking Member Bachus and our chairman, Chairman Frank, for their support of this legislation, and I urge all of our colleagues to support it.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, many of us come to Washington, D.C. for our first time and we go out and about and we introduce ourselves. And I did that as a candidate, introduced myself to people, and they had no interest whatsoever in who I was. I tried then to seek a little bit of common ground and tell them where I am from. They had no interest whatsoever in where I was from.

And then I didn't play fair. Then I said to them, I am running to succeed Congressman Hyde. At that moment, the demeanor on every single person changed. They pulled me a little bit closer, they grabbed my elbow, and they would say, Henry Hyde, let me tell you about Henry Hyde. They would tell some unbelievable story about how Henry Hyde would come down to the well of this Chamber in a packed place and with the whole country watching and do what great statesmen do, and

that was to speak to the great weighty issues of the day. Or they would tell me about Henry Hyde and a kindness that he had extended to them out of the presence of anybody else, that no one would ever know about.

So it is with a great deal of regret that Mr. Costello and I are here announcing the passing of a great man. This great man was my predecessor. He was known not only ultimately for what he accomplished and what he stood for but I think actually who he was.

Mr. Speaker, you know, as I've sat and listened this evening to the tributes of Congressman Hyde, a couple of things have become clear to me, that there's an element, a great sense of loss tonight among us about a man that people on both sides of the aisle really came to respect and admire and deeply appreciate.

As I've thought about Congressman Hyde and the role that he played, he came to Congress in 1974, that was a very difficult time for the Republican Party. He's one of the few people that was successful in a campaign after the scandal of Watergate, and came in and in a way Henry Hyde was a conservative in the House of Representatives before conservative was cool. He was passionate about a strong America and understanding fundamentally what our Nation's role was in the world.

We've talked a lot over the past several minutes about Henry Hyde and his pro-life legacy. There was another passion that he had, and I think it was inextricably linked to his view of life and defending it at all ages, and that was his high view of freedom. He was a person who understood fundamentally that the United States had a very special role to play.

I was a staffer for him and remember him talking about the captive nations. That was a phrase that was used to capture the description of the Eastern Bloc nations. And you see, in Henry Hyde's district, in the Sixth District of Illinois, there were a whole host of immigrants, folks who had come to this land of America because America was free. And Henry Hyde represented that constituency well. And it was a people that had been formed largely by their suffering under a tyrannical communist regime. And when Henry Hyde came to office in 1974, in those years before the 1980 election, he was among a small group of people in the House, I think, that really understood what was at stake.

Turned out Ronald Reagan won a historic election in 1980. It was a land slide really of epic proportion.

And Henry Hyde was one of those people that was positioned in the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, to be one of Ronald Reagan's partners over the next 8 years on what has been nothing short of a transformation of American foreign policy.

Henry Hyde was a pivotal figure in the mid-1980s when the House turned to him and asked him to play a key role at the time in the Iran- Contra investigation. And I remember working for him at that time and a whole great deal of activity. And when I was looking at my boss, Congressman Hyde, during the committee hearings, every time he asked a question, every time he made a point, there was a sense of clarity about him that was just very, very inviting. He understood what was going on. He didn't shy away from a political fight, as we all know, but he had this way about him that was a way to engage people in such a way that he was able to persuade them. He was sort of the old school of American politics in that he wasn't satisfied merely to have a debate. No. This was a guy who wanted to persuade you. And his view was, look, if you knew what I knew and if you had seen what I have seen and if you understand what I understand, then surely looking at this evidence you'll be persuaded, as I am, to this way of thinking. And I think the way that he approached that, Mr. Speaker, was very inviting in a way.

Listen, he was at a pivotal point in our public life together in very difficult times for our country. But we all know, as we reflect on this great man, that he did it with a sense of duty, he did it with a sense of honor, and he did it in a way that he always upheld his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I remember the first time I met Henry Hyde, I was interviewing in his office, and it was when he was in the Rayburn building, room 2104 in the Rayburn building. It was, I think, an April evening, if I'm not mistaken, in the mid-1980s, and I had a chance to interview with my own congressman, Henry Hyde, to become possibly a legislative assistant. I went in. I handed him my resume. And I have an independent recollection, as I am standing here today, of Henry Hyde looking out over me in these half glasses and kind of clearing his throat looking at the resume, sort of looking it over, and I remember feeling very intimidated because at the time, after all, I was in a conversation with Henry Hyde. Well, to make a long story short, he very graciously offered me the job.

And what I will say is this. We serve with a whole cast of characters here in Congress. And we see one another many times on the floor, and we interact with one another, and we see one another in the hallways. But when you really want to get to know a Member, you ask the staff what is that person really like? The staff people who are working for that Member, out of the public view, behind closed doors in the office when nobody is around, and I will tell you this: Henry Hyde was the same person to work for as the person who would appear here on the floor of the House of Representatives. He was gracious. Now, he expected you to work hard. He expected excellence on the part of his staff, and he wanted you to do a good job. But the same pleasant man that you encountered and is fondly remembered here this evening was the same person that interacted with his staff.

You know, there are different ways to measure people. And I called Congressman Hyde on the phone in April of this year. I was walking into the Cannon building. It was an early morning.

And I called him on my cell phone, and I caught him at home. It was fairly early. And I said, ``Henry, I have been here for 4 months.'' I said, ``I marvel at what you were able to accomplish during the time that you were here.''

Many of us come from legislative bodies, State legislatures or county legislative bodies, and they are fairly intimate affairs, actually. They're fairly small groups of legislators that come together. But when you think of the figurative shadow that he cast on legislation for the past 30 years, it was a thing to behold.

I know he enjoyed the phone call, but it wasn't false flattery. It was actually admiration from somebody who has recently come to succeed him in Congress.

Finally, in closing, Mr. Speaker, I remember when I sat with Congressman Hyde several months before I came to this body, and at the end of a very pleasant conversation as we went back and forth on issues and talked about local politics and State politics and national politics and all kinds of issues, he said a word to me. When I share it with you, Mr. Speaker, it is going to sound like a very common thing. But when you're me and you are seated across from Henry J. Hyde, it didn't sound very common at that point. And he said to me this: He said, ``Peter, this is important work in Congress. This is important work.'' And there was an urgency with what he was saying to me that day. And it wasn't the whimsy of an old man who was just reflecting back on 32 years of service, but it was the admonition of a statesman who had looked out over the horizon and really understood the great challenges but, even more, the great opportunities that are here for us in the United States of America.

So I know that I am joined by many, many, many Americans who considered Henry Hyde to be their congressman, to be America's congressman. And so it is with a great sense of pride and also a great sense of sadness and loss that I rise today, like so many of my colleagues, to honor his memory.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Like many others, I very much appreciate the tone and the effort of the chairman and the ranking member to come to terms with a very difficult problem that is facing our country, and that is the subprime mortgage crisis and the ripple effect, the profound ripple effect it is having throughout the economy.

My sense, though, is that while there are some very good elements in the bill, I appreciate the fact that it is prospective, I appreciate the fact that it is not a bailout, and I appreciate the fact that its focus is limited to subprime mortgages and not prime mortgages, there is an element that is of enough concern to me to come to the floor and bring it to the House's attention.

I am not unique in bringing it to the House's attention, but I urge a real sense of caution, and I think we can do slightly better, and that is the ambiguity of some of the phrases and definitions in the bill. The gentleman from Georgia referenced these in his remarks.

But when regulatory language, as this is, has words like ``appropriate'' without further definition; ``ability to repay'' without further definition; and ``net tangible benefit'' without further definition, I think it is a weakness in the bill, and I think it is a fatal flaw in the bill.

My hope is that these ambiguities will be cleaned up. I am not one that says we necessarily need to yield this turf to the regulators. I think we as Members of Congress have that ability and that responsibility to define these terms. Because if we don't, I think what will happen is that capital that is currently available to subprime borrowers will become unavailable to some subprime borrowers.

There is language that creates the purported safe harbor in the bill, but it is a safe harbor that does not end with a period at the end of the sentence, essentially. It is a safe harbor that has a comma at the end and is simply a rebuttable presumption. So safe harbors are mostly safe, but not entirely safe.

I think Americans like to be governed with a light touch and not a heavy hand, and I hope that we can revisit this bill when it may come back from the other body.

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.

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.

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

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.

I yield to the chairman.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I yield to the chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

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

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Roskam

Amendment No. 6: Page 21, strike lines 21 through 25.

Page 22, line 1, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(B)''.

Page 22, line 5, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.

Page 22, line 12, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(D)''.

Page 22, line 17, strike ``and''.

Page 22, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:

(7) develops, maintains, and enforces best practices in

building codes that the Secretary deems adequate to address

the natural disaster exposures of the State, taking into

consideration the geography, catastrophe risk, and building

patterns in the State; and

Page 22, line 18, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)''.

Offered By: Mr. Roskam

Amendment No. 10: Page 17, line 2, strike ``and'' and

insert a comma.

Page 17, line 8, before the period insert the following:

``, and that the qualified reinsurance program has retained

sufficient losses in excess of the amount of losses that

would result from a single event of a catastrophic peril

covered by the program of such magnitude that it has a one

percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any year, as

determined by the Secretary''.

Offered By: Mr. Roskam

Amendment No. 13: Page 17, line 2, strike ``and'' and

insert a comma.

Page 17, line 8, before the period insert the following:

``, and that the qualified reinsurance program has retained

losses in excess of the amount of losses that would result

from a single event of a catastrophic peril covered by the

program of such magnitude that it has a one percent chance of

being equaled or exceeded in any year, as determined by the

Secretary''.

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.

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.