Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, during President Franklin D. Roosevelt's second term of office, he decided there should be a way to preserve and maintain official records and artifacts from his Presidency and the Presidency of future generations. Until his Presidency, many historic documents had been damaged, ruined or unaccounted for over the years. President Roosevelt realized the need for preserving these valuable pieces of history and sought a way to make them available to the public. There are currently 12 Presidential libraries, including the Nixon Presidential Materials. Each is funded through private donations, and upon completion of the library is turned over to the National Archives. These libraries are essentially museums and centers for learning about these Presidents and their terms in office. H.R. 1664 authorizes funding for the establishment of a Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library in his birthplace of Staunton, Virginia. It also states the National Archives and Records Administration will provide a matching grant towards the establishment of the library. The library will coordinate its efforts with other Woodrow Wilson museums to share exhibits and educational services. The Presidency of Woodrow Wilson is known for many achievements, among them are establishing the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve. He served his second term during World War I and worked with European nations on peace negotiations, including the Treaty of Versailles and the creation of the League of Nations. It is critical we preserve the Presidential papers, historical records, and other artifacts of Woodrow Wilson's Presidency as we do with the previous 11 Presidents. These libraries offer citizens the opportunity to learn, study and appreciate an important period of American history. I urge my colleagues to support the passage. I applaud the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for introducing this bill and urge passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank my colleague from Illinois, Danny Davis, for managing this resolution today. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 584, which supports the goals and ideals of designating September 2007 as National Life Insurance Awareness Month. I also would like to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), for introducing this resolution with me for the fourth year in a row and for his support on this important issue. Congressman Kanjorski serves with me both on the Financial Services Committee and the Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus and has been an outstanding leader on the important issue of financial security. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California, Chairman Henry Waxman, and the gentleman from Virginia, Tom Davis, for moving this resolution through the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. And, last, I would like to acknowledge and thank Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia for their contributions to this effort. They worked with those of us on this side of the Capitol to craft identical resolutions that garnered both bipartisan and bicameral support. It's my hope that the Senate will soon pass its version of the resolution soon. Mr. Speaker, life insurance too often is thought of only when it is too late. How many times have we heard friends or loved ones who are sadly reflecting that the deceased had no life insurance or had too little life insurance? Today, only four in 10 adult Americans own an individual life insurance policy; and among those who do have life insurance, the amount often is too small to safeguard the financial future of their loved ones. Because of insufficient coverage, family members often are forced to work extra jobs or longer hours, borrow money, or move to less desirable housing. In short, these outcomes are only symptoms of the crisis of underinsurance that exists in our Nation today. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 584 calls on the Nation to observe the month of September as Life Insurance Awareness Month. The Life and Health Insurance Foundation for Education, the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, the American Council of Life Insurers, and a coalition representing hundreds of leading life insurance providers and advocates have designated September 2007 as Life Insurance Awareness Month. Our collective goal for this month is to make consumers more aware of their life insurance needs, seek professional advice, and take the actions necessary to achieve financial security for their families. Many of my colleagues on both the Financial Services and the Education and Workforce Committees have been working very hard to increase the level of financial literacy and economic education in this Nation. Understanding how financial products work and how they work to build financial security are two important ingredients in a complete financial education. It is my hope that recognizing Life Insurance Awareness Month will motivate Americans to seek out information about the benefits of life insurance so that if premature death of a loved one does occur, they will be spared the economic hardships that often accompany tragedy. I ask my colleagues to join me and support the goals and ideals of designating September National Life Insurance Awareness Month. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Concurrent Resolution 193 recognizes all hunters for their continued commitment to safety and to increase awareness of the organizations and programs dedicated to hunting education and safety activities. There are currently 16 million hunters in the U.S., of which less than 1 percent incurred an injury during the last hunting season. Continued education on hunting safety will ensure lower injury rates for future hunting seasons. The success of these programs has allowed more than 35 million hunters to obtain certification. Fortunately, we can continue to see high safety records with responsible and safe hunters who are well educated on hunting safety. I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 193. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. In all my thanking, I forgot to thank the staff, which I would really like to do, the staff of the subcommittee, Cindy Chetti, Tallman Johnson, Nicole Austin, Robert Gordon and Jim Clinger for all the work that they've done on the minority side of the aisle. And also, to thank, on the other side of the aisle, the Democrat staff who have been so helpful to us: Scott Olson, Gail Lester, Jonathan Harwitz, Kellie Larkin, Tom Duncan and Himay Lazarga. I thank all of them for all the work that they've put into this bill. And also, one of our new members on this side, Jason Britt, one of our new members of the staff. Thank you so much.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I would just like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for all his hard work on our Financial Literacy and Education Caucus. I really enjoy working with him, and the counseling really fits right into the purview of financial literacy, so again I thank the gentleman. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to Ranking Member Bachus.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, for 7 minutes.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), who is now going to assume the role as the ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Madam Chairman, I'd like to start out on a positive note, but I guess I must say that I'm disappointed about the bill, the way it is as we're considering it today. While the bill has improved since its introduction, I had hoped that we could take up the same bipartisan FHA Modernization Bill, H.R. 5121, that passed House last year. And since we've been talking about it, I might say it was cosponsored by 54 Republicans and 51 Democrats and one Independent, so it was a good bill and a bipartisan compromise that was agreed to by Chairman Waters, Chairman Frank, and then Chairman Mike Oxley. And given the overwhelming vote, and the exact number was 415-7 for last year's bill, I had hoped that we could take it up and move it quickly to the floor. But instead we have two bills this year. We have the bill, H.R. 1752, which I introduced, which was identical to last year's bipartisan bill, and we have Chairman Waters' bill. And so I think we're today considering a new bill with new provisions that are not bipartisan, and I think it has delayed the FHA modernization and will serve fewer borrowers than last year's bill. But it's an important bill. There are some key differences between these bills. There is one that has caused the greatest concern for me and many of my colleagues, and that is the inclusion of a provision in H.R. 1852 that creates a funding placeholder and siphons off FHA funds to a brand-new government trust fund. And it's admirable, affordable housing. We all want affordable housing in all forms, whether it's section 8, whether it's public housing, whether it's FHA modernization. But I think that taking the funds out of FHA and using them for a purpose unrelated to its core mission of the FHA would threaten the solvency of the FHA fund and its ability to pay off the insurance claims. And we are reaching a crisis there, where we are going to have to have some credit influx into the FHA fund. So we'll hear more discussion on that during the consideration of Mr. Hensarling's amendment during this debate. So it's my hope that we can work together to address Members' concerns through the amendment process so that a modernized FHA bill can help assist more low- and moderate-income Americans in buying and keeping their homes. I'd like to just briefly talk about and thank Chairman Waters for offering a specific provision in this manager's amendment. The chairwoman's original draft only permitted first-time home buyers to participate in new low- and no down payment loan programs. But the amendment under consideration corrects that and mirrors the provision in the FHA modernization bill that allows any FHA qualified borrower to participate in the new FHA low and no down payment loan program. So clearly, the FHA has a role to play in the solution to this country's rising foreclosure rate. And as I think I said on April 19, during our first committee hearing on this, this bill, one of the most important things that Congress can do, as we search for ways to help those that have been harmed by the subprime market, is to give FHA the tools it needs to be a viable alternative for the first-time and low-income borrowers. And then I'd like to address an issue that Chairman Frank did bring up, and even though he's not on the floor. But the legislation that I have included another bipartisan agreement last year, and that was the automatic reduction of annual premiums in FHA to no more than 55 basis points for loans that remain active after 5 years. And automatic premium reductions can be a good thing. They can reduce refinancing and perhaps some defaults and foreclosures as well. In contrast, I think that the Franks-Waters bill requires the refund of excess upfront premiums charged to higher-risk borrowers, those with FICO scores under 560. So I'm concerned that this provision would have the unintended consequences of limiting the number of borrowers that could be served by the FHA program because it requires initial premiums to be even higher. And I think that the refund provision would also be very difficult to implement. This is an insurance program. And when you have car insurance, you don't get a refund if you don't have an accident. You might have your rate lowered, which is what was in the former bill. So I think that that is an issue that he talked about that I wanted to clarify. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I would really like to thank Subcommittee Chairwoman Waters for her work on this bill. I am pleased that the FHA modernization bill is moving forward, and I think that the bill that we will vote on today is much improved from the original draft as a result of constructive input from Members from both sides of the aisle. It contains many bipartisan provisions that I support and still contains a few provisions that I do not support. But it is my hope that the provision siphoning money away from the fund will be struck and that true risk-based pricing will be implemented so that FHA can serve the maximum number of borrowers possible. But those arguments have been made and have been rejected by the majority, so it is my sincere hope that we can further improve the bill as it continues to move through the legislative process. As I understand it, the Senate Banking Committee is scheduled to mark up its version of FHA reform tomorrow. So unlike last year, it appears that FHA reform is gaining traction in the Senate, and I hope that we can move this bill beyond the House during this Congress and that the Senate and the administration will work with us to reform this important program. I think American families deserve a 21st-century FHA program to have a safe and secure mortgage product as an alternative to the dangerous products offered by predatory lenders. Qualified American families looking to keep their homes and refinance their bad mortgages, many of which are currently in default, deserve to do so through a modernized FHA. Again, I look forward to our continued work. And I would like to thank Chairman Waters so much. You know, as I leave as ranking member of this subcommittee and go over to the financial institutions, I do with some remorse. I really have enjoyed working with the subcommittee chairman on this committee, and the times that we have spent. I will still be on the committee, but won't have the opportunity to sit together and make some decisions. And I really have enjoyed every minute of it, the trip to New Orleans and Mississippi, as well as working on these bills with her. So I thank you so much. I also thank Chairman Frank. I think he has worked so hard on this committee. I kind of think I will miss it because it certainly has been the most active committee I think in Congress this year. Never did I dream that we would have at least three hearings a week and two markups and all the things that have gone on. But I think you've made great progress in the housing field, and I appreciate both of you for your concern and your passion for housing and making sure that low-income families will be able to meet their American Dream. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Because the FHA is self-funded. It is not funded by the government just putting money into it just so that they can do other mortgages. It is self-funded and it is an insurance program. Now, we haven't been able to use it because it has been so capped in the amount of what they can do.

Mrs. BIGGERT. If the gentleman will yield.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, just because someone is low income does not mean that they have poor credit. I think that is not where they are going to have to pay higher premiums, necessarily. It is inevitable in an insurance fund that lower-risk borrowers will subsidize higher-risk borrowers. Refunds of the nature that is in your bill would undercut the concept of insurance, as I said before, being the equivalent of a healthy person requiring a percent refund of his or her insurance premium, or a driver that does not get into an accident requiring their insurance back. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I think under the bill, H.R. 1752, their premiums are reduced; they are not refunded.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, looking at the two bills, let's look at flexibility risk-based premiums. H.R. 1752 permits upfront or annual premiums or both. Premium rates may vary over loan term if basis for change is determined at origination. Under your bill, the same: requires annual report on risk-based premiums and how they were determined, authorizes premiums based on product risk. The maximum upfront premium amounts, H.R. 1752: 3 percent, or 1.5 percent if annual premium is at its maximum. Under your bill, 2.25 percent for standard-risk and higher-risk mortgages, 3.0 for zero and lower down mortgages for first-time buyers. And then the maximum annual premium amounts in H.R. 1752, 2.0, or 1.0 if upfront premium is at its maximum. Under yours, 0.55 percent for standard and high-risk mortgages, 0.75 for zero down mortgages. And then the limit on premium charged for certain mortgages. If a borrower has 3 percent cash contribution and a score of 560 or more, the upfront premium is limited to 2.25 percent and the annual 0.55 percent. And then, under your bill it is included by creation of the standard-risk and higher-risk mortgage categories. I guess we disagree on this, but I think I want the same thing. I want FHA to be used. I want it to be used for low-income, first-time home buyers and those that are trying to refinance. This is critical right now, and I just think there is some differences in what we have. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, we could have passed this bill 9 months ago, and then we would have added on to it. Unfortunately, this is my opportunity to do it, and this is the bill that I have had. I bring it up now. As I said before, there are good things that have come out in the discussion today; there are some good things that have been added onto the bill that you have brought forward. The reason for bringing this up is I have some real concerns about some of the things that are in there, and this is my opportunity. I don't think that we are penalizing low-income people that much. I know that in the discussion that we had in committee when this came up about no down payment, there are people that can't afford a mortgage with no down payment and can meet the monthly payments, but there was no risk with those people, no premium for FHA to ensure that kind of mortgage. That isn't fair for other people that based on their credit scores are having to pay a premium. I would just disagree. If you are able to always meet those, then the risk should be dependent on what you do, not what somebody else does either. I would agree with that. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this rule governing the consideration of H.R. 1852, the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007. I had hoped that the committee would see the wisdom in providing an open rule to this important legislation; and in the absence of an open rule, that it would at least make in order those amendments that the Members took the time and effort to draft, including one of my own amendments. Unfortunately, only some of the amendments filed with the Rules Committee were made in order. While I'm pleased that some of these amendments made in order are Republican amendments, other amendments which were offered and debated during our committee markup of this bill were not made in order. These amendments deserve to be debated and given a fair hearing. Mr. Speaker, last year FHA's modernization bill, which passed the House by a vote of 415-7, garnered broad bipartisan support. This year's bill does not have that kind of support. I am pleased that the majority has edged closer to last year's bipartisan bill since the introduction of the new bill under consideration today. As I pointed out during our committee hearing and markup on this bill, the bill originally excluded homeowners seeking to refinance from benefiting from a modernized FHA. The bill will now assist more homeowners, perhaps some seeking to refinance a bad subprime loan, but still not as many as last year's bill. I continue to object to provisions that do not fully allow for risk- based pricing. Again, witnesses during our committee hearings said this would result in FHA serving fewer, not more, American borrowers. I also remain opposed to the provision that siphons money away from FHA to fund a brand-new government program, another trust fund, to build more affordable housing. While this is a very important issue, affordable housing, what we need here is to have FHA money to help those that are in trouble, facing foreclosure, or those first-time borrowers who would not be able to find a good mechanism to find a mortgage. During committee deliberations, we were given the opportunity to debate and consider a variety of issues pertaining to this bill. Members on our side of the aisle had hoped that all Members, not just those on the Financial Services Committee, would be given the same opportunity to debate important issues on the House floor. Republicans support many aspects of this bill, H.R. 1852; but I think we all deserve the right to participate in the amendment process, whether as a member of the committee of jurisdiction, or as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Only through an open rule is that possible. For this reason, I rise in opposition to the rule being considered today and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.