Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson). Every year, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or NCMEC, receives funding through the Justice Assistance Account's Missing Children Program. For the past several years, the House has allocated funding in the Missing Children Program to NCMEC; however, in this year's bill, there is no allocation. My amendment carves out of the Missing Children Program $34 million for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Authorized by Congress in section 404 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, the National Center is a true public- private partnership, funded in the current fiscal year by Congress at $26.6 million and augmented by $11 million in private sector donations. Since its inception in 1984, NCMEC has handled more than 2.1 million calls, trained 226,000 professionals, printed and distributed over 42 million publications, worked more than 130,300 missing children's cases, and perhaps most importantly, played a role in the recovery of more than 112,900 children. In fact, NCMEC's total recovery rate is an impressive 96.3 percent. Furthermore, the National Center operates the CyberTipline, the congressionally mandated ``911 for the Internet.'' NCMEC has handled more than 475,000 leads since March 1998. These leads have resulted in hundreds of arrests and prosecutions for such crimes as child pornography, online enticement of children, and sexual molestation. Mr. Chairman, for generations the message was simple. Parents told their children to never talk to strangers. My parents told me, and I told my children. Times have changed. There are more threats to our children, and our message must change with technology. Similarly, the role of the National Center has changed. The Internet opened a new world of child exploitation, and in order to sufficiently protect our children, we must give the National Center the resources it needs to help keep our children safe and at home. I would urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I know that you are committed to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and I know that this will be an important issue discussed at conference, and I understand that you would like me to withdraw this amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Reclaiming my time, I guess I was really concerned because in the past there's always been the definite allocations for these various groups.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Turner-Biggert- Gillmor amendment to increase funding for HUD-approved housing counseling services by $6.76 million, bringing the HUD total housing counseling budget to $48.34 million for fiscal year 2008. As the ranking member of the Financial Services Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee, I want to thank my colleagues from Ohio for their work on this amendment, which is a modest increase in funding that could prevent millions of Americans from losing their homes. I've spent many an hour this year listening to witness after witness testify before our subcommittee and the Financial Services Committee about the current home foreclosure spike. According to data released by the Mortgage Bankers Association, while our country will continue to enjoy record homeownership rates, foreclosures are on the rise and we should expect another 1 million Americans to lose their homes this year. These mortgage foreclosure rates raise eyebrows and call into question what actions can be taken to help homeowners keep their homes. I would like to emphasize the word ``action.'' Almost 2 weeks ago this body passed, by a vote of 411-7, House Resolution 526 sponsored by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings). This resolution called on this body to take action to support home ownership and responsible lending. The resolution directed us to increase opportunities for loan counseling. So what can Congress do to meet this directive today? What is it we should be doing right now to ensure that 650,000 homeowners and those who may follow can keep their homes? One step in the right direction is to support the Turner amendment to increase funding and, therefore, opportunities for housing counseling. It is crucial to promote financial literacy and educate our youth and adults. This is the most direct way of ensuring that consumers understand the terms of their loans so that they may avoid predatory loans and foreclosure altogether. I'm pleased that on June 25, NeighborWorks America and the Ad Council launched a national ad campaign aimed at preventing home foreclosures. Homeowners in trouble can try to save their homes by calling a hotline, 888-995-HOPE, a number provided by the Homeownership Preservation Foundation. In addition, we have about 2,300 HUD-certified housing counseling agencies across the country. Americans should know that they can visit HUD's Web site or call 800-569-4287 to find a HUD-certified counselor in their neighborhood. HUD-certified counselors can give straightforward and free or low-cost advice to potential or existing homeowners about buying a home, refinancing a mortgage or preventing foreclosure. The Turner amendment is one way that we can enhance the ability of our local HUD-certified housing counselors to help our constituents avoid foreclosure and keep their piece of the American Dream. But I think this amendment is good for the economy, good for American homeowners, and I think it's crucial that we act upon it now, where so many people are in these dire straights. I know that there are groups that are in support of this, and one that comes to mind that we just received a letter from is Acorn. So I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 561, recognizing the 20th anniversary of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Since 1987, McKinney-Vento has served as the foundation of a cohesive national strategy against homelessness. In addition to housing, McKinney-Vento includes vital programs that address the nutritional, health care, and educational needs of the less fortunate. As a member of the Education and Labor Committee, I have spent a great deal of time examining the unique obstacles that exist for runaway, homeless, and other disconnected youth, and I have seen first- hand the devastating impact that lost educational opportunities can have on the lives of homeless youth. Unfortunately, for many of these children, school is the only source of stability in their lives. That is why in 2001 I introduced the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Act, a bill that ensures homeless children have access to immediate enrollment without the barriers and red tape that had too often kept them out of school. My view was, and remains, that being without a home should not mean being without an education. I am pleased to report that Congress agreed and we were able to get this bill incorporated into the No Child Left Behind Act, signed into law in 2002. Following the tragic hurricanes of Katrina and Rita, the Education for Homeless Children and Youth programs in NCLB were put to the test and proved crucial to providing much-needed stability and vital services to those in need. Because programs like McKinney-Vento were already in place, the Federal Government was better prepared to meet the educational and social needs of displaced children during a time of national crisis. Perhaps most importantly, this anniversary is an opportunity to call attention to the work that still remains to be done, work like tearing down barriers that prevent unaccompanied homeless youth from attending school. In this spirit, I would like to invite my colleagues to join me in supporting a vital piece of legislation that will do just that, H.R. 601, the FAFSA Fix for Homeless Kids Act. This important bill, which was introduced along with my good friend from Texas, Congressman Hinojosa, will ensure that the doors of higher education remain open for some of our Nation's most vulnerable youth. At no additional cost to taxpayers, this bill simply ensures that unaccompanied homeless youth are not required to submit a parent's financial information to qualify for Federal student aid. While these requirements are logical for most applicants, they create insurmountable barriers for unaccompanied homeless youth who cannot supply these records. As a member of the Financial Services and Education and Labor Committees, I look forward to working with my colleagues on other important policy initiatives like reauthorizing the McKinney-Vento programs under HUD and NCLB. As we move forward on these items in the coming months, we must join together to ensure that addressing the needs of America's homeless remains a top priority. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my good friend and distinguished colleague from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for introducing this resolution and for his dedication to improving the lives of homeless Americans. I would also like to thank Mr. Frank and Mr. Bachus for cosponsoring this resolution and helping to move it through the Financial Services Committee in such a timely and bipartisan way. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 384, congratulating the University of Wyoming's women's basketball team for winning the 2007 NCAA Division I Woman's National Invitational Tournament Championship. On March 31, 2007, the University of Wyoming Cowgirls basketball team defeated the University of Wisconsin by a score of 72-56 to capture the NIT title and conclude their most successful season in school history. Led by junior Hanna Zaveckz, the tournament MVP, and junior Jodi Bolerjack, who scored 16 points in the championship game, the Cowgirls of Wyoming truly had a remarkable season in which they compiled a record of 27-9, finishing second in the Mountain West Conference. The tournament title capped what ended up being the most successful season ever for the Cowgirls basketball team in school history. No Wyoming Cowgirls team had won as many games. The previous record was set by the 1978-79 team, which finished at 25-7, and no team ever advanced so far in postseason play. As the State's sole 4-year educational institution, the University of Wyoming receives strong support from the State and its residents, making it the perfect place for a great learning environment. The university was recently ranked by the Princeton Review as one of the Nation's best colleges for 2006, and the College of Business Department of Economics and Finance was also ranked 10th in the Nation and 12th in the world for its program in resource and environmental economics. I extend my congratulations to head coach Joe Legerski, athletic director Tom Berman, president Tom Buchanan, all of the hard-working players, the fans and to the University of Wyoming. I'm happy to join my good friend and colleague Representative Cubin in honoring this exceptional team and all the accomplishments, and wish all involved continued success. I join with my colleague from the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Sarbanes, in support of this resolution.064 I have no further speakers and would yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Porter, the gentleman from Nevada, be allowed to control the time on this side of the aisle.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would like to, first of all, thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires) for his work on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2547, the FDIC Enforcement Enhancement Act. In May I was pleased to join my colleague, Congressman Sires, in introducing this bill which gives the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation new tools to protect our constituents from financial scam artists. After the great stock market crash in 1929 and the numerous bank closures during the Great Depression, Congress passed, in 1933, the Glass-Steagall Act, which created the FDIC. Congress created this independent Federal agency and charged it with a most important mission: To instill and maintain ``the stability and the public's confidence in the Nation's financial system.'' For over 70 years, the FDIC has worked to meet its mission. The FDIC's name, seal, abbreviation, and other indicators are well known, and they are symbols that the public uses to identify a financial institution or a product as being legitimate, federally insured, sound, and supervised. These are easily identifiable FDIC symbols and they can be found in a range of places, from the bank teller's window to a financial institution's Web site. Unfortunately, over the years, criminals have taken advantage of the public's confidence in the FDIC name and used it for malicious purposes. Criminals have fraudulently used the FDIC's name to deceive consumers, most often the elderly, into saving or investing their money in a criminal's illegitimate product offered by a criminal's illegitimate financial institution. For example, some of you may have received or known individuals who have received e-mails from these scam artists. The e-mails, that are actually from criminals, claim to be from the FDIC and request that the e-mail recipient provide highly sensitive, on-line banking information. However, the e-mails are fraudulent and not from the FDIC. Current law prohibits this criminal activity, but H.R. 2547 strengthens the FDIC's enforcement powers so that it can take immediate action against criminals that are fraudulently hiding behind the good name of the FDIC and to immediately stop such criminal activity so that the consumer's money doesn't disappear. The act allows the FDIC to enter cease and desist orders against this conduct and impose fines up to $1 million per day on any person who falsely represents the nature of the product offered or the FDIC's insurance coverage available. In addition, the proposed legislation would clarify the FDIC's authority to seek injunctive relief against such person under the rules of any Federal, State or foreign court of competent jurisdiction. The language of this act is similar or is identical to the act of 2005, the Financial Service Regulatory Relief, section 615, which the Committee on Financial Services approved by a vote of 67-0 in November of 2005. The House has approved this bill by a voice vote. So I would urge my colleagues to again support the language and vote for today's bill. This bill gives the FDIC the ability to help prevent our constituents from becoming victims of financial scam artists and, like Glass-Steagall, aims to give our constituents confidence in the Nation's financial system. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. In closing, I would again like to thank the subcommittee chairwoman, Ms. Waters, Chairman Frank and Mr. Shays for introducing and working on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, which received a 52-9 vote coming out of our committee. The bill we will vote on today is a good bill. It is the result of bipartisan cooperation. It contains many provisions more than in last year's bill that help families dependent upon public assistance become families that are independent and self-sufficient tax-paying productive members of society. It's my sincere hope that we can further improve the bill, especially the sections involving the funding formula. I thank the chairman for agreeing to work with me on this. I truly 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. America's families and American children deserve a 21st-century section 8 program. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), a member of the committee.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentlewoman, and I would like to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Frank at this time. Chairman Frank, as you may recall, the section 8 funding formula was changed through provisions in the continuing resolution. I did not support these changes because they did cut about 1,500 public housing authority slots in three counties in my congressional district. And as Chairman Frank can verify, I have on several occasions offered amendments to change this. I am pleased that the manager's amendment includes a provision which addresses this problem. While I am pleased that we can take productive steps towards addressing the shortcomings, I believe we can do more as we move on, and it is my understanding that members of the Appropriations Committee have included a similar provision in the fiscal year 2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Appropriations bill. Would the chairman consider supporting this?

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), a member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Again, I thank the chairman; and thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Again, I thank the gentleman. In addition, I would like to ask the chairman to consider other measures to assist PHAs in the transition period and in the subsequent years. For example, I would like the chairman to consider a so-called hold-harmless provision attached to the new section 8 formula. The provision would provide PHAs with an assurance that they would not lose more than a certain percentage of funds in any given year due to the utilization rates in the previous years. The reasons for this are many, but at the heart of the matter is the simple fact that the so-called excess in funds that many PHAs were caught with when the new formula was dropped into the CR were not in fact excess at all but the result of deliberate choices, court-ordered requirements or special set-aside categories of vouchers. The PHAs should not be losing all of these vouchers in the first year. The percentage could range from perhaps 10 to 25 percent. And again, PHAs deserve stability and predictability in funding. Would the chairman work with me to craft a hold-harmless provision to include in this bill or the appropriations bill?

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman. Again regarding the rebenchmarking, both the current formula and the one in this bill would base a PHA's annual funding level on a ``snapshot'' of the PHA's use of funds from the previous 12 months. However, I continue to be concerned that his annual benchmarking is unworkable when coupled with the congressional budget cycle. For this reason, I hope we can continue to work together as we move forward to address the continued shortcomings of this formula. PHAs have always stated and continue to argue that their main concern is to have predictability and certainty in funding so they can plan both voucher utilization and staffing. I know they would appreciate more predictability. If the snapshot and the rebenchmarking were done every other year, would the chairman continue to explore with me the benefits of a biennial versus annual rebenchmarking?

Mr. BIGGERT

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

Mrs. BIGGERT

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman from Ohio is unable to get here in the length of time needed, so I would just say that we support the amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in reluctant opposition to this rule governing the consideration of H.R. 1851. I had hoped that the committee would see the wisdom in providing an important open rule on this important legislation; and in the absence of an open rule, that it would at least make in order those amendments that Members took the time and effort to draft. Unfortunately, of the 23 amendments filed with the Rules Committee, only six were made in order. While I'm pleased that the majority of those amendments are Republican amendments, the other Republican and Democratic amendments deserved to be debated and given a full and fair hearing. Section 8 vouchers are tenant-based as well as project-based subsidies that low-income families use in the private market to lower their rental cost to 30 percent of their incomes. The program has grown to replace public housing as the primary tool for subsidizing the housing costs of low-income families. Through this program, HUD provides portable subsidies to individuals, tenant-based, who are seeking rental housing from qualified and approved owners, and provide subsidies to private property owners who set aside some or all of their units for low-income families. This is project-based. The section 8 program began in 1974 primarily as a project-based rental assistance program. However, in the mid-1980s project-based assistance came under criticism for being too costly and for concentrating poor families in high-poverty areas. Consequently, in 1983, Congress stopped providing new project-based section 8 contracts and created vouchers as a new form of assistance. Mr. Speaker, this bill reflects a bipartisan effort led by Chairman Frank, Chairwoman Waters and Republican members of the committee. In fact, this bill enjoyed substantial Republican support in the Financial Services Committee. I am an original cosponsor, along with Mr. Shays. During committee deliberation, 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 to be given the same opportunity to debate important issues on the House floor. For example, the amendment filed by my colleagues, Mr. Price, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, Mrs. Capito and Mr. Campbell, requiring proper documentation when seeking section 8 Federal assistance was not made in order. This is an important amendment, and I would have hoped we would have the opportunity to debate that issue fully. There were other amendments filed my by colleagues, Congressmen Chabot, King and Wicker, that I think deserve to be considered by the full House. These Members do not serve on the Financial Services Committee and should have been given the chance to offer amendments crucial to their constituents and districts. Republicans support many aspects of H.R. 1851, but we all deserve the right to participate in the amendment process, whether as members 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, as a supporter of this legislation, I rise in reluctant opposition to the rule.