Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which will prohibit health insurers and employers from discriminating on the basis of genetic information. As many of my colleagues are aware, this legislation has been around for quite some time. I have been working on for it more than 7 years, and Congresswoman Slaughter has been working on it for more than 12 years. It's been a long road, and there have been many times I thought this day would never come; but it is here. Over this period of time, I have heard stories from my constituents and other individuals across the country about how genetic information was affecting their lives. Quite simply, they are stories of how our laws have failed to keep pace with medical science. A breast cancer survivor in Chicago told me that even though her doctor recommended she undergo a genetic test to see if she had a 60 percent chance of developing ovarian cancer, which was quite common in the type of breast cancer that they had, she refused the test. She said I can't, I will lose my job. It isn't that she didn't want to know; quite the opposite. She desperately wanted to know, but she feared if she had an adverse result from the test, she would lose her job. She is not alone; studies show that 85 percent of Americans fear employers will use genetic information to discriminate. And then there is the woman from Missouri whose sister had suffered from cancer was cautioned by her doctor that undergoing genetic testing would cause her to lose her health insurance. She too chose not to undergo a genetic test. She is not alone; studies show that 84 percent of Americans express concern that health insurance companies would deny coverage based on genetic information. And then there is the man with a family history of PKD, decided to take a genetic test but chose to use an alias and pay cash rather than bill his insurance just to keep the test out of his medical file. And he also is not alone; 26 percent of genetic counselors themselves admit that they would use an alias and 68 percent said they would pay for the test out of their pocket to protect themselves from discrimination. The dean of a prominent university in Massachusetts told me that the fear of genetic discrimination was hindering clinical trials, slowing the development of life-saving techniques. At NIH, fear of genetic discrimination is the most common reason people cite for not participating in clinical trials on breast and colon cancers. Madam Speaker, I have heard these stories over and over again from individuals wanting to know their genetic risk of developing diseases as far ranging as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Tay-Sachs, and PKD. The sad fact is that these individuals are avoiding genetic tests that would empower them with the information that could save their lives. So I want to let all people know that when the House passes GINA today, we will be just one step away, and that would be the signing by the President, from realizing the medical benefits of genetic testing. One step away from ensuring that people will be able to take a genetic test without risking their jobs and health insurance. One step away from ensuring that patients can stop using aliases and paying out of pocket to keep their genetic tests secret. One step away from ensuring that individuals will be able to participate in genetic clinical trials without fear of discrimination. And the last step is the President's signature, and I am happy to say that he is expected to sign this bill. Madam Speaker, it is clear to me that by passing GINA and freeing people from fear of genetic discrimination, we can unlock the tremendous life-saving and cost-saving potential of genetic research. More Americans will participate in genetic clinical trials, and more Americans will use these technologies to improve their health. And with these improvements comes the prospect of dramatically reducing the chronic care costs that cripple our health care system. We now have more than 500 different health advocacy and business organizations supporting this bill. Recent surveys shows that 93 percent of Americans believe that employers and insurers should not be able to use genetic information to discriminate. With numbers like these, it should be no surprise that the House passed this bill last April 420-3, and the Senate passed it last week 95-0, and the President is expected to sign this measure into law. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. And I thank you for being a cosponsor of this legislation and for all your hard work on it. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the bill that is made in order. And I just want to say that I'll be talking in general debate too, but it was so important for me to come down here today to speak during the rule also. When the human genome project was completed in 2003, the House of Representatives recognized it as one of the most significant scientific accomplishments of the past 100 years. For the first time, individuals actually could know their genetic risk of developing diseases such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the list goes on. And knowing that, they could take preventative measures to decrease their risk of getting such a disease. Completion of the human genome project and genetic testing spawned the personalized medicine movement, focusing on catching diseases earlier, when they are cheaper and easier to treat, or, even better, preventing the onset of the disease in the first place. But after investing $3.7 billion in taxpayer money to achieve this breakthrough, Congress walked away and left the job undone. We left people without any assurance that their genetic information wouldn't be used against them. So, understandably, so many avoided this great technology, never realizing the untold health benefits and savings. This concern even spilled over to NIH, the National Institutes of Health, where fear of genetic discrimination is currently the most common reason for not participating in research on potentially lifesaving genetic testing for breast cancer and colon cancer. Fully one-third of those eligible to participate decline to do this for this reason, undermining the development of new treatments and cures. Madam Speaker, today Congress is here to settle some unfinished business and provide Americans the protection against genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment that they need to utilize genetic testing without fear. It's just a great day that we are here now, and it has been a long, long road to this. When you have got three committees of jurisdiction on the House side and various committees on the Senate side, to get all of these committees together to come up with a bill, to craft a bill that everybody can agree on and everybody will benefit by it, it's just a great day. I really came to the floor to speak on the rule at this time, to acknowledge my good friend and colleague, esteemed colleague and a true leader on this issue, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter. As my colleagues may know, and you just heard from Mr. Sessions, Congresswoman Slaughter first introduced a version of this bill in the 104th Congress. For the newest Members of this body, they might not know that was the nineties. In 1995, to be exact. So that Ms. Slaughter introduced this bill at this time, that far back, is a testament to the foresight of my friend from New York. Just think, the human genome project really was 2003. So she's had the background in this scientific area to really have had that foresight for so long ago. That she introduced it, still amazes me, and the hard work. There were a lot of things that we worked out as far as the path through these years. I first joined her I think it was in 2005 when we introduced the bill again and again and again to reach this day. So I really applaud her for her dedication to this cause, and her perseverance. Working with her on this bill has been a real joy, and I value our partnership and the historic legislation that it has produced. I look forward to hand delivering this bill to the White House with her. I think that that will be sooner than later. Let me just say I want to highlight a few things and reasons for why we should pass this rule and why we should pass this bill. Besides the fact that we invested the $3.7 billion in the human genome, the bill is needed to maintain high quality genetic research and clinical trials at NIH. I think we have all emphasized that, that that is so important. They don't have the whole body of people getting into the clinical trials, which will then I think find the cure for these diseases. Ninety-three percent of Americans believe that insurers and employers should not be able to discriminate based on genetic information. This bill passed the House last year 420-3. It passed the Senate last week 95-0. The bill has received three strong SAPs from the administration. And last year, President Bush said, ``I really want to make it clear to the Congress that I hope they pass the legislation that makes genetic discrimination illegal.'' Newt Gingrich, who has been a strong, strong supporter of genetic nondiscrimination said, and I quote, ``To not have this bill is to cripple our ability to save lives.'' This legislation is supported by over 500 organizations, including BIO and AHIP. With that, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), an important member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1079, which recognizes April as National Financial Literacy Month. I am pleased to say that this will be the fifth year in a row that Congress has designated April as Financial Literacy Month, and I would like to thank my good friend and fellow Chair of the House Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus, Mr. Hinojosa, for introducing this resolution and for his continuing efforts to improve financial literacy rates in America. Our caucus, which boasts about 80 members from both sides of the aisle, has been on the front line of this issue for several years, and I think it is fair to say that we have made some genuine progress. Today, 40 States include personal finance in their educational standards. That is up from 31 in 2002. Even more promising, 49 States now include some aspect of economics in the curriculum guidelines. But we have much work ahead of us if we are going to help today's children become tomorrow's smart investors, entrepreneurs and business leaders. The savings rate is still hovering just below zero; 10 million Americans are unbanked; there were 2.2 million foreclosures in 2007; and the front pages of our newspapers across the country proclaim that millions of Americans are losing their homes because they were not ready to be homeowners. Clearly, the need to improve financial literacy of Americans is greater than ever. And this applies to all Americans, not just students and children. From college grads to senior citizens, consumers are being asked to make decisions about increasingly complex financial products. According to the FTC, one-third of borrowers could not even identify the interest rate in a mortgage disclosure form and half could not correctly identify the loan amount. The problem is amplified by complicated legal jargon about balloon payments, rate resets, escrow accounts, prepayments and closing costs. The list goes on and on. That is why I have introduced several bills to help owners find a loan that best meets their budget and needs, steering them away from a situation that could lead to foreclosure down the road. Just last week, I joined Financial Services Ranking Member Bachus and Housing and Community Development Subcommittee Ranking Member Shelley Moore Capito to introduce legislation that would simplify mortgage documents and increase resources for housing counseling. Taken together, these reforms will not only prevent foreclosures, they will help owners to avoid fraud and allow them to easily compare financial products to find the best loan for their families' needs. Mr. Speaker, efforts to stimulate the economy cannot succeed unless we equip Americans with the knowledge and resources they need to succeed in today's sophisticated economic market. Housing is just one of these areas where improved financial literacy will benefit consumers. Americans also need access to the proper tools for saving and investing money. At the start of the 110th Congress, I introduced a bill called the 401 Kids Family Savings Act of 2007. This bill will allow parents and family members to set aside money in a child's account that will accumulate tax-free and can be used for college tuition, a first home, or even retirement, should the money last that long. Not only will this boost savings, it will get kids actively engaged in banking from the time they are old enough to count. This way, they can learn about things like compound interest in the best way imaginable, by watching their own college fund grow. Mr. Speaker, there are so many great ideas for improving financial literacy rates. In fact, over 50 nonprofit community and private sector organizations from across the country came to the Hill yesterday for the annual Financial Literacy Day Fair. On display for policymakers were hundreds of books, programs and resources on how to improve financial literacy in ways that will make a positive impact on people's lives. It was a remarkable success, and I would like to congratulate the National Council on Economic Education, the Jump$tart Coalition, Junior Achievement, and all the other sponsors who worked with Senators Akaka and Enzi to put it together. I would also like to recognize the impressive efforts of Charles Schwab, John Hope Bryant and the other members of the President's new Private Sector Advisory Council on Financial Literacy. It is increasingly clear that teaching financial literacy requires cooperation between the government and industry. This council will help to facilitate that cooperation by making and implementing recommendations for improving on current financial literacy outreach efforts. Mr. Speaker, Americans are a diverse group, but we all share some very basic financial needs. We need to be prepared for tuition costs, a home, health care and retirement. We need a financial cushion against unexpected challenges like the death of a family member. And we need the capital necessary for new entrepreneurs to launch the start-ups and open the small businesses that drive the economy. Every American should have the opportunity and know-how to fulfill each of these goals. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and show that financial literacy remains a top priority for Congress. I would like to once again thank Representative Hinojosa and his staff, especially Greg Davis, for all their hard work on this resolution. I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank and Mr. Bachus, for helping to move this resolution through our committee in a bipartisan way. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2739, which includes the provisions of H.R. 85, a bill called the Energy Technology Transfer Act that I introduced with my Science and Technology Committee colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Miller). The House approved our bill by a vote of 395-1 back in March of last year. And this is so important, Mr. Speaker, that it is now before this House again, and I appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government spends billions every year on energy-related research and development for our universities and national laboratories. The result is often new technologies that exponentially reduce our consumption of energy or encourage the use of alternative fuels and thus reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. But the biggest challenge to realizing these energy savings is getting these technologies out of the laboratory and into the marketplace where they can benefit all energy end users. Whether we're talking about a business owner, a homeowner, a county or local government officials, these energy end users may be hesitant to embrace advanced or alternative technologies with which they are not familiar, have little experience, or which may require new infrastructure. To help energy end users embrace these new technologies, section 917 of the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 2005 directed the Department of Energy to create a geographically dispersed network of energy efficiency technology transfer centers to help in this process. This bill will simply improve that section 917 of EPACT, and instead of creating from scratch these network centers, H.R. 85 authorizes the DOE to provide grants to and partner with existing community outreach networks. These existing networks could include Cooperative Extension Systems--just like what we have seen with the farms--offices, State energy offices, local governments, institutions of higher education, and nonprofit organizations with expertise in energy technologies or outreach. And so instead of limiting these centers to the transfer of energy efficiency technologies, it also expands their mission to include all advanced energy technologies and requires grantees to provide feedback to DOE on the energy research needs identified by these energy end users. I just want to give you one example of what I'm talking about in Chicago and how this program might work. Before expanding their frozen pizza production plant in Illinois, Home Run Inn Pizza consulted with the University of Illinois--Chicago's Energy Resource Center. After conducting an assessment of the plant and its operations, the UIC Energy Resource Center identified nine ways that the Home Run Inn Pizza could reduce their energy consumption and energy costs. Using advanced energy technologies developed as a result of the DOE-funded research, Home Run Inn Pizza could reduce natural gas consumption by 15 percent and electricity consumption by 5 to 6 percent, saving a total of about $15,000 annually. So with the enactment of H.R. 85, the UIC Energy Resource Center and other cooperative extension and community outreach organizations could add capacity and expertise to help many, many companies, building managers, homebuilders and homeowners use the technology to save energy and money. So the bill represents just a small investment in the tech transfer capabilities that we need to help our universities and labs move advanced energy technologies from labs into the market so Americans can enjoy the tangible benefits of our Federal investment in R&D. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Miller from North Carolina, for his strong interest in tech transfer and for being the lead Democrat on this bill. I want to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for recognizing the value of this bill and moving it through the committee, Senators Bingaman and Domenici and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for approving this bill and including it in S. 2739. Finally, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee and the House Republican and Democrat leadership for bringing this package of bills to the floor today and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the Chair of the Financial Institution Subcommittee, for her hard work on this bill, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill and urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, if you are a consumer and you have a complaint or a problem of a financial nature, which regulator are you going to call, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the CFTC, FTC, OFHEO, HUD, Treasury, OTS, NCUA, the SEC? In these challenging times, consumers should not have to have a Ph.D. in finance to quickly and easily get in touch with the appropriate State and Federal banking regulators. Given the complexity of our banking system and the various regulators that work in this area, consumers may not know where to turn when they have a dispute with their institutions. This legislation creates a single hotline that can help steer consumers in the right direction. Federal regulators currently have had an informal system in place to redirect misplaced consumer complaints, and regulators are constantly trying to improve the system. But this bill will ensure that no consumer complaint falls through the cracks. Consumers should not have to make 12 phone calls to find the right regulator. Again, I am pleased that this bill will ensure that consumer complaints are heard and that regulators are responsive. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. I thank the gentleman from California, Mr. McKeon, for facilitating this discussion on the 25th anniversary of President Reagan's A Nation at Risk report and the importance of education to our economic future. I appreciate your leadership on the Education and Labor Committee. I can't think of a more appropriate event than the 25th anniversary of the report, A Nation at Risk, to review our education system and our global competitiveness. I think this report outlined the dire consequences if we as a Nation fail to improve our schools. In the 25 years since that warning, a number of things have changed. But we still face many of the same concerns raised by the report. I remember well when this report came out. In fact, I was president of my local high school board at the time, and I know how devastated we were to find out how badly we were doing. People asked me why I wanted to be on the school board. I wanted to be on the school board because I wanted to make sure that my children got the best education available, and I wanted to work to make sure that that happened. So I was concerned about this. I thought back on my family, and the thing that was always so important to our family was education. In fact, my father told all of us, there were four of us, that education was the most important thing, and if you got a good education, you could do most anything that you wanted. I don't think I would be here if it hadn't been for that. But he also was a very great man, and he said, And I will pay for it. Now when you look back at that time, it wasn't as expensive, and we think of all of our kids and grandchildren in schools now. But my older sister went to medical school, I went to law school and became an attorney, my brother went to law school and became a judge, and my little sister got her master's in Latin and Greek. Now, she doesn't use that too much anymore, but I think the point is that is how important education is and how it remains. I really do worry, because it is at a time now when we have to compete on a global scale. Americans have shown their entrepreneurial skills and leadership, making the U.S. the largest and most robust economy in the world. However, we are seeing that Asia and Europe, our economic competitors, are making significant new investments in their infrastructure and human capital. In a recent report, ``The Gathering Storm,'' in looking at what is happening, this report shows that our competitors' investments are beginning to pay off and they are challenging the U.S. leadership in sciences, no matter how it is measured: By the number of patents, they are having more and more patents they are gaining; articles written in the scientific journals; Nobel Prizes won; percentage of the gross domestic product dedicated to research and development; and even the number of degrees. We all know that our graduate schools have been filled with graduate students who have come from foreign countries. In the past they have been staying in our country. Now we are seeing the brain drain with them leaving. So despite the evidence that science and education is responsible for America's preeminence in so many areas today, the 2000 Hart-Rudman Report on National Security found that ``the U.S. Government has seriously underfunded basic scientific research in recent years. The quality of the U.S. education system too has fallen well below the scores of other nations.'' In fact, in one of the reports, we find that with other countries, we rank number 28, that is 28 under all of these other countries for our educational system. I believe that now, more than any time in our history, we are at a crossroads. The economic prosperity of this country is the product of our well-trained workforce, and if the United States is going to be able to continue as the economic leader and have the creativity and the innovation that we need in technology, we have to ensure that our current and future workers have the tools necessary to compete. There is not a quick fix to this problem, but there is no question that by providing the quality education to the next generation of workers, that we are going to ensure the success of our country, and without a well-trained workforce, we could see employers moving the best jobs to other countries where workers have the skills necessary to perform that work. So we can't allow this to happen. We have the building blocks necessary for the best education system in the world, but when we compare American students to other students, there is no question that there is room for improvement. Just ask the employers in our districts or area colleges and universities where employers are finding it more difficult to find skilled workers and where college students are having to take remedial classes when they go in as freshmen because they are not at the point where they can really do the first level of college education. I think that certainly Congress has recognized the importance of addressing this issue. In 2001, along came No Child Left Behind. Our intention was to address the achievement gap that exists in our country between the disadvantaged children and their more affluent peers by holding the States and schools accountable for the education of all students. This law also gives parents and taxpayers information on the education that their children receive compared to other schools. So I believe that this goal continues to be supported in Congress and in the schools and communities across the country. Now, 7 years after the passage of No Child Left Behind, I think we are now reflecting on where things are working and how we can improve the law. I know, Mr. Chairman, you have spent so much time on this issue, and we have had numerous, numerous hearings in the last few years and this session of Congress, but also in the 109th and the 108th, and always working, and even before that since 2001, to make sure how we can improve the law. But I had thought that we would be reauthorizing this system last year, and, unfortunately, it has been held up. But it has given us time. I remember we had one hearing with 46 people that came in to testify. It was kind of the last hearing before we thought we were going to get this bill out. I think I sat through the whole thing. But also I have and a lot of the other Members have held roundtables in our districts to talk to superintendents, to talk to teachers, to talk to parents, to talk to businesses, to talk to Chambers of Commerce, to talk to students as well, and the community, because that is what it takes to make our schools the best that we can have. So I think that this discussion tonight will demonstrate the need to reauthorize No Child Left Behind sooner rather than later. I guarantee that our international competitors are not waiting for the U.S. to catch up. I think that we need to really proceed, really with the hope that everyone will realize that education is the basis of everything that evolves for our children and our grandchildren to be a success and have a very successful life and really contribute to our country in moving ahead. I would like to thank you for hosting this discussion tonight. With that, I will yield back so some of our other Members have an opportunity.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation and applaud Chairman Waters for her hard work on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I wanted to cosponsor this bill for a very long time, but the bill as introduced had a number of problems for me. But I am pleased to say that they have been resolved, and I want to thank Chairman Frank for offering in the Financial Services Committee a manager's amendment that addressed many of my concerns and allowed me to become a cosponsor and also for the manager's amendment that will be brought up today. So I am pleased to join him and Ranking Member Bachus in offering a manager's amendment today that makes it an even better bill, addressing the most important concerns, including economic conditionality that the administration expressed in its statement of administration policy issued on Monday. Mr. Chairman, over a decade of hard work and determination has produced results for the poorest countries in the world. Poverty has been reduced and living conditions are improving. Today's bill recognizes and builds upon the previous work of this body on debt and development issues, and I hope that this trend will continue. When I served in 2004 and 2005 on the Domestic and International Monetary Policy Subcommittee as the Vice Chair, I was pleased to work with many members of the Financial Services Committee, the administration, and interested organizations to craft legislative language that eventually authorized funding for the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative, or MDRI. MDRI expanded the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, HIPC, Initiative of 1999. In short, this historic, U.S.-led initiative called on the international community to provide up to 100 percent of debt relief and performance-based grants to the world's poorest countries. So Congress has since then appropriated about two-thirds of its financial obligation towards MDRI and HIPC. Unfortunately, I think we fall a little bit short on our commitment, but despite this shortfall, the program is working for 41 of the poorest countries in the world: 22 have graduated from the HIPC program, 10 are on their way, and 9 are beginning the process. So I'm pleased that the bill under consideration today, with both the committee and floor managers' amendments, recognizes these facts and seeks to preserve and build upon the impressive progress made under MDRI and HIPC. So why do we need the Jubilee Act? Well, the fundamental purpose of today's legislation is to establish a plan for ``phase two'' of the U.S. debt relief initiative. And that's what we need. The bill sets out to forgive the debt and issue grants to the next group of the world's poorest countries, 24 in total, which do not currently qualify under HIPC self-sufficiency and sustainable debt initiatives. Importantly, it also seeks to prevent these countries from entering new lending post- relief debt so that they don't squander the economic and social progress achieved through the debt relief. I would like to note that the statement of administration policy on this bill recognizes that debt relief should be tied to economic conditionality to ensure that it will promote economic growth and provide real benefits to the poor. In addition, the bill including the manager's amendment, would ensure that countries eligible for debt relief don't have excessive levels of military expenditures, don't support acts of international terrorism, are cooperating with the U.S. on international narcotics control matters, and are complying with the U.S. standards to eliminate human trafficking and are working with the U.S. to stop illegal immigration to the U.S. I worked really closely with constituents from my district, and I really want to thank Sister Sheila Kinsey, Dan Driscoll-Shaw, Ron Durbin, and my other constituents too numerous to mention here for their guidance, their compassion, and encouragement of this bill. It's an honor to work with them. As I close, I just want to say that the important part of our discussion today is to recognize that the ultimate goal of both ``phase one'' and now ``phase two'' of the U.S. international debt relief and poverty reduction initiatives is to improve the life of the people of impoverished countries around the world, and this is going to happen because of this bill.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bid a fond farewell to a long-time member of my district staff, Pat Salberg. Pat recently retired after 23 years of dedicated service to the people of Illinois' 13th Congressional District. Having served as a caseworker on the staff of my predecessor, Representative Harris Fawell, Pat was kind enough to agree to stay with my office--only temporarily, she said--to aid the transition. That was 10 years ago. It seems her retirement plans just kept getting pushed back by an untiring love of helping others. From seniors with Social Security questions to a homeless mom looking for shelter for her child, Pat never hesitated to go above and beyond to find a solution for those in need. Were you to ask her colleagues about it, they would tell you that her love for others is rivaled only by her love of animals, both cuddly and otherwise. In fact, members of my staff in the district are to this day forbidden from stepping on spiders or other insects that might be roaming around the office. Pat insisted that they be scooped up to safety and set free outside. One time she even tried to save a live lobster that someone had unwittingly given her as a gift. Pat didn't rest until it had been set free in a co-worker's pond. Needless to say, it is little surprise to any of us who know Pat that Pat plans to spend some of her newly acquired free time volunteering at the Brookfield Zoo. I expect she will also spend more time gardening and playing bridge with friends. Madam Speaker, Pat is a wonderful colleague and will always remain a part of our team in the 13th Congressional District. As she turns to new, more leisurely pursuits in life, I would like to wish her good health and great happiness. I know her two daughters, Wendy and Debbie, as well as her grandchildren, Megan, Scott, and Collin, will be glad to have Pat around even more. And I thank them for letting us borrow her for as long as they did. Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Pat Salberg for all she has done for the community and for me. We will miss her dearly.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today as the lead Republican Sponsor of H.R. 5524, the Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act of 2008. I am pleased to join with my good friend Congressman John Yarmuth to introduce this important hill reauthorizing and strengthening programs for runaway and homeless youth programs set to expire this year. Madam Speaker, each year, between one and three million children in the United States find themselves on their own and on the street. Throughout our Nation, local shelters, like Naperville Community Outreach and Aunt Martha's in my district, rely on Federal support to keep these kids safe and off the streets. Congress first enacted the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, RHYA, in 1974 and has regularly reauthorized it to ensure a basic level of support for unaccompanied youth. The Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act does more than reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. It gives children whose lives have been disrupted an opportunity to overcome homelessness and get on track for a successful future. This bill gives needed flexibility to shelters receiving Basic Center Program, BCP, funds, which provide children with emergency short-term shelter while attempts are made at family reunification. It strengthens Transitional Living Programs, TLP, that provide older youth with lite skills, education and employment services to help them become self- sufficient and independent. The bill also strengthens outreach efforts aimed at educating runaways on the services available and preventing youth from running away in the first place. While the bill improves key components of runaway and homeless youth programs, I do have some concerns that I look forward to addressing as the bill moves through the Education and Labor Committee. First, I am concerned that raising minimum small state and territory allotments could adversely affect other States and territories if RHYA funding levels remain flat. Secondly, while I support the intent of more accurate research on runaway and homeless youth, I believe we can find a more cost-effective alternative to the research mandated in this bill. Lastly, I am concerned that the grant appeals process created in the bill attempts to fix a problem that simply does not exist and, in doing so, raises costs associated with administering the program. I very much appreciate the assurances I've been given by the majority and minority on the Education and Labor Committee that we will discuss these and other issues in a bipartisan manner to make a good bill great, and, most importantly, to keep children off the streets.

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 1007 to pay final respects and express the condolences of the House of Representatives for those affected by the devastating shooting incident on the campus of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois on February 14, 2008. On that dark Valentine's Day, five students lost their lives, and 17 others were injured. Those five who were taken from their families are: 20-year-old Gayle Dubowski of Carol Stream, 20-year-old Catalina Garcia of Cicero, 32-year-old Julianna Gehant of Mendota, 19-year-old Ryanne Mace of Carpentersville, and 20-year-old Daniel Parmenter of Westchester. The wounds suffered that day have been deeply felt by those families that lost loved ones, but the entire Nation shares in their pain. Messages of support continue to flow in from across the country and around the world. I would like to take special note of the extraordinary outpouring of kindness and sympathy from the students and faculty of Virginia Tech. Having endured a similar tragedy just last spring, their words of wisdom and perseverance have given strength to many in the NIU community. Our Nation's universities and colleges are places where students begin to embrace adulthood, where they begin to relish a newfound freedom, and where they begin to realize their dreams. For many they are places that offer new beginnings and pathways to brighter futures. To have that cut short for these five young men and women by such a senseless act is almost beyond comprehension. So today we come together to comfort one another and pray that the Northern Illinois University community and our Nation can begin to heal in the aftermath of this unspeakable tragedy. We also come together to support the efforts of America's higher education leaders and administrators to ensure tight security and safe conditions for all students. The recent violence on college campuses has American families concerned. As a Nation we must work to create safe yet accessible facilities and ensure that parents don't have to fear for their children's lives when they send them off to school. If ever there were a place where America's youth should feel safe, it is in institutions of learning. Mr. Speaker, I also believe that we owe sincere and heartfelt gratitude to NIU's administration, the law enforcement officers, faculty and students for the way they have handled the crisis. The strong, coordinated response by campus security reflects long hours of training and undoubtedly saved the lives of potential victims. And the entire DeKalb community, both on and off campus, has shown unity and courage in the face of extraordinary adversity. Simply put, no one can ever be truly prepared to handle a tragedy like this, but the response of the Northern Illinois University family has been a credit to them and to the State of Illinois. So in the spirit of the NIU Husky fight song, let us now move ``forward, together forward,'' and may we all learn from the example of NIU as we tackle future challenges that face our Nation. I ask my colleagues to keep the students and families of NIU in their thoughts and prayers, and I ask for their support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mrs. BIGGERT. We have no further speakers, so with that, Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying, let us keep all of these young people who we mourn in our thoughts and prayers; and let us move forward to find ways to keep our children safe in school and everywhere, that they may fulfill their dreams and continue on with their lives. 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. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1013, expressing the sense of the Congress that providing breakfast in schools through the National School Breakfast Program has a positive impact on classroom performance. The National School Breakfast Program was created in 1966 to help schools serving breakfast to ``nutritionally needy'' children. Made permanent in 1975, the program focuses on those schools where assistance is needed to provide adequate nutrition for students. The School Breakfast Program is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service through State education agencies, in agreement with local school food authorities, in nearly 84,000 schools and institutions. In fiscal year 2006, over 9.7 million children participated in the School Breakfast Program daily. Of those, 7.9 million received their meals for free or at a reduced price. In my home State of Illinois, more than 223,000 students received free and reduced-price breakfasts daily. Public or nonprofit private schools serving K-12 and public or nonprofit private residential child care institutions may participate in the School Breakfast Program. School districts and independent schools that choose to take part in the breakfast program receive cash subsidies from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for each meal they serve. In return, they must serve breakfasts that meet Federal requirements, and they must offer free or reduced breakfasts to eligible children. Many States that have implemented school breakfast programs have seen encouraging outcomes. Maryland has seen an increase in standardized test scores 17 percent above the State average, an 8 percent reduction in tardiness, and a reduction in referrals to the office for discipline by 20 percent. Unfortunately, the problem persists that millions of children go to school hungry each day, even though breakfast is the most important meal of the day. The Federal child nutrition programs can offer a great deal in the promotion of nutrition and wellness, especially in terms of assisting those children most in need. That is why I stand in support of this resolution, encouraging every child to start the school day with a nutritious breakfast in order to learn, grow, and develop to their fullest potential. I ask for my colleagues' support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers. So, if there are none on the other side, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this important legislation. The Andean Trade Preferences program continues to be a vital component of our efforts to promote peace, prosperity and stability in South America, and it should be extended. But, Madam Speaker, listening to the debate today, I was reminded of an old adage that says ``political friendships follow the trade lanes.'' Consider Colombia. The success of this program there demonstrates just how critical trade is to creating friendly and democrat allies in troubled regions. But there is more that we can do and should be doing. We must act quickly to approve the Colombian Free Trade Agreement, not only to meet our international obligations, but to strengthen our economy by boosting U.S. exports to Latin America. Last year alone, my home State of Illinois exported $214 million in merchandise to Colombia, ranking it fourth among the States. More importantly, Illinois exports to Colombia grew 136 percent between 2002 and 2006. These trends are not unique. For all of our economic troubles, U.S. exports continue to drive profits and job growth. According to the Treasury Department's latest economic update, real exports have risen 7.7 percent in just the last four quarters. A free trade agreement will promote even faster growth by giving U.S. exporters duty free access to Colombian markets, the same access that our Colombian exporters already enjoy to the U.S. At the same time, it will strengthen our friendship with a vital ally and provide for stronger protection of the rights of laborers in that region. Madam Speaker, the bill before us today is a good first step. I commend the chairman and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee for their bipartisan efforts, and urge my colleagues to support this bill. But I also ask my colleagues to keep in mind that action today must be followed by action tomorrow. We must work as quickly as possible to pass the Colombian Free Trade Agreement in the coming months.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me. Madam Speaker, I rise today to say good-bye to a good man and a cherished colleague. Chairman Lantos was one of those most respected and distinguished Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and he will be missed. During his 14 terms in this body, he championed the causes of people everywhere who face oppression and cruelty. Through his leadership of both the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Human Rights Caucus, he guided U.S. policy with morality and integrity. As I listened to Ms. Eshoo, she used the same words as I would say of him. He was truly a gentleman, one of those rare breeds of old world statesmen who brings clarity and respect to our national debate. And while he was indeed an accomplished speaker, Chairman Lantos inspired not only by his words but by his own personal story. I think we will all remember him standing here in this Chamber, straight rail posture, and saying ``after you, my dear,'' always the gentleman. From his tragic experiences in the Nazi camps to his rise in Congress, he showed how one truly remarkable individual can overcome the worst sort of tyranny and achieve great things. So to Chairman Lantos's wife and daughters and grandchildren and great grandchildren, I send my thoughts and prayers. We can all take comfort in the fact that he had a full life with a legacy that will never be forgotten.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which will boost economic activity and help strengthen the American housing market. I am pleased that the House and Senate leaders from both sides of the aisle have been able to reach agreement on a well-balanced compromise. I also applaud our colleagues in the Senate for resisting pressure from those who would delay this package with inappropriate changes and unnecessary spending. Hardworking Americans are finding it more and more difficult to provide for their families, and this bill will help to relieve some of the financial strain. And because it is a clean and targeted package, this bill will provide the greater economy with a much-needed jolt of consumer activity. As a member of the Financial Services Committee, I especially appreciate that the Senate preserved the House-passed provisions to increase conforming loan limits for the FHA- and GSE-backed home mortgages. This is a critical change that will help invigorate the housing market and enable prospective homeowners in higher priced markets like Chicago to take advantage of these prime mortgage products. I think this bill is a testimony of what can be accomplished in Washington when Congress and the administration set aside the partisan rhetoric and work together. And I want to urge my colleagues to turn next to comprehensive FHA reform. I think it's great that Chairman Frank has committed to Ranking Member Bachus that we will be working on the FHA reform. So we took the first steps today by increasing the conforming loan limits, but to truly restore the housing sector, we need to give more consumers an alternative to subprime and predatory products. The FHA can provide that alternative but not until the House and Senate conference their respective FHA reform bills. So by sending this legislation to the President, we can help hundreds of thousands of families facing foreclosure qualify for prime rate refinancing so they can keep their homes. Again, I applaud the bill before us as a truly good step toward restoring vigorous economic growth, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on legislation to address our long-term economic challenges.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this important bill and urge its swift passage. I'm pleased that House leaders, both Republican and Democrat, and the administration have been able to come together quickly on a clean, targeted economic stimulus package. The bill promises to relieve the financial strain on hardworking Americans while providing a much-needed boost to the economy and the housing market. Today, I want to highlight a few provisions in the bill produced by the Financial Services Committee. These provisions increase the conforming loan limits for both the Federal Housing Administration and the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And what will this do? It will keep property values from falling further by temporarily permitting Fannie, Freddie and the FHA to help homeowners and buyers finance and refinance mortgages in high-cost areas like the City of Chicago. In short, it will help save the neighborhood. These are important first steps; but as the President indicated last night, there are additional steps that require our full attention in the days to come if we are to reinvigorate the economy. We need to prevent a return of the marriage penalty, the death tax and the alternative minimum tax, along with higher taxes on income dividends and capital gains. We also need to send comprehensive FHA and GSE reform to the President. During the last two Congresses, our committee in the full House has passed bills to modernize the FHA and reform Fannie and Freddie, but these efforts have yet to become law. The latest FHA proposal was even rumored to be part of the stimulus package, but it is not. And that is why I urge my colleagues in the House and Senate to conference these two bills and get a final product to the President immediately. A modernized FHA program will provide insurance so that more struggling American homeowners can refinance their existing mortgages and keep their homes. It will give first-time homebuyers a viable alternative to bad subprime loans. By providing Fannie and Freddie with a world-class regulator, we can infuse the housing market with liquidity so that more financing is available for perspective homeowners. In addition, we need to supply more funding for housing counseling. Counselors can help guide homeowners into a loan that best meets their budgets and needs, steering them away from a situation that could lead to foreclosure down the road. Madam Speaker, it is critical to the housing market and our economy that we finalize GSE and FHA reform and increase housing counseling. Adding liquidity and consumer confidence to the flagging housing market can restore vigorous growth to our economy, and we must do it without delay. And in the near term, I urge my colleagues to support this economic stimulus package as a critical first step.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, this is starting to feel like Ground Hog Day, the same debate over and over. By my count, this is the eighth time that we have debated SCHIP legislation on the House floor in the 110th Congress. Considering that the most recent debate was on the legislation to extend the program through March of 2009, it is hard for me to understand why the majority finds it necessary to hold this vote. This is time and, more importantly, goodwill that could be better spent discussing legislation that both Republicans and Democrats could support. House Republicans have stated repeatedly the principles that we believe necessary to secure our votes on the legislation to reauthorize SCHIP. Those basic principles include covering low-income children first, SCHIP for kids only, SCHIP should not force children out of private health insurance, SCHIP for U.S. citizens only, and the funding should be stable and equitable. As many of my colleagues know, I have been part of a group of Members from both sides of the aisle and from both Chambers who met for months late last year to find common ground on SCHIP legislation. For my colleagues who took part in these meetings, you know very well that the discussions were productive at times and less productive at other times. But despite our disagreements and the bumps in the road, we persisted and continued to meet because we believe that this is one of the most important issues that this Congress will address. While I believe we were making progress, we ran out of time. However, the extension provided by Congress in December gives us another opportunity to do the right thing. It's the majority prerogative to determine when bills come to the floor, but if Democrats are serious about reauthorizing SCHIP, let's sit down and finish what we started last fall and write a bill that both sides can agree to. Partisan posturing is not going to provide relief to the working families and health coverage for kids.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a matter of great urgency. In just a few short days, the legislation that permits our intelligence community to monitor terrorist communications will expire. This law, known as the Protect America Act, is a vital tool used by American agents to quickly intercept and act upon electronic communications between foreign terrorists. Just last summer, we passed this law because Congress recognized that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 was not designed to govern the surveillance of modern telecommunications, the same electronic communications that groups like al Qaeda are using to plan attacks against U.S. citizens. I, for one, still believe that intelligence analysts shouldn't need to consult with lawyers every time a suspected terrorist buys a new disposable cell phone. But unless we act before February 1, that is exactly the kind of legal delay that our intelligence agents will face. So let's abandon the partisan rhetoric and enact a long-term reauthorization of this important law, and let's do so without adding new bureaucratic hurdles or exposing private communication companies to unjustified lawsuits. Our men and women on the front lines deserve every tool we can give them to intercept and interrupt terrorist plots. The American people count on them to keep us safe. Let's pass this law.