Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentlelady for bringing up the tax issue. I am reminded of the words of Ben Franklin: ``In this world, nothing is certain but death and taxes.'' We certainly have to think that the President's recent budget proposals essentially, and unfortunately for American families and small businesses, can bring a certainty to the latter, and that is taxes, and increased taxes to be specific. I appreciate you bringing that up. I have another letter from one of my constituents, Rich. He says, ``The current budget proposal is a path to nowhere, in my opinion. It will lead to a tax increase for all Americans. There should not be a carbon tax on businesses. All that will do is raise prices and cut jobs. Instead, put an incentive for businesses to lower energy. Also, why increase capital gains taxes at this time, or at any time. All that does is force businesses to go elsewhere. We need to keep the taxes where they are or lower for businesses. We need to encourage companies and people to invest in the U.S. The net effect is more profit which leads to more tax revenue for the country. Just taxing the rich doesn't work.'' And I thank Rich for that letter. Let me talk about a couple of other taxes because I think the important financial task before Congress right now is fostering economic growth. Number one is keeping taxes on families down; and number two is helping American business stay competitive; and three, eliminate wasteful spending in Washington. In one of my former lives I was a probate lawyer and estate lawyer. I frequently witnessed the devastating effect that the estate tax or death tax had on family-owned farms and businesses. I think that we did put a limit on that. We changed it. Since 2001, Congress passed a 10- year tax cut package that included a provision that would slowly phase out the death tax and eliminate it all together in 2010. However, the administration budget proposes that we continue to tax, to use the estate tax at 2009 levels instead of what we should be doing and permanently zeroing out this onerous tax, this double tax. So instead of 2010 when it would have been eliminated permanently, if this passes, and you have to remember the President proposes and the Congress disposes. But if it were to happen, we would continue with a tax that taxes about 3.5 million at a 45 percent rate. That's a little lower than it has been in the past sometimes. The only good thing about it is it does bring back the step up. During these uncertain times and turbulent times, I don't think that it is time to place another tax burden on families and small businesses. It is certainly time to cut taxes and encourage businesses and families so they will be able to create jobs. One other tax that really concerns me is the budget proposes to limit deductions for charitable contributions, and we know how much contributions have meant for this country from the time of early on in the country with all of the things that so many of these famous families did, like the Rockefellers or the Carnegies. Each year many people give contributions to charities and nonprofits. Why should we discourage this in any way, especially right now. So many people benefit from so many charities like, Catholic Charities or the Jewish Federation and all of the small charities. So I strongly believe in charitable giving and have supported many bills to encourage it instead of asking the Federal Government to do it, and that is like bringing back much more big government. So I will continue to support tax policies that encourage charitable giving. Regarding homeownership, here we have been dealing with families and foreclosure rates and what is happening. And now the budget proposal is to limit the mortgage interest deduction. This is a direct hit to family budgets and discourages homeownership at a time when we need to encourage homeownership. It is limited. Again, it is to the higher rate taxpayer. But this again is going to trickle-down with what it does with homeownership. We need to make homeownership more affordable. Homeowners may currently deduct the interest paid on mortgages from their interest tax liability. So millions of homeowners enjoy the benefits of this deduction which does encourage homeownership through an annual tax savings. Although general support for this tax remains strong, I think it is irresponsible to slash this benefit. I support tax policies and now will yield to another one of my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) who is here to address some of the women's issues and how we approach the budget that we are looking at.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, who has been such an outstanding spokesman for, I think, the women on our side of the aisle, and I appreciate all that she has had to say. Let me just kind of return to kind of the thought that I had when we started this Special Order. I think that we really do still have to recognize that the American people are hurting. It doesn't matter if they are low income, middle income, or high income. We have to call attention to our economy and the fiscal discipline that we need to implement to get this country back on the right track. Not only are our people suffering but our country is suffering and so is the international economy, and I think that we really need to work together. As I said before, we want the President and the administration to succeed. We need to find the solution to the problems that we face in this country and our economy, and I think that we stand here ready and willing to help. But we have to do it right. We have to make it happen. And I think that's when we'll all work together, and I would hope that there would be some sort of a summit where we really focus. I think that we are spread out in this first 6 weeks, 7 weeks of an administration in what has been happening in health care and the economy and education and energy and sciences and all the things that we are trying to do at once. I think we need to focus that energy on solving the problems of the economy.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee. You have done so much in bringing out all of this to our attention. And I really appreciate it. I would like to just read a paragraph from one of my constituents, a woman in the district named April. And she said, ``First, thank you for voting against the stimulus package at the beginning of February. As an independent, I am disturbed by what has happened in Washington these past few weeks. I am urging you and Members of Congress to exercise restraint when examining the President's budget and any other stimulus packages. Eliminate wasteful spending. The American people are mindful these days of their own budgets at home, and so should the Federal Government. ``In addition, what happened to the President's and other Members' promise that they would eliminate earmarks? It seems like Washington needs some management. Thank you for your time.'' And with that, I would like to call on my good friend from Florida, Ginny Brown-Waite.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to call attention to our economy and the fiscal discipline we need to implement to get our country back on the right path. Right now, the American people are hurting; and Republicans want to work with the President to get the American people back to work. We want to get the economy going again. But we do know, and the American people know, we cannot tax, spend, and borrow our way back to a healthy economy. So we really want to be included in the opportunity to solve our problems, and this is a huge problem. Just a couple of days ago, there was a summit held at the White House on health care, and they had Members of Congress, they had experts in the health field come together to look at how we are going to solve this problem. The economy right now is the hugest problem that we have. Why aren't we working together and really coming together to solve this problem? We have so much expertise in this Congress. We have economists, we have people in the industry. We really should be sitting down to solve the problem, rather than going back and forth and arguing on the House floor, because our country and the international economy is suffering. And it is not the first time nor the last. We have seen crisis like this before and we have pulled through. So I am optimistic that we can get together and really work to solve the problem. And look what happened on 9/11. We came together. We came together as a Congress, united to face that problem and to face that challenge, and to find the solutions and how we were going to deal with it. This is another problem. Not maybe as quite the magnitude; maybe it is, but we need to get together and really work together. We face the largest economic decline since World War II, along with unprecedented domestic unemployment. February's numbers show that there was 8.1 percent unemployment. And we face unprecedented foreclosures, facing about one in nine families right now. It is time for us to unite again as leaders and pull through once more. I wish that the administration would convene this bipartisan, bicameral summit to focus all of our energy on solving economic problems. We want to solve health care, we want to solve energy, we want to solve climate change. We want to do all of these things. We want to solve education. But I think all of that energy really needs to be brought to one force to come back and address the economic situation. We should be focusing on saving and spending plans that put America on a path to responsibility and long-term success. With TARP money of $700 billion, a housing bill that was $300 billion, with the recent passage of the $825 stimulus package, and with the Federal Reserve putting so much money into some areas, and a pending $410 billion appropriation bill, I have to say that my constituents are upset. They are upset because the spending appears to be recklessly out of control, with no accountability or direction. And, unfortunately, with the recent release of the administration's budget for fiscal year 2010, we continue down this heavy spending path. And while we only know the basics of the budget proposal, it certainly has been a mixed bag. So tonight we are here, and we want to address the concerns in the budget. There are the good, the bad, and what we call the ugly. I have a little chart here that addresses the President's 2010 budget. As I said, we have got the good, the bad, and the ugly. We acknowledge that there is an entitlement crisis, that there is a budget fix for the AMT. We are looking at the Medicaid part D. With the bad, there is an increase in spending of $3.9 trillion in 2009. It increases nondefense appropriations by 9.3 percent. The war funding is a gimmick. The ugly, a $1.4 trillion tax increase in a recession, $1 trillion entitlement expansion, in the 2009 deficit, $1.8 trillion. And we double the debt. These are the things that we are going to be discussing tonight, and I am glad to have my colleagues here to participate. I would like to call on the gentlelady from Tennessee for her comments right now, Marsha Blackburn.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on my Special Order.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentlelady from Wyoming. Thank you for your expertise on this issue. I think that you've really been able to bring new thoughts on this and really put it very succinctly in what's happening in this. And next we have to deal with nuclear energy, too, and really continue to build that up. So I thank you for doing that. And next we have the gentlelady from North Carolina, who you see on the floor a lot. She provides us with so much knowledge, the gentlelady from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill and to express my sincere disappointment in the way it has come to the floor. Yesterday, I brought to the Rules Committee two simple, straightforward amendments that would have made this a much better bill. They would have ensured that taxpayers are protected from others making unfair profits on their dime. They would also prevent flippers, speculators, illegals and criminals from taking advantage of a program that should be aimed at worthy borrowers who are struggling to keep their homes. The first amendment I offered required that taxpayer-funded mortgage assistance not go to those who misstated their income to get a mortgage, aren't even living in the residence, were convicted of financial fraud, or aren't in the country legally and permanently. The second amendment is that taxpayers get paid back first. It required that those who profit from selling a property that benefited from taxpayer support pay back some of the money through an added capital gains tax. Why should the 93 to 95 percent of Americans who are paying their mortgages on time have to foot the bill for others to make a profit on their real estate? It's not fair to my constituents who acted responsibly, have worked hard, saved, and took loans they knew that they could afford. Mr. Chair, these sound to me like principles that we can all agree on, and yet the majority in the Rules Committee has refused to allow Members of the full House to vote on these commonsense amendments. I don't think that's what the American people want, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the lead Republican cosponsor of the America Saves Week resolution, and urge my colleagues to support it. I'd like to thank my good friend and fellow Chair of the House Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus, Congressman Hinojosa, for sponsoring this important resolution and for all the work that he has done on financial literacy. In addition, I'd like to join Congressman Hinojosa in honoring and thanking the late Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, who previously sponsored the resolution in the House and was a strong advocate for financial literacy throughout her career. She was a dear friend and will be remembered always. Mr. Speaker, in our current economic climate, the need to improve the financial literacy and the financial security of Americans is greater than ever. Now more than ever, it is clear that promoting savings is critical to ensuring that families have the economic buffer they need to weather periods of economic hardship. And efforts to stimulate the economy cannot succeed unless we equip Americans with the knowledge and resources they need to thrive in today's sophisticated market. This resolution emphasizes the importance of savings and achieving financial security. Less than half the population has a savings account, 1 month of savings or liquid assets, let alone the recommended 6 to 12 months of savings to have on hand in case of unforeseen events such as a medical issue or job loss. There are no rainy day things that people have today. In conjunction with America Saves Week, this resolution encourages Americans to plan ahead for such unexpected events and grow wealth, not debt. Controlling expenses and increasing savings each month will prove to be invaluable in improving the financial security of Americans. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution and encourage savings during America Saves Week and throughout the year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would also like to thank Greg Davis of Mr. Hinojosa's staff and Andrea Pivarundas from my staff, as well as Nicole Austin, for their work on this resolution. I would also like to thank Dallas Salisbury of EBRI and all of the other individuals and groups promoting savings in America. Particularly, I would like to thank Chairman Hinojosa for all the work that he has done on this issue. I have enjoyed working with him. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference report to H.R. 1, the so-called economic stimulus package. Congressional Democrats crafted this bill behind closed doors and only released all the details to us at midnight last night. Their plan makes a bad bill worse by reducing tax relief for working families in order to fund more wasteful spending. Our economy needs a shot of adrenaline, not a load of long-term pet projects. I believe we need to act now; but we must get it right. Much of this spending is for worthy projects, but they're not stimulative and should go through the regular appropriations process. I joined my Republican colleagues and proposed a plan that focuses on letting individuals, families, and small businesses keep more of their hard-earned money through tax relief. It would create 6.2 million jobs at half the cost, and that's using the Obama Administration's own statistical models. Only 18 percent of conference report is dedicated to lowering federal income taxes. In fact, it provides for even less tax relief than the original House-passed bill. Infrastructure spending, similarly comprises only 17 percent of the discretionary spending in this package--down from $1 billion in the original House bill. Shovel-ready infrastructure projects and individual tax relief for small businesses should be part of our efforts to boost the economy. But that doesn't mean Congress should use this crisis as an excuse to spend hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars on 33 new programs that won't have any economic impact in the near-term.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to mourn the passing of a dear friend, Raymond M. Fitzgerald. Although he lived in my congressional district in Naperville, Illinois, I got to know him best during his time here in Washington. He began his career as a legislative aid for our former Governor. He went on to work on the staff of the House Science and Technology Committee and as a legislative director to my good friend from Illinois, John Shimkus. I know that today there are many still working here in Congress who knew him well and miss him as I do. Just a few years ago, Ray moved to Naperville with his wife Kristen to raise their three beautiful daughters, Nora, Maggie, and Lucy. But having taken a job in government relations for a major company in my district, he made regular trips back here to see all his good friends and colleagues. Mr. Speaker, Ray was a wonderful human being with a positive attitude and great talent for public service and science policy. He was always full of life and cheer. And in the short 37 years that he was with us before succumbing to cancer, he built a lasting legacy of friends, family, and professional success. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record the Chicago Tribune article about Ray's life. [From the Chicago Tribune, Jan. 26, 2009] Raymond M. Fitzgerald, 1971-2009: Navistar Lobbyist (By Joan Giangrasse Kates) You could take a South Sider and move him to Washington, but in the case of Raymond M. Fitzgerald, you couldn't take the South Side out of the man. The youngest of six children and only son of a Chicago fireman, Mr. Fitzgerald carried with him the values of faith, family and friends when he moved in 1994 to Capitol Hill to serve as a legislative aide for five years to then-Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar. He later worked for a year as a member of the staff on the House Science and Technology Committee. From 2000 to 2005, Mr. Fitzgerald served as the legislative director to U.S. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), who quickly took note of the quintessential South Sider's authenticity and unflappability. ``From the start, Ray was as honest and straightforward as they come,'' said Shimkus, from Downstate Collinsville. ``He never lost his cool, and in our business, people respect that.'' For four years, Mr. Fitzgerald worked in the Warrenville offices of commercial trucks and engines giant Navistar Inc., using his vast knowledge in the field of energy issues and technologies and making frequent trips to Washington. Mr. Fitzgerald, 37, of Naperville, a former director of legislative affairs and government relations for Navistar, died Wednesday, Jan. 21, in Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, after a nine-month battle with stomach cancer. ``He had the respect of so many in Washington,'' said Tim Touhy, Navistar's director of corporate communications. ``He knew a great deal about energy, and he knew his way around policymaking.'' But perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald's biggest coup in Washington wasn't a piece of legislation, but scoring a visit to the White House when his beloved White Sox met President George Bush after winning the 2005 World Series. ``He was all smiles that day standing there next to his team,'' said longtime friend Paul Doucette. Born in Evergreen Park and raised on the South Side, Mr. Fitzgerald was a graduate of Brother Rice High School in Chicago. He received a bachelor's degree in economics and political science from Northern Illinois University. In 2001, Mr. Fitzgerald married his wife, Kristin. He moved with his family to Naperville in 2005 after accepting a job with Navistar. In addition to his wife, other survivors include three daughters, Nora, Maggie and Lucy; his mother, Kaye; and five sisters, Colleen Zientek, Mary O'Donnell, Debbie Noll, Linda Trinley and Maureen Harkala. Mass will be said at 10 a.m. Monday in St. Thomas More Catholic Church, 2825 W. 81st St., Chicago. Mr. Speaker, finally I'd like to offer my sincerest sympathies to Ray Fitzgerald's family, especially his wife, Kristen, his daughters, mother, and five loving sisters who grew up with him in Chicago's south side. They will all remain in our thoughts and prayers.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the talented young men and women of the Carl Sandburg High School Marching Eagles who recently traveled from Orland Park, Illinois, to play in President Barack Obama's inaugural parade. I have seen these talented performers entertain the crowds back home, and I knew that they would make us proud. And they did. With expert precision and harmony borne of tireless practice, the Eagles marched down Pennsylvania Avenue, putting on an impressive show for the whole world to see. I was especially entertained to learn that when they passed before our new President and First Lady, they played a song to remind the two of home, ``Chicago.'' Over 150 students came down from Illinois for this historic event, along with many school faculty, volunteer chaperones, family members and friends. In reality, though, the whole community was with them in spirit, having come together throughout the past months for bake sales and donation drives in support of the band's trip to Washington. This was an extra-special event for all of Orland and the surrounding communities. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer the band members from Carl Sandburg High my sincere congratulations on a job well done. And I would like to thank all the volunteers and staff who worked so hard to make this event a reality. This was one performance that will certainly have a place in the history books.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 1, the so-called ``economic stimulus package.'' At a time of record unemployment, deficits and foreclosures, I believe that we can't do nothing. I believe it is our duty to act swiftly and responsibly to jump-start our ailing economy, and that is why we should be enabling families, entrepreneurs, small businesses and job seekers to keep more of what they earn through fast-acting tax relief, not new wasteful government spending on numerous programs that hold little potential for economic stimulus. Today, Congress should be considering increased deductions for individuals and small businesses, and tax-free unemployment benefits to help individuals get back on their feet and provide for their families. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the bill before us today misses the mark. It contains at least $132 billion in new programs and spending that will not create jobs in the immediate future. In fact, a report issued on Monday by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that enacting H.R. 1 would increase budget deficits by $816 billion. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the bill before us today.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank my colleague from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for yielding me the time, and I also thank her for introducing this resolution of disapproval. This resolution reflects the sentiments of my constituents in Illinois regarding TARP. Simply put, they don't believe that their money has been spent wisely and neither do I. When Congress passed the financial rescue package, it was to stave off an immediate and dire threat to our entire economy. But before the taxpayers are asked to spend another $350 billion, shouldn't we examine where the money has gone? Shouldn't we be satisfied that the funds are being used as intended, to get credit flowing again, not just to financial institutions but to consumers and small businesses? Now the money is being used to bail out auto companies, but it's still not getting to the homeowners in my district struggling with foreclosure. Treasury needs to provide much greater transparency and show us where the American taxpayers' money is going before requesting more. I don't believe that's too much to ask. In recent remarks Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability Neel Kashkari said, ``Treasury has been working with banking regulators to design a program to measure the lending activities of banks that have received TARP capital.'' He also said they ``plan'' to study changes in how TARP recipients are altering their bank balance sheets and refinancing activities. Unfortunately, we have yet to see this plan executed. Why would the American taxpayer choose to write another check when the Treasury Department has yet to establish any kind of tracking mechanism to determine where the last $350 billion has gone? In addition, neither Treasury nor Wall Street has demonstrated an immediate need for the second round of funds. I will continue to support the amendments of my colleague Mr. LaTourette of Ohio to bring more transparency and accountability to the TARP program. And I commend Chairman Frank for his efforts on that front as well. Unfortunately, for the American taxpayer, the Senate has given no indication that it will pass such legislation. I would also like to add that our committee, the Committee on Financial Services, needs to hold more oversight hearings regarding this program. Why have the financial executives never been asked to testify before our committee about their use of TARP funds? Many House Republicans have asked for this hearing, and it has yet to happen. Where is the oversight? I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to ensure that taxpayers aren't simply throwing good money after bad.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the chairman, I know that there have been a couple of oversight hearings. The problem is that even in those hearings, we never got any answers. We still don't know where the money has gone. We haven't had any answers. And I think that not being able to have the executives come and testify, then I think we should have postponed TARP until we really got those answers.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Sessions, for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the rule. Madam Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, I am a strong supporter of SCHIP and worked for many months during the previous Congress to bring Republicans and Democrats, both House and Senate Members, together to work out a compromise, bipartisan bill that would expand the program of SCHIP responsibly while ensuring that poor American children remain a top priority in all States. I know that I am not alone in supporting a renewal and expansion of this important program to serve more low-income children, and I know that Members on both sides of the aisle believe that SCHIP should cover our most vulnerable children first. These children are in families 200 percent or lower of the poverty level. So last night I went to the Rules Committee with an amendment that would do just that, put poor children first, cosponsored by a number of my colleagues, and would do three things. First, it would require States to collect data on their success in covering these low-income children. Second, it requires that all States draft and implement a plan that works towards reducing the uninsured rate among low-income children. I would ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to approve these plans if they are reasonable. Finally, I would ask States to reduce to 10 percent or less the uninsured rate among children and families, 200 percent and below the poverty level. Until States have met this 90 percent coverage goal, they would be prohibited from using SCHIP funds to provide benefits to newer populations at higher level incomes. This is a commonsense way that we can ensure that States are using taxpayer dollars wisely and getting health care to the kids that need it most.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, on Monday it was with reluctance that I voted to oppose the earlier version of this bill. I did so not because I believed there was no urgent need to act. On the contrary, I believed we had to act quickly, but we had to do it right. I've fought hard to present alternatives and add taxpayer protections. Working with some great colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we offered options that ranged from insuring instead of buying mortgage-backed securities, to tightening the language on possible losses to the Treasury, to injecting capital through tax cuts for repatriation of foreign earnings and more. Working with Mr. LaTourette, we even attempted to limit the initial outlay to $250 billion so that Congress could come back in a month and reassess the need for the remainder of the $700 billion. Over the last few days, we've made more progress. The FDIC is raising its insurance limit to protect people's savings. The SEC is revising its mark-to-market accounting guidelines, and we have included middle class tax relief. But there still are many changes I would like to see. Unfortunately, the volatility in the market is threatening the financial security of my constituents and millions of American families, small businesses, and retirees. Make no mistake: the latest compromise is not the best package. It's the package that can move through Congress in time to protect the economy from lasting damage. With the clock ticking, credit markets seizing up, and the market swinging wildly, it is clear that the time for seeking better options has run out. I'm glad we held out for the taxpayer protections that we got. But if we don't act now, those who are least to blame for this mess will suffer the most. So it is with reluctance that I support this bill today and urge my colleagues to do the same. Our work is by no means complete. I look forward to revisiting the issue as Congress monitors the program to ensure that we minimize risks and that the taxpayers see a return on this investment.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, it is also our committee's understanding that the legislation before us allows families and youth who meet other Federal programs' definitions of homelessness and have experienced instability as experienced by frequent moves to be considered homeless for HUD's purposes. Am I correct in understanding that the intent of this provision is to ensure that the full measures of challenges facing homeless families and unaccompanied youth are addressed, including programs related to changes of school and educational progress that can be caused by frequent moves?

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Geoff Davis, who has worked so hard on this issue.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, by including language that acknowledges the various definitions of homelessness in other Federal statutes, is it the committee's intention that HUD's homeless assistance programs should consider information provided by these Federal programs in determining eligibility under this section and that HUD-funded homeless providers should be encouraged to engage with homeless providers receiving funds from other Federal agencies to utilize their assessments and counsel in making eligibility requirements?

Mrs. BIGGERT. I have no other speakers, but I would yield myself such time as I may consume to close. I spoke earlier a little bit about my friend and constituent Diane Nilan of Naperville, Illinois, who has done so much for the homeless. She has worked tirelessly for 20 years to provide a home for homeless children and families across the country, and I think she has seen firsthand the mental, physical and emotional degradation that children and families experience with homelessness. In her testimony before the Financial Services Committee last October she said, ``Homeless service providers in communities of all sizes await the day that HUD provides the opportunity for people in all homeless situations to receive the assistance they need. They long to be free to focus on easing homelessness as it appears in their communities, on the street, doubled up or in motels, instead of having their hands tied with arbitrary rules and restrictions. They desire Federal resources to supplement local efforts to house and assist the growing number of families without a place to call home.'' I would also like to thank Carol Simler of DuPage PADS and all the wonderful people in my district who help with homelessness. I know we all have so many stories in all of our districts. With that, I would urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

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