Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I have some concerns about what we would call unintended consequences. I am a big supporter of financial literacy, and I chair the caucus. It is so important home buyers know what they are getting into, and I think that counseling is very important. I think that if we have an educated home buyer, we might not see so many of these foreclosures or near foreclosures or bankruptcy with the counseling. My concern is the mandatory counseling for FHA, and only because of something that has happened in Illinois, that happened in Chicago when this mandatory counseling was put in for FHA mortgages. What happened was that the lenders withdrew from the area. It was put in first by a ZIP Code in the city of Chicago and then put in for all of Cook County. The lenders withdrew from the area so there were no mortgages or very few available for those in that area because they weren't able to get the counseling that was needed in time to get the mortgages. It takes time for counseling, and I know that you put in, and I think this would help, is that people could get counseling on the Internet. I think it is a very important thing. I just worry about when it is mandatory that we are going to have less availability of FHA involvement than when it is discretionary as in the bill. I think that it makes FHA less attractive. If you are a prospective home buyer and one lender, a non-FHA, offers to put you into a mortgage that day while the FHA loan requires you to go through a counseling course, which will you pick? People will leave FHA, and we don't want that to happen. I know it is important that we have counseling and get people into this type of loan. The whole thing is, FHA is much better than the more exotic subprime loans, and that is the whole focus of this bill. I would hope that we can promote FHA, and I hope as this amendment moves forward, we can take a look at.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. If the gentleman will yield.

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

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that means a great deal to me, the education of homeless youth. Shortly before the August recess, this House overwhelmingly passed a resolution commemorating the 20th anniversary of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. In addition to recognizing the positive impact of McKinney-Vento, this resolution called on policymakers to unite behind certain common goals for the future. One of those goals is to improve the access of homeless children and youth to education in the public schools. In order to meet this goal, I invite my colleagues to cosponsor a bill that I recently introduced with Representatives Sarbanes and Grijalva, H.R. 3205, the Homeless Education Improvement Act of 2007. The bill will extend and improve the successful homeless children and youth programs in NCLB. Mr. Speaker, being without a home should not mean being without an education. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the Homeless Education Act.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, there are a few provisions in H.R. 2669 that I believe are very important to students and parents across the country. I support the increases in Pell Grants and cuts to interest rates on federally subsidized student loans provided in H.R. 2669. These provisions are the most effective way we can help low and middle income students achieve the dream of a college education, and I am pleased this bill will provide relief for those students. I am also pleased that the final bill includes a small but very important provision that is similar to legislation I have introduced, the FAFSA Fix for Homeless Kids Act. The current Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, creates insurmountable barriers for unaccompanied homeless youth--youth that are homeless and alone. These children do not receive financial support from their parents, and many do not have access to parental financial information or a parental signature required by the FAFSA. As a result, unaccompanied homeless youth are prevented from accessing the financial aid they need because they cannot supply the information required by the FAFSA. The FAFSA Fix for Homeless Kids Act addresses these barriers by allowing unaccompanied homeless youth to apply for federal financial aid without providing parental income information or a parent signature. This will open the doors of higher education to some of our nation's most vulnerable youth, and I am pleased that H.R. 2669 includes the FAFSA Fix for Homeless Kids Act. While I am encouraged that H.R. 2669 includes these provisions, I still have serious concerns about a number of other provisions in the bill. Specifically, I oppose the mandatory spending in the bill that is directed at institutions and philanthropic organizations. It is unprecedented to provide mandatory spending to these organizations. Instead of creating new and complicated programs, we should have provided additional funding to Pell Grants. I also have concerns about the viability of the Federal Family Education Loan Program. During the last Congress, the Education and the Workforce Committee made $20 billion in changes to the Federal Family Education Loan Program by eliminating and reducing federal subsidies to lenders. Just two years later--certainly not long enough to evaluate the impact of those changes--we are back again squeezing student loan lenders. Does the Democratic leadership expect lenders to continue offering student loans out of the goodness of their hearts? This program is essential to the students and families in my district, and I hope that this legislation is not a back-door attempt to kill the Federal Family Education Loan Program. I support H.R. 2669 because of the additional funding provided for Pell Grants, the decrease in student loan interest rates, and the hope it will give to unaccompanied homeless youth. However, I have serious concerns about the mandatory spending created in H.R. 2669 and the viability of the Federal Family Education Loan Program. I hope that in the future that we can work in a more inclusive manner to address the skyrocketing costs of college without adding to the deficit that students we are trying to help will eventually have to repay.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the CHAMP Act. I am a strong supporter of the State Children's Health Insurance Program--or SCHIP as it is commonly called. In my State of Illinois, there are approximately 167,000 low-income children who are enrolled in the program. Many of these children are in families where their parents work hard each month to make ends meet. And for many of these families, SCHIP is the safety net they need when they cannot afford private health insurance. I support reauthorization of the SCHIP Program when the goals of the reauthorization are to cover low- to moderate-income children that do not already have health insurance. However, I cannot support legislation that will provide government-sponsored insurance for higher-income families at the expense of seniors. The legislation we are considering today would allow States to cover children and adults well above the poverty level. A little-know provision in current law known as ``income disregard'' allows States to determine what is and is not income for the purposes of determining eligibility. This loophole allows States to provide SCHIP coverage to a family of four making more than $72,000 a year, or 350 percent of the Federal poverty level. While $72,000 a year may not get you on the cover of Forbes magazine, it is a level that most Americans would agree is above poverty. For families with private health insurance making $72,000 a year, this legislation would provide them with an incentive to shift from their private insurance to the Government program. And who can blame them? But I don't think that the taxpayers in my district would support a bill that shifts individuals from private insurance to Government programs. To expand coverage to middle-income families, the legislation would cut coverage to seniors in the Medicare Advantage program. In my district, there are more than 5,000 seniors who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. I often hear about the additional benefits that these individuals enjoy that are otherwise unavailable or available at a much higher cost. We should not be forced to choose between seniors and children-- particularly when the majority does not allow the minority to properly review the legislation, debate it in the committee or on the floor, or allow amendments and alternative ideas to be considered. I support reauthorizing the SCHIP program when that legislation is focused on the most vulnerable population--the population the program was intended to help--poor children. But I cannot support legislation that will eliminate coverage for senior in order to provide coverage to middle-income adults and children--many of whom already have health insurance. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, like all of my colleagues here on the floor and in the House of Representatives, I fully support efforts to end all forms of discrimination. I admire Ms. Ledbetter's bravery for standing up for her right to work in an environment free from discrimination. I know what it is like. I sat in law school class and was told by my professor that I was taking up the place of someone who belonged there, a man. As a woman who has felt discrimination, I understand her frustration and I am pleased that Congress is discussing this important issue. If this bill were an anti-discrimination bill, I would be happy to vote for it and would encourage others to support it. But this bill is not about discrimination. It is about the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is an institution in American jurisprudence that pertains to all cases and all causes of action. For instance, for torts the statutes of limitations is 2 years; for contracts, it is 6 years; for employment determination or discrimination, it is 6 months. We can't legislate change in the statute of limitations just because we don't like a particular Supreme Court ruling. The statute of limitation requires plaintiffs to bring a claim or a cause of action within a reasonable time. And that is so witnesses don't disappear or die off, memories don't fade, and supervisors don't move on and documents are not discarded or destroyed. That is why I cannot support the legislation before us today. H.R. 2831 would dismantle the statute of limitation for filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. If enacted, this legislation would allow an employee to bring a claim against an employer years, even decades, after the alleged act of discrimination. In addition, this legislation would discourage the prompt investigation and resolution of discrimination. I think everyone would agree that if there is discrimination at an individual's place of work, it should be investigated and addressed as soon as possible to ensure fairness and prevent further discrimination. Unfortunately, because no hearings were held on this legislation, I think the majority is rushing it through the House with little discussion on the bill itself. We can only speculate as to what all of the ramifications of this bill might be. I know that the gentleman is probably going to say there was a hearing, but it wasn't directly on this bill. So I would encourage my colleagues to oppose this well- intentioned but misguided statute of limitation legislation.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I don't know how it's possible, but this bill makes a bad sugar program even worse. Chicago was once referred to as the candy capital of the world because of our strong confectionery and manufacturing industry, but thanks to the sugar program and sugar subsidies, nearly one-third of the jobs in the industry have been lost. This farm bill goes backward, not forward. Instead of recognizing the reality that the sugar program has cost American manufacturing jobs, this bill increases sugar price supports and widens the gap between U.S. and world prices. I strongly support Mr. Davis and Mr. Kirk's amendment to keep cane refinery and food manufacturing jobs in the United States. This is a good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote for its adoption.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I think that if the gentleman would commit to working with Mr. Lampson and me to sufficiently fund the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at conference, I would be willing to withdraw the amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment with my colleague from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) to the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill to help the Department of Justice crack down on mortgage fraud. This amendment will increase funding to allow the Department of Justice to secure two additional prosecutors, enable the FBI to hire 30 additional agents, and support the FBI's interagency task force operations to combat mortgage fraud.

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. That is correct.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Reclaiming my time, I would thank the gentleman for his kind words. And I bring this up to just enforce the importance of missing children, the caucus and the task force, tonight, because every problem is increasing so much, as I said earlier. The problems that we used to have, we are seeing many more problems with the use of the Internet, with just what is happening to children in this day and age. And the more that we can do to prevent online enticement, to prevent children being sexually assaulted, all of the tragedies that are happening right now. So I appreciate that.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank Chairman Mollohan for all of his work on this bill, and I appreciate your commitment to all the missing children's programs. It is very important. And I know that you are equally disturbed by the prevalence of Internet crimes against our children. And the numbers certainly don't lie. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's CyberTip Line, the number of reports relating to the online enticement of children for sexual acts increased by 139 percent between 2005 and 2006. Over the same period, there was a 194 percent increase in the number of reports related to unsolicited obscene material sent to a child on the Internet. Certainly more can and must be done. And this problem is not regional; it is not isolated to big cities or rural communities. This is a real national problem that will not go away unless we can expand our capabilities of our law enforcement, which is exactly what my amendment will do by increasing the funding for the Internet Crime Against Children Task Force. The Internet Crime Against Children Task Force, or ICAC, plays a very critical role in protecting our children on the Internet. The ICAC Task Force's mission is clear: to help State and local government enforcement agencies develop an effective response to cyber-enticement and child pornography cases. This help involves forensic and investigative support training and technical assistance, victims services, and community education. The amendment would carve out $15 million out of the Justice Assistance account's Missing Children Program for the Internet Crime Against Children Task Force. It would also carve out $15 million out of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program for the ICAC Task Force. Both accounts were used in fiscal year 2007 to fund the Internet Crime Against Children Task Force at $26 million. And I certainly understand the problems that having to do with this amendment, so I am certainly willing to withdraw my amendment if the chairman and ranking member are willing to work toward an increase in funding for the Internet Crime Against Children Task Force in conference. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I understood that. I am going to withdraw the amendment and ask unanimous consent to present it at this time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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