Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Violence Against Women Act reauthorized and signed into law by President Bush in 2005 ensured that victims of domestic violence would not be evicted from public or section 8 housing for screaming for help, for calling the police or simply for being the victim of a crime. However, one provision of H.R. 1851 inadvertently removes these protections from certain public housing authorities, leaving victims in these housing authorities with inconsistent or no protection. I think that the Housing Innovation Program provisions in SEVRA exempt high-performing public housing authorities from certain Federal regulations, giving them a measure of regulatory reform. Unfortunately, some of the VAWA protections were among those that would no longer apply to these high-performing housing authorities. This would create confusion for public housing authorities and leave victims vulnerable to eviction after an assault. I support the amendment, and appreciate this being added to the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire of the time remaining on either side of the aisle?

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), another member of the Financial Services Committee, to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Frank.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like first to thank all of my colleagues and their staffs from both sides of the aisle for working to craft a bipartisan section 8 reform bill that we are considering today. In particular I would like to thank Chairman Frank and Subcommittee Chairwoman Waters for their hard work, committee Ranking Member Bachus for his support, and the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, who joined me as an original cosponsor of this bill. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan bill that passed out of our committee by a vote of 52-9. It is similar to the section 8 reform bill that then Chairman Oxley moved through the Financial Services Committee during the last Congress. It was a bipartisan bill then too, passing out of the committee by a voice vote. The section 8, or Housing Choice Voucher Program, is the major Federal program helping the elderly, the disabled and the very low- income families find affordable housing in the private market. Today's housing vouchers are the primary tool of assistance provided under section 8. Many of my colleagues served in this body when housing vouchers were first proposed and implemented under a Republican administration, that of President Reagan. The Section 8 Voucher Program was designed to move people away from large concentrated housing projects, like our Cabrini- Green or Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago. It allows individuals to make decisions about where they want to live, instead of forcing them to live in large public housing projects filled with crime, poverty and despair. For the colleagues on my side of the aisle, I should admit, quite frankly, that this bill is better than I expected it to be. We have been able to get several key issues addressed in this bill that were not addressed in last year's Republican legislation. I want to thank Chairman Waters, who coauthored with me a manager's amendment that the committee accepted during our markup that includes a number of provisions to increase the flexibility of project-based section 8 vouchers. It amended section 8 of the law regarding the use of vouchers to purchase manufactured homes, voucher reserves, portability, performance assessment, disabled vouchers and rent levels. In addition, I am pleased that included in this bill is language that is identical to the Family Self-Sufficiency Act, or FSS, a bill that I introduced as a stand-alone measure. This bill enhances HUD's FSS program by providing housing authorities with consistent coordinator funding. Housing authorities can then help more individuals move from public assistance to being self-sufficient homeowners. Perhaps most important for Members on my side of the aisle is that this bill includes a significant expansion of Moving to Work, or the MTW program. Members on both sides of the aisle have public housing authorities in their district that seek to become Moving to Work housing authorities. In my district, DuPage Housing Authority would like this status. However, to date, Congress has only authorized 32 housing authorities to be MTWs. During the committee markup, we increased the authorization to a total of 80, which is a remarkable achievement. In addition, the Moving to Work provisions in this bill require HUD to craft standards that will govern eligibility requirements from being considered and/or designated as a Moving to Work authority. This bill includes important tenant protections that make the MTW Program better than it is today. Finally, I am also pleased that we included a provision that will measure the success of the program. Congress created the Moving to Work program in 1996, but it does not require HUD to establish standards and evaluate agencies' performance. Now granted, the administration does not support this bill, nor did it support the Oxley bill last year or in the previous Congress. Why? Well, because in their view, it does not reform the program enough. They believe it moves the program from one that is currently budget based to a unit-based system that Mr. Knollenberg spoke about earlier. But I think that point is subject to interpretation. And politics is the art of the possible; and absent this bill, no reform is possible. This bill does not include everything that I wanted either. The section 8 funding formula my colleagues will recall was changed in the CR earlier this year. I have on several occasions offered amendments in committee to address this formula change, and we did include in the manager's amendment a provision that will provide PHAs a cushion in the transition year so they are not penalized for CR formula change. I believe there is more work to be done. There are 1,200 PHAs. Half of those across the country do not suffer from unjustified and significant funding cuts as a result of the new section 8 funding formula included in the CR. Chairman Frank has agreed to engage in a colloquy with me about this, and I look forward to doing that in a few moments. I hope we will continue to work together as we continue to address the continued shortcomings of this formula. This is a good bill and one deserving of our support, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I would like to thank Chairwoman Waters for her manager's amendment and, in particular, the 12.5 percent for the transition in the public housing. Madam Chair, I yield to my colleague, Mr. Miller of California, for the balance of the time.

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 2669, the so-called College Cost Reduction Act. Like many of my colleagues, I have serious concerns about the new mandatory spending that is included in this legislation. H.R. 2669 creates nine new entitlement programs, most of which do not attempt to address the hurdles many prospective and current college students face. Mandatory spending entitlement programs already consume the largest portion of the Federal budget. The uncontrolled growth of entitlement programs, particularly Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, will eventually consume the entire Federal budget by 2050 if left unchecked. That means the Federal Government would have no available funds for programs other than entitlements; no militaries, highways, courts, law enforcement or border security. So how are we addressing this looming crisis today? Well, it seems we are addressing it by creating new entitlement programs, nine of them. The new programs created under this legislation will not undergo the annual scrutiny of the appropriations process. Regardless of the success or failure of these programs, the American taxpayer, our constituents, will continue to pay for these new programs available to anyone that meets the basic qualifications. Another serious concern is that some of the mandatory spending in H.R. 2669 is directed towards colleges, universities and philanthropic organizations. Traditionally entitlement programs have been directed at individuals who are in need of the Federal assistance, such as Medicare, Social Security, food stamps and student loans. Directing the mandatory funding under this legislation to institutions, instead of low- and middle-income students who need the assistance most, sends the wrong message about the priorities of this Congress. During the Education and Labor Committee markup, I supported a substitute amendment offered by Mr. McKeon that would have invested $12 billion in the Pell Grant program, more than double the increase provided by this bill. It also reduced the PLUS loan interest rates for the Federal Family Education Loan Program to match the interest rate in the Direct Loan Program, currently 7.9 percent. The funding provided under the McKeon substitute would have been directed to those who need the assistance most, the students, without creating new programs and additional bureaucracy for students and parents to navigate. Finally, I have concerns about maintaining the viability of the FFELP. In the last Congress, the Education and Workforce Committee made $20 billion in changes to FFELP by eliminating and reducing Federal subsidies to lenders. Just 2 years later, we are back again squeezing student loan lenders. My concern is this legislation is using the reconciliation process as a backdoor attempt to kill FFELP. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that I have to oppose the rule and this legislation. There are a few provisions in this legislation that I believe would help college students and address some concerns in areas of academic need. However, I cannot support a bill that creates new mandatory spending for institutions at a time when we are addressing the looming crisis with our existing entitlement programs for individuals. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and against H.R. 2669.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to support House Resolution 526, recognizing homeownership and responsible lending. As the ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, Representative Cummings, and Chairman Frank and Chairwoman Maloney for working in a cooperative fashion to ensure that the language protects borrowers while preserving access to homeownership opportunities. Over the past several years, the housing market has helped to drive the national economy as Americans bought and refinanced homes in record numbers. The benefits of homeownership are undeniable. For this reason, there has been a significant focus on improving homeownership opportunities for everyone, including the low-income borrower. At the same time, the subprime market has flourished and provided credit to many families that may not have qualified under conventional standards. Today, this country enjoys record-high homeownership rates. More than 68 million Americans own a home. Of this 68 million, 50 million homeowners have a mortgage, and 13 million of them have a subprime loan. According to a recent Chicago Tribune article, ``Subprime loans, often with adjustable rates, made homeownership possible for millions of Americans whose credit ratings or income levels made them ineligible for cheaper prime loans.'' However, of the 13 million subprime loans, roughly 5 percent of them are entering foreclosure. According to the data released by the Mortgage Bankers Association, these numbers are on the rise. These mortgage foreclosure rates raise eyebrows and call into question what actions are to be taken to help homeowners keep their homes, and I would like to emphasize the word ``action.'' While I believe that this resolution under consideration outlines many important facts, most of which Americans have seen printed in the news for months, it does not take action. The resolution tells the House something that we already have authority to do, and that is to take action. Americans are waiting for the leadership of this House to exercise that authority. We can talk about the increase in foreclosure rates until we are blue in the face, and why is the leadership in this House waiting. The fact of the matter is, this body needs to join forces with the folks in the public and private sectors to take action immediately. What it is we should be doing right now is to ensure that the 650,000 homeowners and others who may follow can keep their homes. First we can and should pass a Federal Housing Administration modernization bill. I introduced H.R. 1752, the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007, a bill identical to the one that passed the House last July by a strong bipartisan vote of 415-7. However, on the same day, two of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle introduced another FHA reform bill that includes a new and controversial housing trust fund provision. This trust fund provision has stalled the bill. So while the other side of the aisle is holding out for a brand-new trust fund, millions of Americans may lose their homes in 2007 because they did not have the refinancing option that a modernized FHA could have offered them. In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Assistant Secretary for Housing Brian D. Montgomery urged Congress to pass an FHA reform bill and said FHA could help hundreds of thousands of additional borrowers to secure a safe and affordable mortgage. He said that the best thing to help subprime borrowers is to reform FHA, and he added that HUD is prepared to immediately implement FHA reforms. Second, this resolution mentions we can immediately increase opportunities for housing counseling. It also says that we should raise public awareness. I think that first by advertising available resources we can both raise public awareness and increase opportunities for housing counseling. It is crucial to promote financial literacy and educate our youth and adults. This is the most direct way of ensuring that consumers understand the terms of their loan so that they may avoid predatory loans and foreclosure altogether. I am pleased that on June 25, Neighborhood Works America and the Ad Council launched a national ad campaign aimed at preventing home foreclosures. Homeowners in trouble can try to save their homes by calling a hotline, 888-995-HOPE, a number provided by the Homeowner Preservation Foundation. In addition, we have about 2,300 HUD-certified housing counseling agencies across the country. Americans should know they can visit HUD's Web site or call 800-569-4287 to find a HUD-certified counselor in their neighborhood. HUD-certified counselors can give straightforward and free or low-cost advice to potential or existing homeowners about buying a home, refinancing a mortgage, or preventing foreclosure. Third, we need to address the root problems resulting from predatory or bad subprime loans. The Federal regulators have recently stepped up to the plate and tried to address the increasing number of foreclosures through interagency guidance on subprime loans. The guidance to mortgage lenders focuses on loans in the subprime market, particularly adjustable rate mortgage products. It specifies that a lender's assessment or a consumer's ability to repay should be based on the fully indexed rate, assuming a fully amortized repayment schedule. The guidance also focuses on the need for clear and balanced communication to the borrower with regard to mortgage loan benefits. I support these efforts, but there is much more to do. I know that the issue of mortgage fraud is hot in the Chicago area. We need to ensure that law enforcement has the necessary tools and resources to crack down on fraudulent activities. Finally, I support this resolution because I agree with my colleagues on the importance of shedding some light on actions that Congress or Federal regulators can take to help homeowners enter into realistic and affordable loans in the future. As we consider our options to take action at the Federal level to help Americans keep and own their homes, I would urge my colleagues to carefully weigh the potential consequences of such actions. We should allow secondary mortgage markets to adjust to the rise in foreclosures accordingly and to continue to supply liquidity to the primary mortgage market. Simultaneously, we should take immediate action. We need to pass FHA modernization now, and we need to ensure that people continue to have immediate access to financial education and counseling, credit, and viable mortgage options so that people in future generations can realize the American Dream of homeownership. Again, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for his hard work on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for bringing this resolution forward and outlining the important facts that will enable and make certain that people can keep their homes. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time but would just ask one question of the chairman. I think this is so important, and you mentioned that the FHA bill will be coming up. I was curious as to when we would be considering a subprime bill?

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. And then, Mr. Chairman, do you share these concerns about both the barriers and DOE's university nuclear programs, and will you support the approach the ranking member and I are proposing to take to address these concerns? I yield to Mr. Visclosky.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman. Finally on a separate and unrelated issue, I remain concerned that there is no funding in this bill for the Army Corps' dispersal barrier on the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal, which is designed to keep aquatic invasive species like the Asian carp from reaching the Great Lakes and devastating the ecosystem. I recognize the bill contains no funding for the barriers because the bill identifies no projects, and because additional authority included in WRDA is required for the Corps to complete and operate the barriers. If for some reason WRDA isn't enacted before conference begins on this bill, will the ranking member agree to help address the outstanding authorization issues and appropriate the necessary funds for these barriers in conference?

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts in this area.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee for yielding me the time. I know that both the chairman and the ranking member share my great frustration that again this year the Department of Energy failed to request funding for the university reactor infrastructure and education assistance program. That is why I was extremely concerned to learn that this bill included no funding for this program. At the same time I recognize that the subcommittee has provided $15 million in funding for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to support university programs, but that spending will be limited to scholarships and fellowships and ``human infrastructure'' programs. And I understand that Assistant Secretary Spurgeon has indicated publicly that DOE plans to support universities, faculty and students with over $60 million in funding from its core research programs. I would ask this of the ranking member: Does the subcommittee expect the DOE to fulfill this commitment? And, furthermore, is the $15 million in NRC funding in this bill in addition to DOE's commitment? I yield to Mr. Hobson.

Mrs. BIGGERT. To ensure that the DOE fulfills this commitment, would the ranking member be willing to request that DOE submit a detailed report on how much the DOE would spend on university nuclear programs within the funding levels provided in this bill?

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman. I am also concerned that the bill does not provide sufficient funding for research reactor infrastructure support and upgrades. Would the ranking member be willing to work with me and other interested Members to ensure that the needs of our Nation's research reactor infrastructure are met in fiscal year 2008?

Mr. BIGGERT

Mr. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this open rule and the fiscal year 2008 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Visclosky, Ranking Member Hobson, and their subcommittee for putting together a strong bill that clearly recognizes the importance of scientific research and energy security to our national competitiveness. In particular, I want to commend them for more than meeting the President's request for the DOE Office of Science. Mr. Speaker, we face a world in which our economic competitors in Asia and Europe are making significant new investments in their own research capabilities. These investments are beginning to payoff, as Asian and European countries challenge U.S. leadership in the sciences, no matter how it is measured--by number of patents won, articles submitted to scientific journals, degrees awarded, or Nobel prizes won. Report after report has called on Congress and the President to invest in U.S. research capabilities. The benefits of such an investment to the U.S. economy and U.S. competitiveness are well known. Economic experts have concluded that science-driven technology has accounted for more than 50 percent of the growth of the U.S. economy during the last half-century. That's why President Bush and Congressional Democrats and Republicans have proposed doubling federal funding for basic research in the physical sciences over the next 5 to 10 years as part of their innovation and competitiveness initiatives. Supporting over 40 percent of total federal funding for basic research in the physical sciences--more than any other Federal agency-- the DOE Office of Science is the Nation's primary supporter of research in the physical sciences. Mr. Speaker, U.S. scientists are as bright as any in the world, but they traditionally have had better tools than everyone else. Under the President's budget, 21,500 researchers would have access to the DOE's unique system of large-scale, specialized user facilities. Nearly half of those users will be university faculty and students, many will be from other federal agencies, and a significant number will be from U.S. industry. And the Office of Science is using those facilities and its expertise to address our energy challenges. It supports basic research related to: The production of cellulosic biofuels; the development of advanced materials for the safe storage of hydrogen; more durable and efficient solar panels and wind turbines; and advanced nuclear systems, not to mention fusion power. Mr. Speaker, the Office of Science has developed a balanced investment strategy to ensure the U.S. retains its dominance in such key scientific fields as biotechnology, nanotechnology, materials science, and supercomputing well into the next century. I again commend my colleagues on the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee for recognizing the great contributions that basic research in general--and the DOE Office of Science in particular--make to our energy security and our national competitiveness.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment to strike the Affordable Housing Fund. I think the reason that we are having so much trouble talking about this, I know that in our March 15 hearing we urged the chairman if we could spend some time working this out prior to coming to the floor, and obviously that hasn't happened. But I think, because of all the questions, because we haven't had a hearing on this and we don't know what the national fund is; and he keeps saying we have got an Affordable Housing Fund now. It is estimated by CBO that it is going to be $3 billion over a 5- year period. If that is 1.2 basis points, then it will be the $3 billion. But there is still no dollar limit as to how large the fund can become. Where will the money for the fund ultimately come from? We don't know, talking about is it going to be from lower and middle Americans, or is it going to be from shareholders? But I think these are all things that need to be considered before we have the fund. And I know it is, ``Trust me. We are going to have a national fund and we will figure out how it is going to work.'' But I think that, in this day and age, that we really need to give the regulator some idea of what their job is. I agree with so much of this bill. I think it is a shame. I voted for the bill last time, and I was very proud to do that. A lot of people didn't vote for the bill. And suddenly, most of the bill that was in that bill is now in this bill. But unlike last year's legislation, I think this bill has included in this provision that doesn't permit the regulator to focus on the very important duties in this bill, and rather to have this Affordable Housing Trust Fund I think it is too bad. The new regulator has the duty to write those regulations and then administer an Affordable Housing Grant Fund program from day one, when we don't know what this national trust fund is going to end up being. I don't think that this is an appropriate time to do it. So I urge that we would strike the Affordable Housing Trust Fund from this bill, and would urge support of that amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to talk about this bill and I will hold the debate on FHA until that bill comes to the floor. I would like to thank Chairman Frank and Mr. Baker for introducing this year's GSE bill to establish a new and stronger regulator for the GSEs and the Federal Home Loan Banks. Like last year's legislation, this bill aims to give the new regulator clear direction about its authority, available tools and mission. With this enhanced authority and guidance, the new GSE regulator can guide the GSEs to be most effective for homeowners, market participants, financial institutions, and taxpayers. The overall purpose of the GSE reform bill is to create a strong, world-class regulator, and I think in this bill we direct the new regulator to review and set portfolio limits, establish minimum capital requirements, and review new programs and products. However, unlike last year's legislation, I think this year's bill introduces a new, extraneous provision that does not permit the new regulator to focus solely on these very important duties. This bill does not isolate this regulator from political influence, but rather establishes a stream of cash that is financed on the backs of the American homeowners. Why do I say this? What is the affordable housing trust fund; does anyone know? And why would we allow GSE money to be diverted to an unknown, non-existent entity? This was not in last year's bill. Last year's bill permitted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to manage an affordable housing fund. This year's bill permits the new regulator to establish and regulate the fund. I don't think that it is appropriate for this new regulator to manage the affordable housing fund. The provision establishes a formula to allocate funds to States and Indian tribes which would in turn determine which organizations receive the funds. The new GSE regulator is tasked with establishing regulations to determine the prescription for States to distribute the funds. And as stated in House Report 110-142, ``This bill provides that funds allocated for the affordable housing fund, may be transferred at a later date to a national affordable housing trust fund that may be subsequently enacted into law.'' We just don't know what is going to be the amount of money, where it is coming from, except if we determine that it is estimated that it would extract $3 billion in assessments from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over a 5-year period. There is no dollar limit as to how large this fund can become. Where will this money for the fund ultimately come from? It will come from low and middle income Americans seeking to purchase a home or refinance an existing mortgage. Hardworking, low income and middle income Americans who are trying to have their part of the American dream will ultimately be footing the bill for a national housing trust fund, the purpose of which has not yet been determined in law. Taxing hardworking American homeowners is not the way to fund new affordable housing. I share the chairman's commitment to increasing the stock of affordable housing for low-income Americans, but this fund is the wrong way to achieve this objective. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to take a look at the Bachus amendment to strike the affordable housing fund section of this bill. I think we have a really good bill here. It is similar to last year's bill. I know that we have talked about this in the committee, we should have hearings and further discussions on the need to build more affordable housing in this country, how it can be done and how it can be financed, and particularly what this new affordable housing fund means. So with that, I urge my colleagues to, at this time, not support this bill.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 118. Last month, the United States Olympic Committee selected Chicago as the official U.S. candidate for hosting the 2016 Olympic games. It's been over 100 years since the Midwest hosted these games, and I am pleased to report that the Nation's heartland is ready, willing and able to do so again. I have lived in the Chicago area my whole life and I can't imagine a better location for the summer Olympics. The people are welcoming and they are sporting spirit is high. A national hub of water, railroad and air, the ``Windy City'' has a diversity of culture and community that reflects the very best of America. And as host of the 2016 games, Chicago will serve as the Nation's emissary to the world, just as it did once during the World's Fair of 1893. Director of Works for that historic fair, Daniel Burnham, once famously said, ``Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood, and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans, aim high in hope and work.'' From reversing a river to building the world's tallest tower, Chicagoans have a heritage of big dreams. And in keeping with its motto for the 2016 games, ``Stir the Soul,'' Chicago's visions for the Olympics will be a dream the whole country can share in. To Mayor Daley, Patrick Ryan, the chairman of the Chicago Olympic Committee and all its members, I would like to extend my personal congratulations. Without their hard work and dedication, securing this nomination would not have been possible. I thank the gentleman from Chicago (Mr. Emanuel) for sponsoring this resolution and the gentleman from Illinois, our former Speaker Hastert, for his hard work in gaining such attention. I would also like to thank the efforts of all of our friends on the Illinois delegation, every one of whom helped in this cause tremendously by letters of support and by cosponsoring the resolution before us today. The International Olympic Committee will be making its final selection in 2009. I invite all my colleagues from across the Nation to unite behind Chicago and commit to doing our part to bring the 2016 Olympic games back to America. Mr. Speaker, I support H. Con. Res. 118, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Dr. Burgess.