Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, I think that by incorporating genetic testing, we can significantly reduce the cost of chronic disease, which currently accounts for 70 cents of every health care dollar. I think the President of the United States understands this, and I will include for the Record the statement of administrative policy from the White House in favor of this legislation. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, April 25, 2007. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 493--Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 (Rep. Slaughter (D) NY and 224 cosponsors) The Administration favors enactment of legislation to prohibit the improper use of genetic information in health insurance and employment. The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 493, which would prohibit group health plans and health insurers from denying coverage to a healthy individual or charging that person higher premiums based solely on a genetic prediposition to developing a disease in the future. The legislation also would bar employers from using individuals' genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promotion decisions. The Administration appreciates that the House bill clarifies that the bill's protections cover unborn children. The mapping of the human genome has led to more information about diseases and a better understanding of our genetic code. Scientists are pursuing new diagnostics, treatments, and cures based on this information, but the potential misuse of this information raises serious moral and legal issues. Concern about unwarranted use of genetic information threatens the utilization of existing genetic tests as well as the ability to conduct further research. The Administration wants to work with Congress to further perfect this legislation and to make genetic discrimination illegal and provide individuals with fair, reasonable protections against improper use of their genetic information. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I will yield myself the balance of my time to close. Madam Speaker, this bill has been a bipartisan bill. It has got 95 Republicans and 125 Democrats. GINA passed the Education and Labor Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee and the Ways and Means Committee by voice vote. I think that GINA is needed to maintain high- quality genetic research and clinical trials at NIH. It passed the Senate last year 98-0, and the last Congress was a strong SAP for them, so when this goes to conference we will see what happens this year. Let me just say that Newt Gingrich said to not have this bill is to cripple our ability to save lives. I would like to enter into the Record a statement of his in the Washington Times, and just to quote a little bit from it. ``Without protection from genetic discrimination, we risk missing out on the promise of personalized medicine. But if we apply time-honored principles of fairness and justice to the genome era, we can grant the American public the gift of better informed patients, better equipped providers, an enhanced biotech industry, improved health and lives saved. ``Let's not withhold this gift any longer. Let's empower all Americans to embrace the possibilities of personalized medicine for better health, and let's commend the forward-thinking bipartisanship of the 110th Congress that has brought us to the threshold of a world where Americans can embrace personalized medicine without fear. ``Our health, and that of our children and grandchildren, depends on it.'' Let me just say that this bill had to go through three committees, and that is not easy, Education and Labor, Ways and Means and the Energy and Commerce. That is no small feat. I really thank Chairman Slaughter for all that she did to make sure that this went through, and all the time she has spent on this. It has been a great honor to work with her. Again, let me thank the chairmen of these committees and the ranking members for the time that they put in, and all the Members that came down to speak today and all the Members that supported this as cosponsors. To go through the three committees, everybody knows something about this place, but everybody wants to put their stamp on it. To come out with a bill we can all agree on, and, as people said, they have some things they would still like to put in, but I think being able to manage all of the different committees, and what was their jurisdiction and what maybe they thought was their jurisdiction but really was the jurisdiction of another committee, makes it a very interesting process. And I think we all learned about how this type of bill works. It is a very technical bill, and that is why we thank all of the 200 groups, at least 200 groups that have worked on this bill and been able to give us the technical information that we needed to make this something that is going to save lives. It is going to lower costs and it also is going to find the cures for so many of these diseases and disorders, because people will be willing to go into clinical trials. So I congratulate all of the people that participated. Madam Speaker, I include the article by Newt Gingrich for the Record Congress of the United States, Washington, DC. Why does Newt Gingrich Support GINA? Dear Republican Colleague, We wanted to draw your attention to this op-ed by Newt Gingrich supporting H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. It appeared in the Washington Times on April 11, 2007. We urge you to vote ``yes'' when this legislation comes to the floor. Sincerely, Judy Biggert, Member of Congress.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Obviously I rise in strong support of H.R. 493. I think it has been an honor to work with the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and, I might add, work we did. 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 disorders such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and they could take preventative measures to decrease their risks. It spawned a 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 more than $3.7 billion in taxpayer money to achieve this breakthrough, Congress walked away and left the job unfinished. We left people without any assurance that their genetic information would not be used against them. So, understandably, they avoided this great technology, never realizing the untold health benefits and savings. This concern even spilled over into NIH, where a fear of genetic discrimination is currently the most commonly cited 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 declined to do so for this reason, undermining the development of new treatments and cures. Mr. Speaker, today Congress is here to settle some unfinished business and provide Americans the protections against genetic discrimination in health care insurance and employment that they need to utilize genetic testing without fear. Besides the more than 200 health advocacy and business organizations that support this bill, recent surveys show 93 percent of Americans believe that employers and insurers should not be able to use genetic information to discriminate. With numbers like this, it should come as no surprise that this legislation enjoys overwhelmingly bipartisan support. And I want to take a moment to thank my good friend Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Walden and Ms. Eshoo. It truly has been a pleasure working with all of them. I would also like to thank Mr. McKeon, Mr. Miller and all the other chairmen and ranking full committee and subcommittee members for working together to make this a better bill. I would be remiss if I did not mention the members of the Coalition for Genetic Fairness, without whom this bill would not be possible. Finally, I would like to thank Brian Petersen of my staff and Michelle Adams of Ms. Slaughter's staff and all the outstanding staff who worked tirelessly behind the scenes on our behalf and who have put in long hours on this legislation. Why must we pass this bill today? Because it dramatically reduces health care costs while saving or extending human lives. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate the Lady Volunteers of the University of Tennessee on their 59-46 victory over Rutgers University to clinch the 2007 NCAA Division I women's basketball championship. But I am sure you are wondering why a Member from Illinois would rise to discuss a team from Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, it is to congratulate not only this team but one of its key players, Candace Parker. Candace grew up in the district that I represent, the 13th District of Illinois, and once again she is doing great things. I first got to know Candace when she led the Naperville Central High School Red Hawks to a State basketball title in 2003, a feat that they repeated in 2004. During her high school years, she was honored with both the Naismith and Gatorade National Players of the Year Awards. Candace followed Marianne Jones and LeBron James as only the third high school athlete in any sport to win the Gatorade National Player of the Year in back- to-back seasons, and is the first girls' basketball player to achieve this distinction. During her first year at Tennessee, she was forced to take a medical red shirt at Tennessee where she underwent surgery to repair her torn ACL. During her time away from basketball, Candace was continuing to make headlines, but this time in the academic area. She earned a spot on the Lady Volunteers' honor roll, and was named to the Southeastern Conference All-Academic Freshman Team. She returned to the court for the 2005-2006 season without missing a beat. She was the only player on the team to start every game and led the Lady Vols in scoring and rebounds. While facing Army in the 2006 NCAA tournament, she became the first female to dunk in a tournament game and the first to do it twice in any game. That season, Candace was named the 2006 SEC Tournament MVP, the 2006 SEC Freshmen of the Year, and the 2006 SEC Rookie of the Year. Adding to her extensive list of awards this season, she was named the 2007 SEC Player of the Year. But perhaps her greatest achievement came as she and the Lady Volunteers won the 2007 NCAA Division I women's national basketball championship. Candace Parker is an outstanding athlete and scholar who has done so many impressive things in her short career. Again, I would like to congratulate her and her fellow Lady Volunteers for winning. All of Illinois, and especially the residents of the 13th Congressional District, are proud of Candace and wish her continued success in her endeavors. I look forward to watching Candace and her teammates defend their title next season, perhaps against a team from Illinois.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of the Tauscher-Biggert amendment to H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineer Research Act. While I am pleased to have worked with my colleague from California (Mrs. Tauscher) in developing this amendment, she deserves the credit for the substance of it. I just happen to think she had a great idea, and I am honored to lend my support. Mr. Chairman, we face a world in which our economic competitors in Asia and Europe are making significant new investments in their own research capabilities, in terms of both infrastructure and human capital. These investments are beginning to pay off, as Asia and European countries challenge U.S. leadership in the sciences no matter how it is measured, by number of patterns won, articles submitted to scientific journals, Nobel Prizes won, the percentage of gross domestic product dedicated to research and development, and even the number of degrees awarded. Report after report from the National Academies to the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation has concluded that we need more people with scientific expertise and engineering talent if we are to counter this threat. Only our national security and our economic competitiveness are at stake. Unfortunately, the number of undergraduate degrees and Ph.D.s awarded in the U.S. in science and engineering has been flat or stagnant for over a decade; and of those undergraduates who have obtained a degree in science or engineering, only 28 percent actually go on to get their graduate degree or pursue a career in science and engineering. That is why this amendment is so important. It expands eligibility for the NSF Early Career Awards to the thousands of scientists and engineers who have followed alternative career paths, such as working part-time or in non-academic settings, or who have taken a significant career break but want to get back into the lab. For instance, over 12,000 men and women with doctorates in science or engineering currently are not working because of family responsibilities, according to the most recent statistics compiled by NSF. Of those, over 11,000 are women who may be raising children or caring for a sick parent. Imagine the countless benefits of just getting these 11,000 women back into the lab. But this amendment has the potential to do so much more than that. It provides an opportunity for thousands of other people with scientific expertise and training, men and women, to get the support they need to reenter the scientific and engineering workforce and get back to doing the scientific work that is so important to the competitiveness of our Nation. This amendment also recognizes and rewards those scientist and engineers whose innovative ideas enhance the economic competitiveness of the United States. It does so by making them eligible for the Presidential Innovation Award created by this bill. Mr. Chairman, by creating additional opportunities to expand the ranks of scientists and engineers and rewarding them for innovative ideas that make the Nation more economically competitive, this amendment strengthens our ability to innovate. It is our ability to innovate that has made and will make America the envy of the world in terms of our freedoms, our security and our culture, health and prosperity. I thank the ranking member, Mr. Hall, for his support for this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it as well. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1495. My district in Illinois represents the front line in the fight to keep the Asian carp from decimating the ecosystem of the Great Lakes and endangering a multi-million dollar commercial fishing industry. Competing with native species for food, living space, and spawning areas, these voracious fish grow to between 50 and 150 pounds, eat up to 40 percent of their body weight every day, and each female can carry up to a million eggs. The bill before us today will enable the Army Corps of Engineers to fortify its aquatic and invasive species dispersal barrier, an invisible, underwater, electric fence on the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal in Illinois that repulses fish like the Asian carp. That is why I rise today, to thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica, as well as Subcommittee Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Baker, for recognizing the continuing threat of the Asian carp and including provisions in this bill to protect the Great Lakes. Our Great Lakes are too important just to leave them vulnerable to invasive species like the Asian carp.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 273, to designate April as Financial Literacy Month. This will be the fourth year that I have had the pleasure of working with my friend and colleague and fellow Chair of the House Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus, Mr. Hinojosa, to promote the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month. I am amazed at the progress that we have made so far over the last few years in raising awareness about the importance of greater financial literacy and economic education. Hundreds, if not thousands, of public-private sector, nonprofit, and community-based organizations across the country have established financial literacy programs. More than 50 of them will be on hand in the Cannon Caucus Room on April 24 to share the benefits of their knowledge and experience at the annual Financial Literacy Day Fair, and I encourage all of our colleagues to attend and learn more about these important efforts. As Mr. Hinojosa mentioned, we have received dozens of letters in support of these efforts and this Financial Literacy Month resolution from various financial and educational organizations. And I think that this year we have set a new standard for unity on this issue, with well over 100 Members of Congress co-sponsoring this resolution. In doing so, I think we send a clear, unambiguous message that the House is committed to addressing one of America's most pressing needs. And while we have made great strides in raising awareness, the need for improved financial education has never been greater. According to the Federal Reserve, consumer debt in America now exceeds $2.4 trillion. According to the Department of Commerce, the personal savings rate in America recently dropped to negative 1.1 percent, a level that has not been seen since the Great Depression. The fact is that today's marketplace abounds with options for managing wealth. Credit and investment opportunities are presented to consumers on a daily basis. For instance, by the time they reach their second year in school, the vast majority, 92 percent, of American college students have at least one credit card, and yet just a small fraction of those students have sat down with their parents and learned the basic principles of money management, like compound interest and supply and demand. We have a responsibility to ensure that Americans of all ages have access to the tools and resources they need to capitalize on their investment choices, succeed in today's sophisticated economic market, and enjoy a secure financial future. And the key to this success continues to be basic financial education starting early, during grades K through 12. It is a testament to the progress we are making that 38 States now include personal finance education in their curriculum guidelines. But we must continue building on this progress if we are to help today's students become tomorrow's successful investors, entrepreneurs, and business leaders. The Financial Literacy and Education Commission established by Congress in the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003 recently held a national summit to develop better methods of teaching money management skills. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee to implement and enhance economic education initiatives as we work to reauthorize No Child Left Behind in the coming year. I also look forward to working with my colleagues on legislation that will put young Americans on the path to an affordable education and a firm financial future. At the start of the 110th Congress, I introduced one such bill, H.R. 87, 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 interest tax free and can be used for college tuition, a first home, or even retirement. Mr. Speaker, it is critically important that families have access to effective savings mechanisms like these if they are to secure their financial futures. But it is even more important that Americans have the know-how and motivation to use them, and that is the goal of the Financial Literacy Month and the resolution before us today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my good friend and distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for introducing this resolution and for his dedication to improving financial literacy. I also would like to thank Mr. Hinojosa's staff, especially Greg Davis, for all their hard work, diligent work in bringing this resolution to the floor. I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Tom Davis, for helping to move this resolution through their committee in such a timely and bipartisan manner. And, finally, I would like to thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Watson) and the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for their support and for managing this resolution on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1591, the so-called U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007. That's what my Democratic colleagues are calling the bill. And while I support the funding in the bill for troop readiness and veterans' health care, I wonder why the bill's title ends with Iraq Accountability. Why not mention hand-outs to dairy interests, spinach farmers, citrus growers, or for storing peanuts? Yes, $74 million for storing peanuts. Why not mention the unrequested funding for fighting wildfires in the west, or the doubling of so-called ``emergency'' funds for the long- known and well planned Base Realignment and Closure effort--funding that the new majority knew was needed, but wouldn't provide in the continuing resolution just last month? Why not mention the increase in the minimum wage or funding for asbestos abatement in the Capitol contained in this alleged emergency wartime supplemental appropriations bill? ``Clean'' is not a word I would use to describe this bill, which includes more than $21 billion in spending that is completely unrelated to troop readiness, veterans' health, or Iraq. Sure, I've heard of Christmas in July, but Christmas in March? What happened to the other party's promise to end business as usual? This bill is worse than usual. As the editorial in USA Today put it yesterday, ``It's hard to believe which is worse: leaders offering peanuts for a vote of this magnitude, or members allowing their votes to be bought for peanuts.'' Don't get me wrong. I agree that Congress has a responsibility and an obligation to ensure the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense have the resources necessary to care for our veterans from all wars and our wounded soldiers returning from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. I agree that Congress has a responsibility and an obligation to see that American troops are ready and able to fulfill their mission. That's why I am a cosponsor of a bill introduced by my distinguished and decorated colleague from Texas, Mr. Johnson. H.R. 511 pledges, ``Congress will not cut off or restrict funding for units and members of the Armed Forces that the Commander in Chief has deployed in harm's way'' in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also agree that we must do a better job holding the Iraqi government accountable. For too long, we pursued an open-ended commitment without well-defined goals and clear benchmarks for success. That's why I am a cosponsor of legislation, H.R. 1062, that will hold the Administration--and the Iraqi government--accountable in achieving clear benchmarks. It requires the President to report to Congress, every 30 days, on the extent to which the Government of Iraq is moving forward on more than a dozen fronts, from troop training and security to rebuilding, reconciliation, international cooperation and enforcing the rule of law. It also requires progress reports on the implementation of strategies that will prevent Iraqi territory from becoming a safe haven for terrorist activities. But the bill we are considering today goes beyond funding and benchmarks and crosses a constitutional line that has long kept Congress from micromanaging military and foreign affairs. Instead of sweeping away bureaucratic obstacles to success, this bill creates 435 new armchair generals. Instead of giving General Petraeus and our diplomatic leaders the flexibility to fulfill their mission, it saddles them with bureaucratic requirements and arbitrary timetables. Instead of ensuring that our troops in harm's way have the resources and equipment they need, this bill uses our military men and women as pawns in a dangerous political game. Instead of giving our troops, the Iraqi people, and their fledgling government one last chance, it gives them one last mandate--to retreat in defeat. As if the bill wasn't wasteful enough, it starts a perilous countdown to a vacuum in leadership and security that threatens any prospect for peace or stability in the Middle East for years to come. And it does a great disservice to our men and women in uniform and their commanders in the field who have already sacrificed so much for our freedom and security and that of the Iraqi people. They deserve better. I urge my colleagues to oppose this irresponsible bill.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for all his hard work on this bill as well as on this amendment, which I support. My problem with it is that right now we are doing a lot of housing law on these disasters, and what we are doing is setting precedent. And if this trend in the weather continues, I think we'll probably see a lot more. So I think we have to be very careful in how we move on this, because if it is made permanent, then the disaster voucher program will serve as a model for the future disasters, forcing Congress to act similarly time and time again. Assisted families will continue to receive this rental subsidy for several months. This is to continue allowing time to transition to other types of housing, including home ownership. And I think that what we are doing is really making, prematurely making these DVPs permanent, so that as long as the recipient remains eligible for assistance it eliminates other approaches. Authorizing this, according to the Congressional Budget Office, puts the cost at about $11,900 per voucher per year. And I really wonder, we all have the goal of really getting the people, the victims of this disaster, back where they want to be, back in a home. And I don't know that by extending the time more, we have got until December, will encourage them, give them the incentive then to get moving. I think extending it through December 31 of 2007 allows Congress and HUD to assess the appropriate long-term solutions. What we have been talking about with all of these vouchers, we have got other ways to do this. And we put in the bill the survey, and until this survey is completed, it may be difficult to identify the need for a permanent disaster voucher program extension, as the disaster voucher program provides assistance to many of these former HANO tenants. So I think we are kind of putting the cart before the horse. We really need to know where the people are, if they are coming back, and what their future plans are. And until HUD has the opportunity to do that, which they have said they would do soon, but not soon enough in time for this bill. So I think that this is premature, making these vouchers permanent, so long as the recipient remains eligible for their assistance.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the bill. The other thing that worries me, though, is just that you said you saw a government that did not care about its people. And I think certainly we have seen people in the government here that care very much; $110 billion has been turned over to those States to use to rebuild. I just think that we all care about it, we as the government, we in the administration, and I think the State and the local government.

Mrs. BIGGERT. So this really is just a reclarification of how it was done in the past.

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to introduce an amendment that I think fixes a provision of the bill that mistakenly includes replacements for 2,000 units in New Orleans, even though these units were not occupied and, in fact, were condemned and scheduled for demolition prior to Katrina. Let's just do the math. Before Katrina, there were 5,156 public housing units that were occupied in New Orleans. We don't know how many of those 5,156 residents will want to return. We have asked HUD to find them and conduct a survey to ask that question. In the meantime, this bill authorizes replacements not only for the 5,156 units that were occupied by Katrina, it throws in another 2,000 units that were unoccupied, condemned, and scheduled for demolition. I see no point to that. We don't know how many of the residents will return. Why then would we want to replace not only the 5,156 units they occupied, but an additional 2,000 units that nobody lived in even both before Katrina? My amendment will permit one-for-one replacement of the units that were occupied by public housing residents at the time of the 2005 storms. According to CBO estimates, this amendment would reduce the spending authorized in this bill by $270 million, which is the cost of replacing the 2,000 public housing units that nobody lived in before the 2005 storms hit. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment, and reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Texas.

Mrs. BIGGERT. It is my understanding, and I know that your Dear Colleague letter states that currently vouchers of the public housing residents and section 8 vouchers do not include utilities. It is my understanding that prior to Katrina and Rita, the public housing residents had vouchers that did include utilities

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that Mr. Neugebauer clarified that. The buildings, we went into those buildings and we climbed up to the second floor and it was just as bad as the first floor and there were no other floors. One thing about New Orleans housing is at least it was not the high rises like we saw originally in Chicago, that a whole precinct would be public housing. And those have been done away with. But let me just say that we want people to come back, and we want them to have the housing. And there are some of the units that have been fixed up. And what has happened is there is nobody there, and the police have to come because they are broken into and they are vandalized. And we need more people there. But these units, we need to know how many people are going to come back originally. We have got to start the process someplace, and we don't seem to be able to do that. If we have 5,156 residents that were promised that they could come back, we should provide that. And it is a one-on-one. But for the 2,000, let's get those first people back and get them back by August so that they could have their kids go to school. The housing is not great, but let's get them back to do that. But to have 2,000 other units that are built that we really would rather get the first ones going, we have got the money for it. And I think now we are talking about 18,000 people that are on the waiting list. First of all, let's just say that there are people that have moved to other States. They have jobs. They have a life. The survey goes out, and it is going to be completed by HUD and we will know. We don't know how many people are on the waiting list. Nobody has made an attempt to figure out if they are people that are waiting or they have gone someplace else. So I would say that this is just to get it going. And to undertake 5,165 units is going to take awhile. Obviously, to build a whole multi- use facility is going to take a lot more time. But there are plans to do it. So we can do it both, but let's get it going. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, with that, again, before we make all these decisions, we really have to know how many people are going to return. If we have the 5,100-some units and all the people that have been living in those units don't return, then there will be a time that they can open up the section 8 housing and have people off the waiting list who qualify. If they still qualify, if they come back. But what this bill is doing is a one-on-one replacement, and that is what it says in this bill, is to replace the one-on-one replacement for those units that we were talking about, whether it is 5,000 or it is 7,000. And I say let's use the dollars that we have to start with the people that were displaced from there. They have the public housing, they have the vouchers, and let's not wait any longer. Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Bachus for the remaining time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment, but for clarification.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would again extend FEMA temporary financial assistance through the end of December and then provide those section 8 vouchers to FEMA-assisted families when FEMA assistance expires, and that is exactly what the gentleman was talking about, but I think that the amendment is unnecessary. The President currently has the authority to extend the length of this temporary assistance, as he has already done before. This assistance was supposed to expire at the end of 18 months, but the President extended it through August of 2007 to allow FEMA ample time, I think, to work with the families and help them secure permanent housing. This means that this assistance will have lasted a full 2 years since Katrina. Since the hurricanes, FEMA has provided billions of dollars in assistance directly to individuals and households to support their recovery, including flood insurance payouts, direct payments for rental assistance, payments for home repairs and lost property. But FEMA assistance was supposed to be temporary to give families that were affected by the devastation time to get back on their feet. But today, as was said, 35,000 families are still living in FEMA trailers. Our efforts should be focused on moving these families to permanent housing, including homeownership, instead of keeping them in limbo. It really concerns me that we move from FEMA and then turn it into section 8 housing. Deadlines such as the August 2007 deadline have encouraged families to make decisions about their future rather than continuing the expectation that the Federal Government will provide for them. In fact, every time FEMA has had a deadline and has enforced it, we have seen more people move further on the road to recovery and self- sufficiency. When FEMA moved people out of the hotels and motels, people said thousands would be homeless. In fact, nationwide less than 100 people were in the shelters as a result, and most of them for only 3 days. I understand the same held true for the cruise ships. When the cruise ships' assistance ended, nobody ended up in a shelter. So we need to encourage the President to have the flexibility he needs to do this right, and that means leaving it to the administration to determine when and for how long to extend the housing aid through FEMA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.