Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 644, the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act of 2007. I want to commend Congressman Miller of California for introducing this legislation for the fourth time. This bill aims to provide local communities greater access to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's brownfields program to clean up and redevelop contaminated sites. More importantly, the bill will help local communities create new jobs and expand their tax base. The revitalization of brownfields sites has always been a familiar topic in Illinois, as my home State has thousands of these underused or vacant properties. Brownfields are those sites where redevelopment is complicated by potential environmental contamination. They are less seriously contaminated than those covered under the Superfund Act, and there are an estimated 500,000 of them across the country. HUD administers a brownfields program called the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, or BEDI. The main purpose of BEDI is to spur economic and community development of the brownfields sites. The problem is that due to a loan guarantee requirement, the program has been underutilized. Over the past 5 years, the Financial Services Committee has sought to make HUD's program more effective, specifically the BEDI program. At hearings, we learned that many communities had been shut out of the BEDI program because they can't get a grant without going through the cumbersome process of applying for a section 108 loan. That is very hard on those smaller communities. Under current law, HUD's brownfields redevelopment projects must be backed by those section 108 guaranteed loans. The section 108 loans require a local community to provide loan security by collateralizing its BEDI project with that community's current and future CDBG allocations. Therefore, many small communities have been hesitant to reply for BEDI because they are unwilling or unable to pledge their block grants as collateral for the guaranteed loans. In short, H.R. 644 amends the HUD Act of 1974 to permit HUD to issue BEDI grants independent of the section 108 loan guarantees. This bill does not create a new program and would not trigger new spending or receipts. This bill will facilitate brownfields redevelopment in thousands of communities across the country, thereby encouraging economic development, expanding communities' tax bases and, most importantly, creating new jobs. I applaud the bill's sponsors for introducing H.R. 644. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this nonbinding resolution. I cannot support it for it neither supports our troops nor offers an alternative plan. It is symbolic, it is partisan, it is cynical, and it is meaningless. The leadership of this body is taking the easy route: criticize the other guy's plan but don't offer your own. Call up your own nonbinding resolution, but don't allow votes on resolutions that actually have substance. Position yourselves for the next elections but not for the next wave of terrorism attacks. Win the White House, but lose the war on terror. There is no doubt that the voters spoke in the last election. They are not happy with the war. Few, if any of us, are satisfied with the progress made in Iraq. I know I am not. Neither are my constituents. Their patience and that of all Americans has run thin. For too long we pursued an open-ended commitment without well-defined goals and clear benchmarks for success. We also pursued a strategy that placed too heavy a burden on our troops and too light an expectation of the Iraqi Government. But I want to remind my colleagues that the voters will speak again if we don't get this right. And I say ``we'' because it is all of us. If we don't put aside the partisan positioning and work together for the good of this country, we all will lose more than just our seats in this body. It is not enough to point the finger and say that the President is wrong, and wait for the returns to come in. It is not enough to disapprove and criticize and say It is not my job. He is the Commander in Chief. And it is not enough to turn around and through this resolution say you support troops that have been or are serving in Iraq, but not those who may go in as replacements, rotations, or as part of the new temporary deployment. This is why we should be using this opportunity, not to take a symbolic vote of no confidence in our Commander in Chief, but to discuss real options for the way forward in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I have been there several times. I have been to the red zone, visited the convention center where the Iraqi Parliament meets, and was there as Prime Minister Maliki presented his reconciliation plan. I met with our military commanders. I have listened to our soldiers who patrol the streets in Baghdad, and I have talked with democratically elected Iraqi leaders about their hopes for the future. The one thing that was very clear to me is that only the Iraqi Government can take the tough steps that will achieve reconciliation and an end to sectarian violence. So now Prime Minister Maliki has stepped forward and asked our President for specific assistance in securing Baghdad. In response, President Bush's commanders have drawn up a plan. The President proposed a new commander on the ground, General Petraeus, who was confirmed by the other body in a bipartisan, unanimous vote of 81-0. We urged the creation of a bipartisan Iraqi Study Group comprised of our country's most distinguished and seasoned experts and asked their advice. Among the key items they supported was a temporary surge in troop strength if called for by the commanders on the ground. ``As Baghdad goes, so goes Iraq,'' they pointed out. These are all steps in the right direction. But what would approving this resolution signal to the world? That we tell the Iraqi people to take the tough steps, but then we deny them the support they need to do so? That we urge the creation of a bipartisan commission to give us guidance and then reject its advice? That we unanimously confirm a new general on the ground and then we deny him his plan? That we support our troops, but not their replacements? These are not the messages that I want to send. We owe it to our troops and to those who have given their lives to give the Iraqis one last chance to show that they are willing to fight for and take responsibility for the future of their own country. But we have to exercise our constitutional powers and hold them to it, and we have to stop signaling that the best Congress can offer is a big, nonbinding ``no'' to someone else's plan. So today I am cosponsoring legislation, H.R. 1062, that will do just that: 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. Most significantly, H.R. 1062 exercises the full constitutional powers of this body, not through a symbolic expression of discontent, but through vigorous oversight and true accountability. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1062 and reject the resolution before us.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for House Resolution 94, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Consumer Protection Week. Now in its ninth year, this special week brings together a diverse array of public and private organizations in support of one common goal, ensuring that Americans have the knowledge and financial savvy they need to be responsible consumers and to protect themselves in the marketplace. There have always been those who would prey on the unwary consumer, be it through misleading claims or fraudulent practices. And as more and more Americans begin conducting transactions on the Internet, or with the use of other rapidly changing technologies, we must actively educate ourselves against new and evolving threats. Among the most serious risks today consumers face is identity theft. In Illinois alone, we had over 11,000 reports of identity theft in just 1 year. According to the FTC, Illinois ranks among the top 10 States where consumers are most likely to have their personal information compromised. And yet, by following just a few simple tips, consumers are better able to recognize frauds and can significantly reduce the likelihood that their private information will fall into the wrong hands. In many cases, the wisest and safest consumers are those who simply, with the best understanding, make their choices. Whether it is paying for college, saving for retirement or shopping for a mortgage on a first home, many Americans just don't know where to look to learn about the scores of options that are available to them. That is why, Mr. Speaker, in February 2005, I joined with my friend and distinguished colleague, Representative Hinojosa, to establish the Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus. We began this caucus to ensure that Congress did its part, not just to protect consumers but to empower them. We wanted to make certain that Americans of all ages and all walks of life have access to the tools and the educational resources they need to ensure the economic security of their families. Today, we have the opportunity to do just that. We can join the Federal Trade Commission, the United States Postal Service, the AARP, Better Business Bureaus of America, and hundreds of other consumer advocates across the country that have collaborated to make National Consumer Protection Week a success. Together, we can raise the awareness, not just of pitfalls in the marketplace, but the wealth of information and options available to consumers. One such resource, as Representative Hinojosa said, is consumer.gov, a Federal Web site that provides one-stop shopping for information on everything from avoiding identity theft to finding savings at the gasoline pump. I would like to also take this opportunity to thank my friend from Texas and cochair of the Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus, Mr. Hinojosa, for working so hard on today's resolution, and his tireless effort on financial education issues. In addition, my thanks go out to Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member Barton of the Energy and Commerce Committee for helping to bring this resolution to the floor in such a timely and bipartisan manner. And finally, I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for managing our resolution here today. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to sponsor House Resolution 94, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, this past Friday I had the privilege of visiting the third grade classes at Brook Forest Elementary School in Oak Brook, Illinois. They gave me a wonderful and informative presentation on current efforts to protect the Mexican Grey Wolf and save it from extinction. I was impressed by their thorough research and their dedication to protecting this endangered species. They felt so strongly about it that they held a bake sale and raised $448 to donate to Chicago's Brookfield Zoo for its wolf breeding program. I commend their teachers for their creativity in planning such a comprehensive and engaging curriculum. They combined lessons in science, social studies, public speaking, and environmental and civic responsibility into one challenging and complete unit. I want to offer a big ``thank you'' to my new friends at Brook Forest for teaching me so much. I join them in their noble cause, and will continue to work in Congress to protect endangered species like the Mexican Grey Wolf.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I support provisions in this resolution that provide funding for roads and transit, Pell Grants, Special Education, NCLB, veterans' healthcare and scientific research at places like NIH and Argonne National Laboratory. However, I do not support a provision in this bill that will slash housing assistance for hundreds of families and seniors in my district and for thousands more nationwide. It is unfortunate that the leadership and appropriators on the other side of the aisle decided that it was OK to completely rewrite the funding formula for the disbursement of Section 8 housing funds in this bill without consulting with the authorizing committee, Financial Services. The last time I checked, authorizing on an appropriations bill is against the House rules. But of course, the rule for this bill denies us any opportunity to raise a point of order, or amend the bill. At least during previous Republican-led Congresses, our leadership had the courtesy to allow Democrats to offer amendments and points of order and followed rules that reflect a truly democratic process. Now, I must point out that the other side of the aisle still has a chance to do this the right way. As the new Ranking Member of the Financial Services Housing Subcommittee, I am perfectly happy to work with the majority to craft a comprehensive, bipartisan Section 8 reform package that will provide stability and predictability for our public housing authorities and those whom they serve. My constituents are not well served by this abrupt and drastic change in the formula, and I would warn my colleagues from Illinois to look closely at the new numbers for their districts. The Chicago suburbs are hit hard by this new formula. Each housing authority in all three counties of my Congressional district will receive a funding cut this year. The housing authority in Cook County will lose $8 million, Joliet will lose $1.1 million, Aurora and DuPage County will lose over a million dollars. These are not just dollars; these are families and seniors who are being hurt here. With this bill's proposed cuts to Section 8 housing funding, more than 100 families in DuPage County, about 150 in Will County, and thousands across the country will be kicked to the curb in 2007. This is unacceptable. I am disappointed by the thoughtlessness of those on the other side of the aisle who determined the new formula and numbers in this bill. I urge my colleagues to alert their constituents who will become homeless this year about this fly-by-night formula change that our dear colleagues have brought to the floor today. I invite the Democratic leadership to explain to the neediest citizens in the suburbs of Chicago and in communities across our Nation why they won't have a roof over their heads in 2007. This is no way to start the New Year.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), the author of this resolution.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers and would close with just urging all my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 57, a resolution congratulating Illinois State, as it celebrates on February 15 its 150th anniversary of its founding. I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Weller of Illinois, for introducing this resolution and recognizing the important role Illinois State University plays in educating the citizens of Illinois and many other States in the Nation. With more than 20,000 students, Illinois State University is a large- scale university with a small-college feel. Of the 20,000 students, there are 3,000 students enrolled in graduate degree programs. In addition to a number of graduate certificates, Illinois State offers 63 undergraduate programs and over 47 master's degrees, specialist and doctoral degree programs. Illinois State University has been ranked as one of the 100 best values in public education by Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine. ISU actually jumped four spots, from 83 to 79, in Kiplinger's newest edition and was only one of two State schools to make the list. Sixty-six percent of Illinois State University students receive financial aid, and the school has a low default rate of 2 percent, well under the national default rate of 4.5 percent. Illinois State also recognizes the importance of educating students to become good teachers. Founded by Jesse Fell in 1847, Illinois State was the first public university in Illinois and was quickly established as a teachers' education institution. Now, 150 years later, the university is the second largest producer of teacher education degrees in the country. In fact one in seven Illinois teachers holds a degree from Illinois State. Mr. Speaker, Illinois State University is a remarkable institution, and I would like to congratulate all of those students, the alumni and past and present employees on all that they have accomplished over the past 150 years. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding and, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. In 2005, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Energy Policy Act, or EPACT, the first comprehensive energy package enacted with bipartisan support in well over a decade. I supported it for one reason, because it made a much needed and sustained investment in the basic science and applied energy research that will end our reliance on foreign oil. Congress and the Federal Government must make a steadfast commitment to support the development of advanced energy technologies and alternative fuels that will help end our addiction to oil and gasoline. That is why in the 109th Congress I introduced H.R. 6203, the Alternative Energy Research and Development Act. This bill reflected the latest research, the emergence of innovative technologies, and new ways of thinking about our power problems. Among other things, it supported the development of biofuels, solar and wind power, and battery technologies. It also promoted energy conservation in a number of important ways. This bill received bipartisan support from the Science Committee. It was approved unanimously by this body in September of last year, but the other body, on the other side of the rotunda, failed to act on it before Congress adjourned. So why aren't these widely supported provisions included in the bill we are considering today? Good question. I tried to offer an amendment to include provisions from H.R. 6203 in this bill. I went to the Rules Committee to explain my amendment and how it might contribute to our energy independence. But before I could speak, a decision had already been made by the Democratic leadership not to allow any amendments to this bill, not even those whose provisions had been passed unanimously just 4 months ago. So how does this bill contribute to our energy independence, Mr. Speaker? I supported fixing the Clinton administration oil and gas leasing errors, but I believe we are missing the opportunity to take the next step. We should know where the money will go. Instead of creating a slush fund, as this bill does, for some unknown use in the indefinite future, we should take the steps today to invest in the kind of research, development, and demonstration projects outlined in H.R. 6203 that will ultimately lead to advanced energy technologies. We need to start today. If we are serious about energy independence, we should put that money to work today as an incentive for consumers to become more energy efficient and use alternative fuels. This could be accomplished by extending and expanding the tax credits created in EPACT for the purchase of vehicles that run on alternative fuels. Let us lift the cap on the number of vehicles that can qualify for these credits. Let us expand incentives for the installation of alternative refueling infrastructure. I introduced another bill in the last Congress that would do just that by using the revenue generated from repealing certain tax credits for oil and gas production. These are the kind of concrete initiatives that will bring us measurably closer to achieving true energy independence. These are the kind of worthy initiatives we should consider. I will have to support this bill, I guess, but I think it could be better, so much better, and that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

Mrs. BIGGERT

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, in closing let me just say that the number of elderly people in America continues to rise, and with advances in health care and technology seniors will continue to represent a larger percentage of the population. It is important that these citizens have as many economic resources as possible to support them in the future. Further, studies show that given the chance seniors overwhelmingly desire to live out their lives in their own homes. The reverse mortgage is an important tool that can help in addressing the needs of seniors today and in the years to come. I thank the gentleman from Utah for introducing this bill, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia for managing the bill. I urge support of this legislation.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 391, legislation that would temporarily remove the cap on the number of home equity conversion mortgages that may be insured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development's FHA program. I would like to thank my colleagues, Congressman Jim Matheson, and Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite, for introducing this important bill. This legislation is similar to H.R. 2892, the Reverse Mortgages to Help America's Seniors Act, which was approved by the House by voice vote in the previous Congress. Madam Speaker, this legislation would enable senior homeowners to continue to tap into an important source of cash, the equity in their own homes. Nicknamed ``reverse mortgages,'' these HECMs allow Americans age 62 and older to maintain financial independence while staying in their own homes. The reverse mortgage is a unique loan that allows seniors who are homeowners to convert part of the equity in their homes into tax-free income without having to sell their home, give up title, or take on new mortgage payments. The funds collected from a reverse mortgage can be used for whatever needs a senior may have, including home repairs, health care costs, debts or simple daily living expenses. Instead of making monthly payments to the lender, as with a regular or forward mortgage, the senior can receive payments or a payment from the lender. Under the reverse mortgage, senior homeowners can receive a lump sum, fixed monthly payments, a line of credit or a combination of the three, depending on their individual situations. The program ensures that the reverse mortgage is paid back when they move or when they pass away, and the homeowner will never owe more than the house is worth. With a reverse mortgage, senior homeowners who are house rich but cash poor can access cash for their needs while keeping their homes. When the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program was initially made permanent, the number of such loans that the FHA program could handle at any given time was capped so that HUD and Congress could determine the safety and soundness of the program. Nearly 10 years later, we now know the program is successful. In my home State of Illinois alone, the number of FHA-insured reverse mortgages has nearly doubled since 2004 to just short of 2,000 in 2006. With the removal of the cap, more seniors will be able to put the equity in their homes to work for them. Under this bill, the cap only will be removed through February 15, as was noted. It is my hope that by temporarily removing this cap, which currently limits the number of outstanding loans to 275,000, another measure that we will consider later could expand the removal further, eventually leading to a permanent fix. According to the AARP, a leading supporter of this bill, only the complete removal of the volume cap will prevent the possibility of detrimental program disruptions in the future. Living in the home that may have seen the raising of children and the joy of grandchildren should be an option for seniors well into retirement. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill that will protect the ability of seniors to stay in their homes and provide them with economic security. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his kind words.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 188, introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). This bill will provide a new effective date for certain provisions in Public Law 105-331. It is a simple bill and it is simple to describe. Passage will allow the Edison Tower Museum in Edison, New Jersey, an extension until the end of June to raise private funds. These funds will match the roughly $380,000 in surcharges due from the sale of coins as part of the Thomas Alva Edison Commemorative Coin Act of 2004. As a result of some miscommunications and, frankly, a lack of clarity in materials, the United States Mint provided the Edison Memorial Tower Corporation regarding statutory requirements, this brief extension is necessary. It will allow the corporation time to raise private sector matching funds and thus claim the surcharges from the sale of the coins. The situation is now cleared up and the Mint has corrected the documentation and all concerned agree that a brief extension of the statutory 2-year timeline is both reasonable and a practical and fair way to deal with the situation. The matching fund requirements were part of sensible reforms to the commemorative coin program enacted in the 104th Congress at the behest of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). They are an important safeguard against misuse of the commemorative coin program. This modest extension creates no precedent for future surcharge recipients who fail to raise the required funds in a timely fashion, and is merely a brief pause to allow satisfaction of the statute. This is a good bill, one that passed the House in November of 2006 by voice vote but was not acted upon by the other body. I urge its immediate passage. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, which would provide less choice and no savings. I think my friends on the other side of the aisle failed to mention some of the negative aspects of the veterans drug plan, which they are now highlighting as a model for government negotiation. I know they haven't highlighted the fact that many widely used drugs, including Lipitor, the most widely used drug in America, isn't even available through the VA plan. I wonder if my friends on the other side of the aisle are prepared to tell their seniors why they can't get Lipitor. Are they prepared to tell them they can't go to their local pharmacy, but have to go to a VA pharmacy, which could be hundreds of miles away, or they have to order their drugs through the mail? I wonder why one- third of the veterans have already moved to the part D plan. Personally, I know my seniors would want to be able to choose a drug plan that gets them the best deal for the drugs they use. They don't want to be locked into a one-size-fits-all plan that doesn't cover their drugs, especially since the CBO says it won't save them any money. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, which would provide less choice and no savings. This morning, as I reviewed all of the letters of support and opposition on this bill, I was struck by the lack of patient group support for this legislation. I could not find a single letter from the American Cancer Society, any diabetes group, or the American Heart Association supporting government negotiation under Medicare Part D. What I did find was a letter from the Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Greater Chicago, in opposition to the bill, which I think represents the views of all these groups. It states, and I quote, ``To date, government interventions in prescription medication pricing, at the federal and state levels, have resulted in policies restricting access to medications.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be included in the Record. In addition, I think my friends on the other side of the aisle have failed to mention some of the negative aspects of the Veterans Drug Plan they are now highlighting as the model from government negotiation. I know they haven't highlighted the fact that many widely used drugs--including lipitor, the most used drug in America--aren't even available through the VA Plan. I wonder if my friends on the other side of the aisle are prepared to tell their seniors why they can't get their lipitor or why they need to fail on a less costly drug first. Are they prepared to tell them that they can't go to their local pharmacy or that they need to order their drugs through the mail? Personally, I know my seniors want to be able to choose a drug plan that gets them the best deal on the drugs they use. They don't want to be locked into a one-size-fits-all plan that doesn't cover their drugs. And then there is the other issue nobody on the other side of the aisle wants to talk about. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the legislation we are considering today won't save seniors any money and won't save the government any money. So why should seniors give up their drug coverage if it won't even save them money? Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation because it threatens to limit the drug choices of America's seniors without saving them or the government any money. Currently, there are 54,575 seniors in my district that utilize the Medicare Part D program, and they save on average $1,200 a year. Costs to seniors are already less than originally projected and they are expected to fall further. Let's let the program continue to work.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3. Everyone has a family member or friend who suffers from diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or other diseases. Unfortunately, without Federal Government support, scientists won't have access to the stem cells they need to develop treatments and cures for these and a host of other diseases that touch the lives of every American. We already are using Federal funds to support embryonic stem cell research. But science has advanced rapidly since the President announced his stem cell research policy. These cells were just identified less than ten years ago, and already, the technology is progressing by leaps and bounds. The 22 lines currently available under the President's policy were developed using outdated techniques and have been contaminated, possibly skewing the outcome of experiments. There are now 125 good, pure cell lines available for use. Because they are more diverse, not only can scientists use them to research more conditions, but they better reflect the genetic diversity of individuals. I support lifting the ban on Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, so long as the donors give their consent and the cells made available would otherwise be discarded and destroyed. It is simply tragic that something so valuable would just be thrown away when it has so much potential to alleviate so much suffering. Given the promise that these stem cells hold, it is time to drop the restrictions and allow researchers to do what they do best. Let's let researchers go where the science leads them, not where politicians dictate. In order to truly explore all the possibilities, scientists must have access to all kinds of stem cells: adult, embryonic and those from umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid. That is why I plan to vote for H.R. 3. I am proud to support H.R. 3, and for the sake of the millions suffering from debilitating diseases, I ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank John Case for his eight years of service as Chairman of the Pace Board of Directors. Under John's leadership, numerous improvements were instituted to North America's 6th largest bus system, resulting in better service for millions of Americans living in the Chicagoland area. It is no surprise that John was chosen to serve as Chairman of the Board--he has a long history of serving his community and nation. As a retired United States Air Force Major with twenty years of service, including in the third bomber wing during the Korean War, he brought many valuable skills to his role as Chairman. His experience is evident in the many improvements he instituted. These include developing Board Committees to handle specific decision areas, implementing use of biodiesel in the Pace bus fleet, doubling the size of Pace's vanpool program, ensuring that retirement funds are being adequately funded, and implementation of the Intelligent Bus System, which provides real- time information on bus locations, ridership and on-time performance. John is a dedicated public servant. For more than forty years, he has served his community in many public roles. He began his public career in Lisle Township--located in the 13th District of Illinois, which I represent--and, since then, has held the position of Township Trustee and Supervisor for Lisle Township. In Dupage County, in which Lisle Township resides, he has served as a DuPage County Board Member, County Board Chairman, and Forest Preserve President. Once again, I would like to congratulate and thank John Case on his eight successful years as Chairman of the Pace Board of Directors and for all he has done for his community.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise reluctantly in opposition to title IV. I am a fiscal conservative and I strongly support a balanced budget, fiscal discipline, and earmark reform; but I am afraid that this version of PAYGO means taxes will go up. I think that the problem that we have had between the two sides of the aisle is over what is spending and what is tax relief. And I think that we see tax relief as tax relief and that it is the people's money and they know best how to spend it; and the other side of the aisle includes tax relief as spending. So I think until we can iron out that difference, I think we are going to have problems. Madam Speaker, the Wall Street Journal today in an editorial called ``Tax As You Go,'' that is January 5, puts it best and much better than I can say it and I would just like to quote a couple of lines from there. It says: ``PAYGO, by contrast, gives the appearance of spending discipline while making it all but impossible to let the taxpayers keep more of their money. It really should be called spend and tax as you go.'' I would urge everyone to look at this Wall Street Journal, and I submit it for inclusion into the Record. [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 5, 2007] Tax As You Go Congressional Democrats are dashing out of the gates to establish their fiscal conservative credentials. And as early as today House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will push through so-called ``pay- as-you-go'' budget rules for Congress. Keep an eye on your wallet. ``Paygo,'' as Washington insiders call it, sounds like a fiscally prudent budget practice: If government spends more on program A, it has to spend less money on program B, and thus budget deficits will be restrained. We're all for that. But when Republicans proposed exactly that budget rule in recent years, House Democrats voted it down. Ms. Pelosi has something different in mind. Under her paygo plan, new entitlement programs and all new tax cuts would have to be offset by either cutbacks in other entitlement programs or tax increases. This version of paygo is a budget trapdoor, designed not to control expenditures but to make it easier to raise taxes while blocking future tax cuts. Supporters of paygo claim it will help restrain entitlement spending. It won't. Paygo doesn't apply to current entitlements that will grow automatically over the next several decades. Ms. Pelosi's version of paygo applies only to new entitlements or changes in law that expand current programs. And on present trajectory, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps and the like are scheduled to increase federal spending to almost 38% of GDP by 2050, up from 21% today. Paygo won't stop a dime of that increase. This may explain why one of the leading supporters of paygo is the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal outfit that favors far more social spending. Paygo enthusiasts also claim that when these rules were in effect in the 1990s the budget deficit disappeared and by 2001 the budget recorded a $121 billion surplus. Sorry. The budget improvement in the late 1990s was a result of three events wholly unrelated to paygo: the initial spending restraint under the Republican Congress in 1995 and 1996 as part of their pledge to balance the budget; a huge reduction in military spending, totaling nearly 2% of GDP, over the decade; and rapid economic growth, which always causes a bounce in revenues. Paygo didn't expire until 2002, but by the late 1990s politicians in both parties were already re- stoking the domestic spending fires. What paygo does restrain are tax cuts, by requiring that any tax cut be offset dollar-for-dollar with some entitlement reduction. Congressional budgeteers always overestimate the revenue losses from tax cuts, which under paygo would require onerous budget cuts to ``pay for'' the tax cuts. As a political matter, those spending cuts will never happen. First on the chopping block, therefore, would be the investment tax cuts of 2003 that are set to expire in 2010. Last year Democrat David Obey of Wisconsin, the new Appropriations Committee chairman and a prodigious spender, gave this strategy away when he urged paygo rules so he could enact new social spending and pay for it by canceling the Bush tax cuts for those who make more than $1 million. Never mind that, in the wake of those capital gains and dividend tax-rate cuts, federal revenues climbed by a record $550 billion over the past two fiscal years. Incidentally, thanks to the current economic expansion and the surge in tax revenues, the budget deficit has fallen by $165 billion in just two years--without paygo. Given all of this, it's especially puzzling that even some conservatives seem tempted by paygo's fiscal illusions. Our friends at the Heritage Foundation have of late become obsessed with future entitlement forecasts and have advised Ms. Pelosi to enact paygo rules to stop it. But Heritage notably did not insist that tax increases be excluded from any paygo rule. Had such logic prevailed in 1980 or 2003, it's possible that neither the Reagan nor Bush tax cuts would ever have become law. As a political matter, paygo is about returning Republicans to their historical minority role as tax collectors for the welfare state. That's not to say that new budget rules aren't highly desirable. The line-item veto, a new Grace Commission to identify and eliminate the billions of dollars of waste and failed programs, and an automatic spending sequester if the budget rises above agreed baselines would all help to restore spending discipline. But it is precisely because these rules would restrain spending that they are not on the Democratic agenda. Paygo, by contrast, gives the appearance of spending discipline while making it all but impossible to let taxpayers keep more of their money. It should really be called ``spend and tax as you go.''

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding. I rise to honor my colleague and friend, Congressman Henry Hyde. I am in the district next to Mr. Hyde. But as a freshman I used to say, try and get press when your district is sandwiched in between Henry Hyde and the Speaker. I think the one thing that I just will miss on the House floor about Henry is his jokes. Whenever you are feeling blue, whenever you just needed a pick-me-up, there was Henry sitting on the aisle and then over here. I just would go up, and he would give the joke of his day, which always made you feel really good. He is always gracious and always ready to give credit to his colleagues. One time he used a joke that I used to open speeches with. He would always give me credit. He would say, ``as Judy Biggert says,'' and then go on with the joke. I think that the House needs more Henry Hydes. Probably Congress hasn't been so well thought of these days, and lately by the public. Our image seems to be a little bit tarnished. But I think Henry Hyde has always stood out in this body as a statesman. I can remember coming here as a freshman and going to our Republican Conference. When he would come in the room, people would stand and clap. He just walked into the room, and he has always just stood out like that. I think the one thing that we could all really want to do is to follow him as far as the statesmanship and not just what people think of us politicians. So we are going to miss him, but I think the institution has become a better place because Henry Hyde has been here, and we will miss him.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I would recognize the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for 2 minutes.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman also from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and he has been a great leader and we will miss him in Congress.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the sponsor of the identical legislation, H.R. 4924.