Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this rule governing the consideration of H.R. 1852, the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007.

I had hoped that the committee would see the wisdom in providing an open rule to this important legislation; and in the absence of an open rule, that it would at least make in order those amendments that the Members took the time and effort to draft, including one of my own amendments. Unfortunately, only some of the amendments filed with the Rules Committee were made in order.

While I'm pleased that some of these amendments made in order are Republican amendments, other amendments which were offered and debated during our committee markup of this bill were not made in order. These amendments deserve to be debated and given a fair hearing.

Mr. Speaker, last year FHA's modernization bill, which passed the House by a vote of 415-7, garnered broad bipartisan support. This year's bill does not have that kind of support. I am pleased that the majority has edged closer to last year's bipartisan bill since the introduction of the new bill under consideration today.

As I pointed out during our committee hearing and markup on this bill, the bill originally excluded homeowners seeking to refinance from benefiting from a modernized FHA. The bill will now assist more homeowners, perhaps some seeking to refinance a bad subprime loan, but still not as many as last year's bill.

I continue to object to provisions that do not fully allow for risk- based pricing. Again, witnesses during our committee hearings said this would result in FHA serving fewer, not more, American borrowers. I also remain opposed to the provision that siphons money away from FHA to fund a brand-new government program, another trust fund, to build more affordable housing. While this is a very important issue, affordable housing, what we need here is to have FHA money to help those that are in trouble, facing foreclosure, or those first-time borrowers who would not be able to find a good mechanism to find a mortgage.

During committee deliberations, we were given the opportunity to debate and consider a variety of issues pertaining to this bill. Members on our side of the aisle had hoped that all Members, not just those on the Financial Services Committee, would be given the same opportunity to debate important issues on the House floor.

Republicans support many aspects of this bill, H.R. 1852; but I think we all deserve the right to participate in the amendment process, whether as a member of the committee of jurisdiction, or as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Only through an open rule is that possible. For this reason, I rise in opposition to the rule being considered today and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, for 7 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to Ranking Member Bachus.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I'd like to start out on a positive note, but I guess I must say that I'm disappointed about the bill, the way it is as we're considering it today.

While the bill has improved since its introduction, I had hoped that we could take up the same bipartisan FHA Modernization Bill, H.R. 5121, that passed House last year. And since we've been talking about it, I might say it was cosponsored by 54 Republicans and 51 Democrats and one Independent, so it was a good bill and a bipartisan compromise that was agreed to by Chairman Waters, Chairman Frank, and then Chairman Mike Oxley.

And given the overwhelming vote, and the exact number was 415-7 for last year's bill, I had hoped that we could take it up and move it quickly to the floor. But instead we have two bills this year. We have the bill, H.R. 1752, which I introduced, which was identical to last year's bipartisan bill, and we have Chairman Waters' bill. And so I think we're today considering a new bill with new provisions that are not bipartisan, and I think it has delayed the FHA modernization and will serve fewer borrowers than last year's bill. But it's an important bill.

There are some key differences between these bills. There is one that has caused the greatest concern for me and many of my colleagues, and that is the inclusion of a provision in H.R. 1852 that creates a funding placeholder and siphons off FHA funds to a brand-new government trust fund. And it's admirable, affordable housing. We all want affordable housing in all forms, whether it's section 8, whether it's public housing, whether it's FHA modernization. But I think that taking the funds out of FHA and using them for a purpose unrelated to its core mission of the FHA would threaten the solvency of the FHA fund and its ability to pay off the insurance claims. And we are reaching a crisis there, where we are going to have to have some credit influx into the FHA fund. So we'll hear more discussion on that during the consideration of Mr. Hensarling's amendment during this debate.

So it's my hope that we can work together to address Members' concerns through the amendment process so that a modernized FHA bill can help assist more low- and moderate-income Americans in buying and keeping their homes.

I'd like to just briefly talk about and thank Chairman Waters for offering a specific provision in this manager's amendment. The chairwoman's original draft only permitted first-time home buyers to participate in new low- and no down payment loan programs. But the amendment under consideration corrects that and mirrors the provision in the FHA modernization bill that allows any FHA qualified borrower to participate in the new FHA low and no down payment loan program. So clearly, the FHA has a role to play in the solution to this country's rising foreclosure rate.

And as I think I said on April 19, during our first committee hearing on this, this bill, one of the most important things that Congress can do, as we search for ways to help those that have been harmed by the subprime market, is to give FHA the tools it needs to be a viable alternative for the first-time and low-income borrowers.

And then I'd like to address an issue that Chairman Frank did bring up, and even though he's not on the floor. But the legislation that I have included another bipartisan agreement last year, and that was the automatic reduction of annual premiums in FHA to no more than 55 basis points for loans that remain active after 5 years. And automatic premium reductions can be a good thing. They can reduce refinancing and perhaps some defaults and foreclosures as well.

In contrast, I think that the Franks-Waters bill requires the refund of excess upfront premiums charged to higher-risk borrowers, those with FICO scores under 560. So I'm concerned that this provision would have the unintended consequences of limiting the number of borrowers that could be served by the FHA program because it requires initial premiums to be even higher. And I think that the refund provision would also be very difficult to implement.

This is an insurance program. And when you have car insurance, you don't get a refund if you don't have an accident. You might have your rate lowered, which is what was in the former bill. So I think that that is an issue that he talked about that I wanted to clarify.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would just like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for all his hard work on our Financial Literacy and Education Caucus. I really enjoy working with him, and the counseling really fits right into the purview of financial literacy, so again I thank the gentleman.

Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), who is now going to assume the role as the ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In closing, I would really like to thank Subcommittee Chairwoman Waters for her work on this bill. I am pleased that the FHA modernization bill is moving forward, and I think that the bill that we will vote on today is much improved from the original draft as a result of constructive input from Members from both sides of the aisle. It contains many bipartisan provisions that I support and still contains a few provisions that I do not support. But it is my hope that the provision siphoning money away from the fund will be struck and that true risk-based pricing will be implemented so that FHA can serve the maximum number of borrowers possible. But those arguments have been made and have been rejected by the majority, so it is my sincere hope that we can further improve the bill as it continues to move through the legislative process.

As I understand it, the Senate Banking Committee is scheduled to mark up its version of FHA reform tomorrow. So unlike last year, it appears that FHA reform is gaining traction in the Senate, and I hope that we can move this bill beyond the House during this Congress and that the Senate and the administration will work with us to reform this important program.

I think American families deserve a 21st-century FHA program to have a safe and secure mortgage product as an alternative to the dangerous products offered by predatory lenders. Qualified American families looking to keep their homes and refinance their bad mortgages, many of which are currently in default, deserve to do so through a modernized

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

In all my thanking, I forgot to thank the staff, which I would really like to do, the staff of the subcommittee, Cindy Chetti, Tallman Johnson, Nicole Austin, Robert Gordon and Jim Clinger for all the work that they've done on the minority side of the aisle. And also, to thank, on the other side of the aisle, the Democrat staff who have been so helpful to us: Scott Olson, Gail Lester, Jonathan Harwitz, Kellie Larkin, Tom Duncan and Himay Lazarga. I thank all of them for all the work that they've put into this bill. And also, one of our new members on this side, Jason Britt, one of our new members of the staff. Thank you so much.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Madam Chairman, I recognize myself for 1 minute.

I really believe in the concept of this. I think that there are a lot of high-cost areas that will really benefit from this. I hope that this will not hurt some of the low-cost areas; in other words, I think that the administration has said something about the fact that some of the areas across the country would be hurt and would lower, go below the $419,000 limit. So I hope that that will be addressed. I see Mr. Frank getting up. Maybe he would like to comment on that.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, I have some concerns about what we would call unintended consequences. I am a big supporter of financial literacy, and I chair the caucus. It is so important home buyers know what they are getting into, and I think that counseling is very important. I think that if we have an educated home buyer, we might not see so many of these foreclosures or near foreclosures or bankruptcy with the counseling.

My concern is the mandatory counseling for FHA, and only because of something that has happened in Illinois, that happened in Chicago when this mandatory counseling was put in for FHA mortgages.

What happened was that the lenders withdrew from the area. It was put in first by a ZIP Code in the city of Chicago and then put in for all of Cook County. The lenders withdrew from the area so there were no mortgages or very few available for those in that area because they weren't able to get the counseling that was needed in time to get the mortgages.

It takes time for counseling, and I know that you put in, and I think this would help, is that people could get counseling on the Internet. I think it is a very important thing. I just worry about when it is mandatory that we are going to have less availability of FHA involvement than when it is discretionary as in the bill.

I think that it makes FHA less attractive. If you are a prospective home buyer and one lender, a non-FHA, offers to put you into a mortgage that day while the FHA loan requires you to go through a counseling course, which will you pick? People will leave FHA, and we don't want that to happen. I know it is important that we have counseling and get people into this type of loan. The whole thing is, FHA is much better than the more exotic subprime loans, and that is the whole focus of this bill. I would hope that we can promote FHA, and I hope as this amendment moves forward, we can take a look at.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Madam Chairman, with that, I withdraw my objection, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment strikes the bill in its entirety and inserts language that is identical to last year's bipartisan FHA modernization bill, H.R. 5121. Last year the bill had 54 Republicans, 51 Democrats, and one1 Independent cosponsor. Last year the bill was the bipartisan compromise that was agreed to by Chairman Waters and Chairman Frank and then chairman Mike Oxley. Last year's bill passed the House by a vote of 415-7 on July 25, 2006.

There are differences in the bills. This amendment, last year's bipartisan bill, I would like to highlight a couple of important differences. The Frank-Waters bill authorizes the FHA to implement risk-based pricing, but leaves in place the current, I think, outdated premium caps. My concern is that these limits on the premium caps will prevent FHA from serving riskier borrowers who could be prudently served by charging a slightly higher premium.

With the flexibility to charge slightly higher premiums, FHA would be able to serve borrowers with lower FICO scores who are currently being served only by the subprime market at very high interest rates. Just like last year's bipartisan House-passed bill, my amendment modernizes and updates premium caps, enabling FHA to reach down and serve riskier borrowers, but in a prudent manner. I think this is where growth comes in, because there will be more loans that FHA will be able to make.

Second, the Frank-Waters bill requires the refund of excess upfront premiums charged to higher-risk borrowers, those with FICO scores below 560. I am concerned that this new provision may treat your higher initial premiums and unintentionally limit the number of borrowers that could be served by FHA.

A refund provision also would be difficult to implement. Perhaps most importantly, refunds like this undercut the very concept of insurance. It is the logical equivalent of a healthy person requesting a 100 percent refund of his or her health insurance premium, or a driver who doesn't get into an accident demanding all of his car insurance back.

Just like last year's House-passed bill, my amendment includes another bipartisan agreement, the automatic reduction of annual premiums to no more than 55 base points for loans, and remains active after 5 years. Automatic premium reductions can be a good thing. They can reduce refinancing and perhaps some defaults and foreclosures as well.

Finally, the most significant difference between the bill I have introduced and the Frank-Waters FHA reform proposal, which has been of great concern to me and many of my colleagues, is the inclusion of a provision that creates a funding placeholder that you have heard talked about so much today that siphons off the FHA funds to create a brand- new government trust fund.

The other provisions that I mentioned are ones that represent significant differences between our introduced bills. Using FHA program funds to create a housing trust fund, to me, is where we have the most difference, and I believe it is not an appropriate use of FHA funds. Taking funds out of FHA and using them for a purpose unrelated to its core mission would threaten the solvency of the FHA fund and its ability to pay out the insurance claims. We don't want to have to come back here and do a bailout because FHA funds were diverted for other projects.

There is general agreement on the need for FHA modernization legislation. By modernizing FHA with my amendment, we can expand FHA and give a viable alternative to more low-income borrowers who may otherwise lose their home or be forced into the higher-cost subprime loans, or even predatory products. It is true that FHA cannot help all homeowners that are in the red, but it may help a good portion of them.

I would urge my colleagues to support my amendment, last year's bipartisan bill, the House-passed bill that many of my colleagues supported last year.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, we could have passed this bill 9 months ago, and then we would have added on to it. Unfortunately, this is my opportunity to do it, and this is the bill that I have had. I bring it up now.

As I said before, there are good things that have come out in the discussion today; there are some good things that have been added onto the bill that you have brought forward. The reason for bringing this up is I have some real concerns about some of the things that are in there, and this is my opportunity.

I don't think that we are penalizing low-income people that much. I know that in the discussion that we had in committee when this came up about no down payment, there are people that can't afford a mortgage with no down payment and can meet the monthly payments, but there was no risk with those people, no premium for FHA to ensure that kind of mortgage.

That isn't fair for other people that based on their credit scores are having to pay a premium. I would just disagree. If you are able to always meet those, then the risk should be dependent on what you do, not what somebody else does either. I would agree with that.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, looking at the two bills, let's look at flexibility risk-based premiums. H.R. 1752 permits upfront or annual premiums or both. Premium rates may vary over loan term if basis for change is determined at origination.

Under your bill, the same: requires annual report on risk-based premiums and how they were determined, authorizes premiums based on product risk.

The maximum upfront premium amounts, H.R. 1752: 3 percent, or 1.5 percent if annual premium is at its maximum. Under your bill, 2.25 percent for standard-risk and higher-risk mortgages, 3.0 for zero and lower down mortgages for first-time buyers. And then the maximum annual premium amounts in H.R. 1752, 2.0, or 1.0 if upfront premium is at its maximum. Under yours, 0.55 percent for standard and high-risk mortgages, 0.75 for zero down mortgages. And then the limit on premium charged for certain mortgages. If a borrower has 3 percent cash contribution and a score of 560 or more, the upfront premium is limited to 2.25 percent and the annual 0.55 percent. And then, under your bill it is included by creation of the standard-risk and higher-risk mortgage categories.

I guess we disagree on this, but I think I want the same thing. I want FHA to be used. I want it to be used for low-income, first-time home buyers and those that are trying to refinance. This is critical right now, and I just think there is some differences in what we have.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

If the gentleman will yield.

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

I guess we will have to agree to disagree that last year's bill would have served more borrowers. And we are moving forward here, so I would urge Members to support my amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that means a great deal to me, the education of homeless youth.

Shortly before the August recess, this House overwhelmingly passed a resolution commemorating the 20th anniversary of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. In addition to recognizing the positive impact of McKinney-Vento, this resolution called on policymakers to unite behind certain common goals for the future. One of those goals is to improve the access of homeless children and youth to education in the public schools.

In order to meet this goal, I invite my colleagues to cosponsor a bill that I recently introduced with Representatives Sarbanes and Grijalva, H.R. 3205, the Homeless Education Improvement Act of 2007. The bill will extend and improve the successful homeless children and youth programs in NCLB.

Mr. Speaker, being without a home should not mean being without an education. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the Homeless Education Act.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few provisions in H.R. 2669 that I believe are very important to students and parents across the country.

I support the increases in Pell Grants and cuts to interest rates on federally subsidized student loans provided in H.R. 2669. These provisions are the most effective way we can help low and middle income students achieve the dream of a college education, and I am pleased this bill will provide relief for those students.

I am also pleased that the final bill includes a small but very important provision that is similar to legislation I have introduced, the FAFSA Fix for Homeless Kids Act.

The current Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, creates insurmountable barriers for unaccompanied homeless youth--youth that are homeless and alone. These children do not receive financial support from their parents, and many do not have access to parental financial information or a parental signature required by the FAFSA. As a result, unaccompanied homeless youth are prevented from accessing the financial aid they need because they cannot supply the information required by the FAFSA.

The FAFSA Fix for Homeless Kids Act addresses these barriers by allowing unaccompanied homeless youth to apply for federal financial aid without providing parental income information or a parent signature. This will open the doors of higher education to some of our nation's most vulnerable youth, and I am pleased that H.R. 2669 includes the FAFSA Fix for Homeless Kids Act.

While I am encouraged that H.R. 2669 includes these provisions, I still have serious concerns about a number of other provisions in the bill. Specifically, I oppose the mandatory spending in the bill that is directed at institutions and philanthropic organizations. It is unprecedented to provide mandatory spending to these organizations. Instead of creating new and complicated programs, we should have provided additional funding to Pell Grants.

I also have concerns about the viability of the Federal Family Education Loan Program. During the last Congress, the Education and the Workforce Committee made $20 billion in changes to the Federal Family Education Loan Program by eliminating and reducing federal subsidies to lenders. Just two years later--certainly not long enough to evaluate the impact of those changes--we are back again squeezing student loan lenders. Does the Democratic leadership expect lenders to continue offering student loans out of the goodness of their hearts? This program is essential to the students and families in my district, and I hope that this legislation is not a back-door attempt to kill the Federal Family Education Loan Program.

I support H.R. 2669 because of the additional funding provided for Pell Grants, the decrease in student loan interest rates, and the hope it will give to unaccompanied homeless youth. However, I have serious concerns about the mandatory spending created in H.R. 2669 and the viability of the Federal Family Education Loan Program. I hope that in the future that we can work in a more inclusive manner to address the skyrocketing costs of college without adding to the deficit that students we are trying to help will eventually have to repay.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the CHAMP Act.

I am a strong supporter of the State Children's Health Insurance Program--or SCHIP as it is commonly called. In my State of Illinois, there are approximately 167,000 low-income children who are enrolled in the program. Many of these children are in families where their parents work hard each month to make ends meet. And for many of these families, SCHIP is the safety net they need when they cannot afford private health insurance.

I support reauthorization of the SCHIP Program when the goals of the reauthorization are to cover low- to moderate-income children that do not already have health insurance. However, I cannot support legislation that will provide government-sponsored insurance for higher-income families at the expense of seniors.

The legislation we are considering today would allow States to cover children and adults well above the poverty level. A little-know provision in current law known as ``income disregard'' allows States to determine what is and is not income for the purposes of determining eligibility. This loophole allows States to provide SCHIP coverage to a family of four making more than $72,000 a year, or 350 percent of the Federal poverty level. While $72,000 a year may not get you on the cover of Forbes magazine, it is a level that most Americans would agree is above poverty.

For families with private health insurance making $72,000 a year, this legislation would provide them with an incentive to shift from their private insurance to the Government program. And who can blame them? But I don't think that the taxpayers in my district would support a bill that shifts individuals from private insurance to Government programs.

To expand coverage to middle-income families, the legislation would cut coverage to seniors in the Medicare Advantage program. In my district, there are more than 5,000 seniors who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. I often hear about the additional benefits that these individuals enjoy that are otherwise unavailable or available at a much higher cost.

We should not be forced to choose between seniors and children-- particularly when the majority does not allow the minority to properly review the legislation, debate it in the committee or on the floor, or allow amendments and alternative ideas to be considered.

I support reauthorizing the SCHIP program when that legislation is focused on the most vulnerable population--the population the program was intended to help--poor children. But I cannot support legislation that will eliminate coverage for senior in order to provide coverage to middle-income adults and children--many of whom already have health insurance.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, like all of my colleagues here on the floor and in the House of Representatives, I fully support efforts to end all forms of discrimination. I admire Ms. Ledbetter's bravery for standing up for her right to work in an environment free from discrimination.

I know what it is like. I sat in law school class and was told by my professor that I was taking up the place of someone who belonged there, a man. As a woman who has felt discrimination, I understand her frustration and I am pleased that Congress is discussing this important issue.

If this bill were an anti-discrimination bill, I would be happy to vote for it and would encourage others to support it. But this bill is not about discrimination. It is about the statute of limitations.

The statute of limitations is an institution in American jurisprudence that pertains to all cases and all causes of

action. For instance, for torts the statutes of limitations is 2 years; for contracts, it is 6 years; for employment determination or discrimination, it is 6 months. We can't legislate change in the statute of limitations just because we don't like a particular Supreme Court ruling.

The statute of limitation requires plaintiffs to bring a claim or a cause of action within a reasonable time. And that is so witnesses don't disappear or die off, memories don't fade, and supervisors don't move on and documents are not discarded or destroyed.

That is why I cannot support the legislation before us today. H.R. 2831 would dismantle the statute of limitation for filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. If enacted, this legislation would allow an employee to bring a claim against an employer years, even decades, after the alleged act of discrimination.

In addition, this legislation would discourage the prompt investigation and resolution of discrimination. I think everyone would agree that if there is discrimination at an individual's place of work, it should be investigated and addressed as soon as possible to ensure fairness and prevent further discrimination.

Unfortunately, because no hearings were held on this legislation, I think the majority is rushing it through the House with little discussion on the bill itself. We can only speculate as to what all of the ramifications of this bill might be. I know that the gentleman is probably going to say there was a hearing, but it wasn't directly on this bill. So I would encourage my colleagues to oppose this well- intentioned but misguided statute of limitation legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know how it's possible, but this bill makes a bad sugar program even worse. Chicago was once referred to as the candy capital of the world because of our strong confectionery and manufacturing industry, but thanks to the sugar program and sugar subsidies, nearly one-third of the jobs in the industry have been lost.

This farm bill goes backward, not forward. Instead of recognizing the reality that the sugar program has cost American manufacturing jobs, this bill increases sugar price supports and widens the gap between U.S. and world prices.

I strongly support Mr. Davis and Mr. Kirk's amendment to keep cane refinery and food manufacturing jobs in the United States. This is a good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote for its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment with my colleague from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) to the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill to help the Department of Justice crack down on mortgage fraud.

This amendment will increase funding to allow the Department of Justice to secure two additional prosecutors, enable the FBI to hire 30 additional agents, and support the FBI's interagency task force operations to combat mortgage fraud.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

That is correct.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Every year, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or NCMEC, receives funding through the Justice Assistance Account's Missing Children Program. For the past several years, the House has allocated funding in the Missing Children Program to NCMEC; however, in this year's bill, there is no allocation. My amendment carves out of the Missing Children Program $34 million for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Authorized by Congress in section 404 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, the National Center is a true public- private partnership, funded in the current fiscal year by Congress at $26.6 million and augmented by $11 million in private sector donations.

Since its inception in 1984, NCMEC has handled more than 2.1 million calls, trained 226,000 professionals, printed and distributed over 42 million publications, worked more than 130,300 missing children's cases, and perhaps most importantly, played a role in the recovery of more than 112,900 children. In fact, NCMEC's total recovery rate is an impressive 96.3 percent.

Furthermore, the National Center operates the CyberTipline, the congressionally mandated ``911 for the Internet.'' NCMEC has handled more than 475,000 leads since March 1998. These leads have resulted in hundreds of arrests and prosecutions for such crimes as child pornography, online enticement of children, and sexual molestation.

Mr. Chairman, for generations the message was simple. Parents told their children to never talk to strangers. My parents told me, and I told my children. Times have changed. There are more threats to our children, and our message must change with technology. Similarly, the role of the National Center has changed. The Internet opened a new world of child exploitation, and in order to sufficiently protect our children, we must give the National Center the resources it needs to help keep our children safe and at home.

I would urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I know that you are committed to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and I know that this will be an important issue discussed at conference, and I understand that you would like me to withdraw this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

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

Reclaiming my time, I guess I was really concerned because in the past there's always been the definite allocations for these various groups.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

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

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

I thank Chairman Mollohan for all of his work on this bill, and I appreciate your commitment to all the missing children's programs. It is very important. And I know that you are equally disturbed by the prevalence of Internet crimes against our children. And the numbers certainly don't lie.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's CyberTip Line, the number of reports relating to the online enticement of children for sexual acts increased by 139 percent between 2005 and 2006. Over the same period, there was a 194 percent increase in the number of reports related to unsolicited obscene material sent to a child on the Internet.

Certainly more can and must be done. And this problem is not regional; it is not isolated to big cities or rural

communities. This is a real national problem that will not go away unless we can expand our capabilities of our law enforcement, which is exactly what my amendment will do by increasing the funding for the Internet Crime Against Children Task Force.

The Internet Crime Against Children Task Force, or ICAC, plays a very critical role in protecting our children on the Internet. The ICAC Task Force's mission is clear: to help State and local government enforcement agencies develop an effective response to cyber-enticement and child pornography cases. This help involves forensic and investigative support training and technical assistance, victims services, and community education.

The amendment would carve out $15 million out of the Justice Assistance account's Missing Children Program for the Internet Crime Against Children Task Force. It would also carve out $15 million out of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program for the ICAC Task Force. Both accounts were used in fiscal year 2007 to fund the Internet Crime Against Children Task Force at $26 million.

And I certainly understand the problems that having to do with this amendment, so I am certainly willing to withdraw my amendment if the chairman and ranking member are willing to work toward an increase in funding for the Internet Crime Against Children Task Force in conference.

I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Turner-Biggert- Gillmor amendment to increase funding for HUD-approved housing counseling services by $6.76 million, bringing the HUD total housing counseling budget to $48.34 million for fiscal year 2008.

As the ranking member of the Financial Services Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee, I want to thank my colleagues from Ohio for their work on this amendment, which is a modest increase in funding that could prevent millions of Americans from losing their homes.

I've spent many an hour this year listening to witness after witness testify before our subcommittee and the Financial Services Committee about the current home foreclosure spike. According to data released by the Mortgage Bankers Association, while our country will continue to enjoy record homeownership rates, foreclosures are on the rise and we should expect another 1 million Americans to lose their homes this year. These mortgage foreclosure rates raise eyebrows and call into question what actions can be taken to help homeowners keep their homes. I would like to emphasize the word ``action.''

Almost 2 weeks ago this body passed, by a vote of 411-7, House Resolution 526 sponsored by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings). This resolution called on this body to take action to support home ownership and responsible lending. The resolution directed us to increase opportunities for loan counseling. So what can Congress do to meet this directive today? What is it we should be doing right now to ensure that 650,000 homeowners and those who may follow can keep their homes? One step in the right direction is to support the Turner amendment to increase funding and, therefore, 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 loans so that they may avoid predatory loans and foreclosure altogether.

I'm pleased that on June 25, NeighborWorks 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 Homeownership Preservation Foundation.

In addition, we have about 2,300 HUD-certified housing counseling agencies across the country. Americans should know that 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.

The Turner amendment is one way that we can enhance the ability of our local HUD-certified housing counselors to help our constituents avoid foreclosure and keep their piece of the American Dream. But I think this amendment is good for the economy, good for American homeowners, and I think it's crucial that we act upon it now, where so many people are in these dire straights.

I know that there are groups that are in support of this, and one that comes to mind that we just received a letter from is Acorn. So I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Porter, the gentleman from Nevada, be allowed to control the time on this side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 384, congratulating the University of Wyoming's women's basketball team for winning the 2007 NCAA Division I Woman's National Invitational Tournament Championship.

On March 31, 2007, the University of Wyoming Cowgirls basketball team defeated the University of Wisconsin by a score of 72-56 to capture the NIT title and conclude their most successful season in school history.

Led by junior Hanna Zaveckz, the tournament MVP, and junior Jodi Bolerjack, who scored 16 points in the championship game, the Cowgirls of Wyoming truly had a remarkable season in which they compiled a record of 27-9, finishing second in the Mountain West Conference.

The tournament title capped what ended up being the most successful season ever for the Cowgirls basketball team in school history. No Wyoming Cowgirls team had won as many games. The previous record was set by the 1978-79 team, which finished at 25-7, and no team ever advanced so far in postseason play.

As the State's sole 4-year educational institution, the University of Wyoming receives strong support from the State and its residents, making it the perfect place for a great learning environment. The university was recently ranked by the Princeton Review as one of the Nation's best colleges for 2006, and the College of Business Department of Economics and Finance was also ranked 10th in the Nation and 12th in the world for its program in resource and environmental economics.

I extend my congratulations to head coach Joe Legerski, athletic director Tom Berman, president Tom Buchanan, all of the hard-working players, the fans and to the University of Wyoming.

I'm happy to join my good friend and colleague Representative Cubin in honoring this exceptional team and all the accomplishments, and wish all involved continued success.

I join with my colleague from the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Sarbanes, in support of this resolution.064

I have no further speakers and would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 561, recognizing the 20th anniversary of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.

Since 1987, McKinney-Vento has served as the foundation of a cohesive national strategy against homelessness. In addition to housing, McKinney-Vento includes vital programs that address the nutritional, health care, and educational needs of the less fortunate.

As a member of the Education and Labor Committee, I have spent a great deal of time examining the unique obstacles that exist for runaway, homeless, and other disconnected youth, and I have seen first- hand the devastating impact that lost educational opportunities can have on the lives of homeless youth. Unfortunately, for many of these children, school is the only source of stability in their lives.

That is why in 2001 I introduced the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Act, a bill that ensures homeless children have access to immediate enrollment without the barriers and red tape that had too often kept them out of school. My view was, and remains, that being without a home should not mean being without an education. I am pleased to report that Congress agreed and we were able to get this bill incorporated into the No Child Left Behind Act, signed into law in 2002.

Following the tragic hurricanes of Katrina and Rita, the Education for Homeless Children and Youth programs in NCLB were put to the test and proved crucial to providing much-needed stability and vital services to those in need. Because programs like McKinney-Vento were already in place, the Federal Government was better prepared to meet the educational and social needs of displaced children during a time of national crisis.

Perhaps most importantly, this anniversary is an opportunity to call attention to the work that still remains to be done, work like tearing down barriers that prevent unaccompanied homeless youth from attending school.

In this spirit, I would like to invite my colleagues to join me in supporting a vital piece of legislation that will do just that, H.R. 601, the FAFSA Fix for Homeless Kids Act. This important bill, which was introduced along with my good friend from Texas, Congressman Hinojosa, will ensure that the doors of higher education remain open for some of our Nation's most vulnerable youth. At no additional cost to taxpayers, this bill simply ensures that unaccompanied homeless youth are not required to submit a parent's financial information to qualify for Federal student aid. While these requirements are logical for most applicants, they create insurmountable barriers for unaccompanied homeless youth who cannot supply these records.

As a member of the Financial Services and Education and Labor Committees, I look forward to working with my colleagues on other important policy initiatives like reauthorizing the McKinney-Vento programs under HUD and NCLB. As we move forward on these items in the coming months, we must join together to ensure that addressing the needs of America's homeless remains a top priority.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my good friend and distinguished colleague from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for introducing this resolution and for his dedication to improving the lives of homeless Americans. I would also like to thank Mr. Frank and Mr. Bachus for cosponsoring this resolution and helping to move it through the Financial Services Committee in such a timely and bipartisan way.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I would like to, first of all, thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires) for his work on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2547, the FDIC Enforcement Enhancement Act.

In May I was pleased to join my colleague, Congressman Sires, in introducing this bill which gives the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation new tools to protect our constituents from financial scam artists.

After the great stock market crash in 1929 and the numerous bank closures during the Great Depression, Congress passed, in 1933, the Glass-Steagall Act, which created the FDIC. Congress created this independent Federal agency and charged it with a most important mission: To instill and maintain ``the stability and the public's confidence in the Nation's financial system.''

For over 70 years, the FDIC has worked to meet its mission. The FDIC's name, seal, abbreviation, and other indicators are well known, and they are symbols that the public uses to identify a financial institution or a product as being legitimate, federally insured, sound, and supervised. These are easily identifiable FDIC symbols and they can be found in a range of places, from the bank teller's window to a financial institution's Web site.

Unfortunately, over the years, criminals have taken advantage of the public's confidence in the FDIC name and used it for malicious purposes. Criminals have fraudulently used the FDIC's name to deceive consumers, most often the elderly, into saving or investing their money in a criminal's illegitimate product offered by a criminal's illegitimate financial institution.

For example, some of you may have received or known individuals who have received e-mails from these scam artists. The e-mails, that are actually from criminals, claim to be from the FDIC and request that the e-mail recipient provide highly sensitive, on-line banking information. However, the e-mails are fraudulent and not from the FDIC.

Current law prohibits this criminal activity, but H.R. 2547 strengthens the FDIC's enforcement powers so that it can take immediate action against criminals that are fraudulently hiding behind the good name of the FDIC and to immediately stop such criminal activity so that the consumer's money doesn't disappear.

The act allows the FDIC to enter cease and desist orders against this conduct and impose fines up to $1 million per day on any person who falsely represents the nature of the product offered or the FDIC's insurance coverage available. In addition, the proposed legislation would clarify the FDIC's authority to seek injunctive relief against such person under the rules of any Federal, State or foreign court of competent jurisdiction.

The language of this act is similar or is identical to the act of 2005, the Financial Service Regulatory Relief, section 615, which the Committee on Financial Services approved by a vote of 67-0 in November of 2005. The House has approved this bill by a voice vote.

So I would urge my colleagues to again support the language and vote for today's bill. This bill gives the FDIC the ability to help prevent our constituents from becoming victims of financial scam artists and, like Glass-Steagall, aims to give our constituents confidence in the Nation's financial system.

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