Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, after 88 years of anguish and torment, baseball fans in the Chicagoland area can breathe a sigh of relief. This past Wednesday the Chicago White Sox clinched their first World Series championship since 1917. Led by their always colorful manager, Ozzie Guillen, the team got off to a fantastic start this season. However, in true Chicago baseball fashion, they found themselves in a rough stretch during the latter part of the season, and many doubted their potential. But in the end it was the camaraderie and teamwork throughout the whole season that led this team to victory. As a lifelong Chicagoan born on the south side and raised on the north side, I want to offer my congratulations to the White Sox organization and White Sox fans everywhere. Mr. Speaker, if the Boston Red Sox and the Chicago White Sox can make it happen after nearly nine decades, perhaps 2006 will prove to be a victorious year for yet another baseball team with a legendary drought, the Chicago Cubs. Here's hoping.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the language contained in the Justice Department Authorization Act that reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act. Scratch the surface of any of our Nation's most challenging social problems, from crime in schools to gang violence and homelessness, and we are likely to find the root cause is domestic violence, which disproportionately affects women and girls. Law enforcement officers report that domestic violence calls are among their most frequent. Judges find that children first seen in their courts as victims of domestic violence return later as adult criminal defendants. Schools report that children with emotional problems often come from environments where violence is the norm. This is why, while it is extremely important to combat violence against women, it is just as important to combat domestic violence involving the youngest of victims. This year's VAWA reauthorization bill takes that necessary step by clarifying that programs contained in VAWA can serve youth as well. It also adds programs that specifically target children and youth and their unique needs. Among these are the authorization of grants for services designed for young people who are victims of domestic and dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, and prevention programs that work with children and teens to stop the cycle of violence. Helping the young victims of domestic violence has always been an important issue to me. In the 107th Congress, I introduced the Legal Assistance for Victims of Dating Violence Act, which amended VAWA to allow legal assistance grants to be used to help the victims of dating violence. I am pleased to say that this language was included in VAWA when it was reauthorized in 2000, and is maintained in the VAWA language included in the DOJ Authorization Act today. I commend the Committee on the Judiciary for providing additional services to victims of dating violence through this legislation. Violence begets violence, and it is incumbent on us to try to break the cycle. This is done by helping victims of domestic violence, especially our youngest victims before they become perpetrators of domestic violence later in life.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act of 2005. As a former Head Start volunteer, I know firsthand the tremendous benefits this program has delivered for children, but never did I think that summer, the first year of Head Start's existence, that I would one day be a part of the Congress in reauthorizing Head Start. During the full committee markup for this legislation, I was pleased to join with my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), in offering an amendment that will provide some commonsense flexibility for Head Start centers to use the open slots for the early Head Start program. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Education and the Workforce learned that more Head Start-eligible children ages 3 to 5 are participating in State prekindergarten programs because there are more of them, leaving some of the Head Start programs with unused slots. But because of the high need for infant child care, Early Head Start programs, the early ones, serving children from birth through age 3, maintain long waiting lists. This amendment will allow those Head Start centers that have vacant slots to use the funding to serve eligible infants and toddlers through the Early Head Start programs. As a mother and grandmother, I can tell you firsthand that the first years of a child's life are crucial to his or her development. Research has shown time and time again that infants who receive the high-quality child care and early education programs do better in school, have more developed social skills, and display fewer behavior problems. The amendment allows a commonsense way to expand these services to those who certainly can benefit from them. I would like to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); and the members of the committee for supporting this amendment in the full committee markup. I am pleased it was incorporated into the bill we are considering today, and I urge my colleagues to support the Head Start bill.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friends at Phillip's Flowers in Westmont, Illinois. On September 21, the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, IRMA will honor Phillip's Flowers as the 2005 ``Retailer of the Year'' for its commitment to quality, customer service, and floral industry improvement. Phillip's Flowers deserves to be recognized and honored in this way for its many accomplishments. In the 82 years since James and Helen Phillip started Phillip's Flowers, it has grown to become a Chicago area institution. Since 1923, the founders and their offspring have grown and improved the business to the point where it now ranks among the top 20 florists in the country in terms of delivery volume. In the 1980's, Phillip's helped launch a cooperative delivery program to expand the business's service reach throughout the region and nation. And its service on the American Floral Endowment Board and the Society of American Florists has helped shape the floral industry as a whole. These accomplishments alone are worthy of this high honor. Mr. Speaker, when the late Pope John Paul II visited Chicago in 1979, Phillip's Flowers was selected to supply more than 17,000 chrysanthemums for the occasion. When Chicago Magazine ran its 2002 Readers Choice Awards, Phillip's Flowers was chosen as ``Chicago's favorite florist.'' And when IRMA in 2001 selected the top Retailers of the 20th Century, Phillip's was honored among them. These honors and superlatives are reserved for only the finest businesses, and Phillip's Flowers has clearly deserved them. But perhaps most important of all, Phillip's has provided beautiful flowers for many of my constituents' most important moments in life-- weddings, bar and bat mitzvahs, and special birthdays and anniversaries. I congratulate Phillip's Flowers on receiving the ``Retailer of the Year'' award, and I wish the people of Phillip's the very best wishes for continued success in the years to come.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying bills. I would encourage FEMA to work with the Department of Education to utilize the Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program to meet the educational needs of all students displaced by this storm. As we consider the rule and all of these bills, I think we have to remember the children. As part of the No Child Left Behind Act, the Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program requires that school districts immediately enroll homeless children. It provides children with much-needed stability and allows for the delivery of other critical services, including such things as health care and counseling. The bill also addresses school transportation issues, assures that eligible children participate in Federal, State and local food programs, and allows for frequent moving as evacuated families find more permanent housing. When we included this provision in No Child Left Behind we, frankly, never contemplated that it could be so useful and effective at this time of national crisis. We have happily discovered over recent days that this measure has provided a ready-made system of communication and contacts and information networks that could serve us well in this time of need. The program also contains a funding structure that efficiently distributes Federal dollars to the local level. Utilizing the Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program would save time, money and allow more Federal dollars to flow more quickly to the areas in need. This program provides a tried and tested framework for States and school districts to meet the immediate educational and social service needs of homeless children displaced by Hurricane Katrina. Encouraging FEMA and the Department of Education to utilize this program to coordinate relief efforts is a commonsense step that can quickly and dramatically improve assistance to displaced children. I would urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act. Will County, Illinois, part of which I represent, no longer has any practicing neurosurgeons. A recent survey found that 11 percent of OB/ GYNs no longer practice obstetrics in my home State of Illinois. And more than half of OB/GYNs in the State are considering dropping their obstetrics practice entirely in the next 2 years due to medical liability concerns. Women and children are the first to suffer in a crisis like this. As a mother and a grandmother, I don't want to see pregnant women driving to another State because they can't find an OB/GYN in their own area. I don't want to see injured children transported miles away from their homes because there are no pediatric neurosurgeons left to treat head injuries. And I don't want to see health insurance premiums climb so high that employers can no longer afford to provide benefits to their workers. We need reform and we need it now.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and the conference report to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. After a series of fits and starts over the past 4 years, Congress now stands ready to approve the first comprehensive national energy policy in well over a decade. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member, on a job well done. As chairman of the Science Subcommittee on Energy, I am honored to have helped develop this legislation. In particular I want to thank the members and staff of the Energy Subcommittee and the full Science Committee, as well as our colleagues in the other Chamber for all of their hard work in crafting the research and development title of this act. This bill makes a much-needed and sustained investment in basic science and applied energy research that will lead to advanced energy technologies and future energy solutions. Not only will this balanced portfolio of research help expand and diversify our energy supply while reducing energy demands; it will also educate and train the scientific and technical talent necessary for our Nation to remain competitive and secure. In recognition of the fundamental role that science places in the development of advanced energy technologies and in fulfilling DOE's mission, this bill also elevates science within the Department by creating an Under Secretary of Science. It also puts an Assistant Secretary at the helm of the Department's nuclear energy research programs. Leadership at this level is needed if we are to use research and technology to reduce the volume and toxicity of nuclear waste and capitalize on the many benefits of safe, emissions-free nuclear energy. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the conference report which use science and technology to put America on the path towards a more secure and energy-efficient future.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 383, to encourage the Transnational Assembly of Iraq to adopt a constitution that grants women equal rights under the law and works to protect such rights. Frankly, it's no secret that the women of Iraq faced horrific times under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Women confronted terror on a daily basis and far too often lost their loved ones to the brutality of the regime. Since the fall of Saddam's regime and the emergence of a new democratic government, the women of Iraq have made tremendous progress in reclaiming their rightful place in society. These women have overcome unimaginable obstacles and deserve our ongoing support as they work to build a new democracy. I have been fortunate enough to have met with many Iraqi women during two visits to Jordan and Iraq this year. Despite finding themselves in a dangerous environment, their dedication to achieving a democracy is inspirational. The elections that were held in Iraq were only the first step towards democracy and equality. Thankfully, the transitional government was committed to including women in the election process and ultimately decided that every third name on each list would be a woman's name. As a result, 31 percent of those elected to the Transnational Assembly of Iraq are women. These elected women are participating in the writing of the constitution which has a deadline of completion of August 15th. But the women of Iraq continue to face obstacles. A current hurtle is whether or not equal rights for women are included in the Iraqi Constitution. Their inclusion or omission will determine the future of Iraqi women's rights under the law, status in society, and role in the government. Iraqi women understand this and want their rights clearly defined in the constitution. They realize that unless their rights are firmly established, their future is not ensured and it will be far too easy to strip away these rights. Women constitute 60 percent of the Iraqi population. Leaving the majority of Iraqis out of the Constitution will not only prove detrimental to Iraqi women, but to the future health and prosperity of Iraqi society. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I strongly encourage the Transnational Assembly of Iraq to grant women equal rights under the law.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article for the Record: [From the Washington Post, July 26, 2005] The Stakes in CAFTA The House is getting ready to vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), a deal that would bind the five nations of Central America plus the Dominican Republic to the U.S. economy. From a commercial standpoint, it's curious that most Democrats in the House resist the agreement: 80 percent of Central American exports already enter the United States without tariffs, so the main effect of the deal will be to open the region to U.S. products. But the political argument for CAFTA is at least as compelling. While the United States has been focusing on terrorism, a new challenge has been brewing in its own hemisphere. House members should consider this challenge before voting to slam the door on Central America's pro-American leaders. For much of the post-Cold War period, U.S. anxieties in Latin America seemed to be fading. The disintegration of the Soviet Union left Cuba's Fidel Castro without subsidies, undermining his power to buy influence in the region. The peace process in Central America succeeded, ending leftist insurgences in El Salvador and Guatemala and leading to elections in Nicaragua that removed its Marxist leadership. Democracy already had displaced often populist dictatorships across South America; in Mexico, a pro-American, pro-market presidential candidate succeeded against the long-ruling and traditionally leftist Institutional Revolutionary Party. The remaining U.S. problem in Latin America was the drug war. Although the cartels were rich and ruthless, they were not trying to rally Latin Americans behind an anti-Yanqui banner. In the past few years, however, an attempt has been made to revive the political challenge once represented by Mr. Castro. It centers on Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who combines Castroite rhetoric with the financial clout of Venezuelan oil. Mr. Chavez has spread his money around the region, sponsoring anti-American and anti-democrative movements and promoting alternatives to U.S. initiatives. To counter the U.S. trade agenda, for example, he has put forward a ``Bolivarian Alternative.'' This has given critics of the United States something to advocate. El Nuevo Diario, a Nicaraguan newspaper that is critical of CAFTA, praised the Bolivarian Alternative recently, asserting that ``America is for the Americans, not for the North Americans.'' In Costa Rica critics of CAFTA who draw inspiration from Mr. Chavez have made no secret of the fact that they oppose the deal because they oppose the United States. Most House Democrats don't want to hear this; they claim that CAFTA is opposed by ``pro-poor'' groups in the region. But this claim is troubling on two levels. First, CAFTA would actually help the poor: It would create 300,000 new jobs in shoes, textiles and apparel; it would create a new mechanism for enforcing labor rights; and a World Bank study has found that the vast majority of poor families in the region would gain from the deal. But second, the defeat of CAFTA would help not anti- poverty movements but anti-American demagogues, starting with Mr. Chavez. For them, the retreat of the United States from partnership with Central America would be a major victory.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to cast their votes in support of DR-CAFTA for three very compelling reasons: First and foremost, the agreement will help our manufacturers, workers and farmers. Let's face it--the U.S. is the most open market in the world. Right now, about 80 percent of the goods made in DR-CAFTA countries enter the U.S. with no duties whatsoever. In contrast, our $1.6 billion in exports face about $1 billion in tariffs and additional non-tariff barriers. That's not fair. DR-CAFTA will change that. Second, it bolsters our national security as it helps strengthen relationships with six very important new governments in our own backyard. If we turn our backs on the fledgling democracies of the DR- CAFTA nations, we risk a return to the instability, leftist insurgencies, and Marxist leadership of the 1980's. Our worldwide anti- terrorist efforts could all be for naught if we drive our friends in Central America back into the arms of leaders like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro. And last, DR-CAFTA is the right thing to do. Those who wish to help the anti-poor efforts in these six nations, or stem the flow of illegal immigration to the U.S., or reverse China's dominance in textiles and apparel, should vote for this agreement. It is expected to create 300,000 jobs in these industries in the DR-CAFTA nations, while creating new demand for U.S.-sourced inputs--not raw materials from China. Upon enactment, more than 90 percent of all apparel made in the region will be sewn from fabric and yarn made in the U.S. I urge my colleagues to support the agreement.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of DR- CAFTA. It is not often I agree with the editorial page of The Washington Post, but I want to commend the editorial staff for its outstanding piece today entitled ``The Stakes in CAFTA.'' The stakes in CAFTA are indeed high and go far beyond issues of tariffs and trade barriers. As the Post put it, ``While the U.S. has been focusing on terrorism, a new challenge has been brewing in its own hemisphere. House Members should consider this challenge before voting to slam the door on Central America's pro-American leaders.'' The Post concludes that CAFTA will help the poor of Latin America, creating 300,000 new jobs and a new mechanism for enforcing labor rights. I quote, ``The defeat of CAFTA would help not antipoverty movements but anti-American demagogues, starting with Mr. Chavez of Venezuela. For them, the retreat of the U.S. from partnership with Central America would be a major victory.'' Mr. Speaker, I would urge support of DR-CAFTA.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the DR- CAFTA accord, not just because it is good for America but because it is good for the businesses and workers in my district in suburban Chicago. Recently, I received a letter from one of the largest employers in my district. He wrote to say that today the tariff he pays on one of the products he manufactures and sends to Guatemala is 5 percent. If it enters the Dominican Republic, he pays 8 percent. And if it goes to Costa Rica, the tax is 14 percent. In his letter he pointed out that all that will change on the day that DR-CAFTA goes into effect. Most tariffs on U.S. manufactured goods, including the product he wrote about, will be completely eliminated. For his company, shareholders, and workers, it means profits, greater competitiveness, and jobs. About 80 percent of the goods made in DR-CAFTA countries already enter the U.S. duty free. Let us level the playing field and do something positive for our manufacturers and workers. Let us pass DR- CAFTA now.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 181, which supports the goals and ideals of National Life Insurance Awareness Month, September of 2005. I want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the Ranking Member of the Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises, and a member of the Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus, for introducing this resolution with me for a second year, and for his support on this issue. I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for expeditiously moving this resolution through the Committee on Government Reform. In addition, I would like to thank Senator Chambliss for working with us on this side of the Capitol to craft identical resolutions with both bipartisan and bicameral support. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 181 calls on the Nation to observe the month of September as Life Insurance Awareness Month. A number of associations, including the Life and Health Insurance Foundation for Education, the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, the American Council of Life Insurers, and a coalition representing hundreds of leading life insurance companies and organizations have designated September 2005 as Life Insurance Awareness Month. Our collective goal for the month is to make consumers more aware of their life insurance needs, seek professional advice, and take the actions necessary to achieve financial security for their families. Life insurance is too often thought of only when it is too late. Over half of adult Americans do not have a life insurance policy, and among those who do have life insurance, the amount is often too small to safeguard the financial futures of their loved ones. Life insurance can provide financial security for every American family that incurs the untimely death of a loved one. This September, during Life Insurance Awareness Month, I will join my colleagues and many life insurance organizations and advocates to encourage Americans to seek out information about the benefits of life insurance so that if the premature death of a loved one does occur, they will be spared the economic hardships that often accompany tragedy. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the goals and ideals of National Life Insurance Awareness Month, September 2005.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and I appreciate all he does. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of all four of the OSHA reforms bills on the floor. These bills contain reforms that will encourage a more collaborative environment in which small business owners and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration can work together and, in doing so, improve workplace safety. In particular I rise to support H.R. 742, the Small Employer Access to Justice Act. It would amend the OSHA Act of 1970 to reimburse small employers for attorneys' fees and costs when they are successful in challenging an OSHA citation. Now it is true that the Equal Access to Justice Act already allows small business owners to recover attorneys' fees when a ruling is in the employers favor. However, reimbursement for attorney fees is refused if OSHA can establish that the citation was substantially justified or that special circumstances led to the issuance of citations. This loophole means that small businesses are saddled with costly attorneys fees regardless of their innocence. Small business owners who believe that they have not violated any law are faced with a difficult question. Should I simply pay the fine or risk possibly incurring greater costs and attorneys fees by challenging this citation? No small business owner should face such a choice, especially if he or she is wrongly accused. Small business that have violated health or safety laws should be fined. It is important that workers should be protect. But small business owners that have not broken any laws should not be drained by large attorneys fees that they have accrued in order to contest the citation. I ask Members to support the OSHA reform and in particular H.R. 742 so that a fair legal environment can be created for small businesses owners.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Let me just say one more thing too. The message from them was, do not leave us until we have a stable government, because they want to have the freedom and the democracy that we have.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate all that the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) is doing with the Women's Caucus, and she has done a great job bringing these women's issues out and how important they are to all of us. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit first about the Afghan women, because I had an opportunity to work with them. It was before some of our women Members were even here, it was in 2002, when there were a group of women, first of all starting out with women lawyers from Afghanistan, came over to meet with the Women's Caucus and have a discussion. Later on, Habiba Sorabi, Afghanistan's minister for women's affairs, came over to meet with us and discuss what the mission was all about. And she talked about that the mission for women was to restore and improve the rights of Afghan women and to strengthen their legal, their economic, political, and social status throughout the country. At that time the Members of the Women's Caucus here came away convinced that the work of their women's ministry was absolutely critical to the rebuilding of a peaceful and democratic Afghanistan in which the women and girls would have full rights. And one of the things that we did was to establish and to find funding for women's centers over in Afghanistan. As you see the picture there with the Afghan elections, wearing the burkas and the veils, and still how they go around covered. So they needed a place where women could go where they could have health care, where they called take their children for education, and where they could have job opportunities to work on their creations of rugs or chickens or whatever they were going to do to establish an economic basis. And with that, we were able to get from the Appropriations Committee, from foreign ops, money to actually build women's centers in all of the provinces of Afghanistan. And they are being built, many of them, from Kabul to the hinterlands, have been established to give the women that. And then after that, we also were able to not really to go into Afghanistan, but to go over early in the morning to the State Department, 7 a.m., and talk to women that were involved in writing the Constitution for Afghanistan, to make sure that they were included. And we had to do it so early in the morning because they could not be out after dark, and with the time change, they were at the end of the day, we were at the very beginning of our day, the sunrise services. And we were really able to talk to them and give them encouragement and advice in what to do. And they also came over here to spend some time with us really as going out on our day-to-day business to see how a democracy operates, how the House of Representatives works. We wore them out, I must say. But they were able to spend some time with us. And then in January I traveled to Amman, Jordan, to meet with women who were on the list in Iraq, who were running for office to be elected to the national assembly. And it is a little bit different from what we were doing here. We have our precincts and our designation, our States, but there this was a national list. There were four of us that went: the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and myself. We were over there to train them in the election process. Now it is a little bit different, because here were a group of women running for office who could not have their names on a list, known, who could not have their pictures on a brochure, who could not pass out any literature that they were running, because of the fear of assassination. And as a matter of fact, many of these women were intimidated. One of them lost her 17-year-old son to an assassin as he was trying to protect her. Another one was kidnapped and held for ransom. Another one lost five members of their family. But these women were willing to really put their lives on the line to run for national office. And I think we sometimes wonder, you know, we take so much for granted: the opportunity to run for office, the opportunity to vote. And here were women that really said, we possibly will lose our lives, and some of them have lost their lives, and some of those that were elected. But what happened was that we met with Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Independents, and Christians. And there was a group of about 22 members. And they were from all of the different parties. And the first thing, one of the first things that they said as we were sitting at the table, why? You are from different parties? And we said, yes. And they said, well, why are you laughing and talking together? You are from different parties so you really should not be speaking together. We said, that is one thing about a democracy. We have different parties, but we respect each other. We are friends, we are colleagues, and we laugh and talk and joke; but we do have different philosophies. And so with that, these women were able to sit around and talk together on how they were going to get over their differences, because the Sunnis were there saying no, no, we should postpone the national elections. And the others were saying, no, we need to go forward, but we want you, being the Sunnis, to join us. They wanted all participation from all of the different groups. And so some of the Sunnis said, well, maybe that is a good idea. So they did learn that democracy is the art of possible. And so it was that after that election, 25 percent of those elected out of the 275 were to be women. Well, 33 percent were elected and 33 percent were women. Of course, I got a call from one of them, or an e-mail, which we have e-mailed back and forth on election day. She said, I was the first to vote in my district. I cast the first vote. And it was fine. Everything was going fine. So they were elected. Many of those that came, were elected. Then in April there were three of us that went back to Jordan: the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), and myself. And we met went back to meet with 150 Iraqi women who were chosen because of the leaders in their provinces, leaders like mayors, and were developing into the leaders in their country. And that was to train them in democracy. And just think, suddenly you have a democracy and you have come from a dictatorship. What do you do? So we had a lot of role-playing with them and instant translation so that we could talk to them. And I have to tell you that some of them talk very loud. I think it is a cultural thing when they want to make their points. So we would say, cannot hear you through the earphones. But we learned that this is just a cultural difference in how we differ. But one thing that they said was that they did not really want to have a quota system. They wanted to be like us where they ran as women, and they were elected. And we said, well, now you have got 33 percent. Just take it easy for a while, because we only have 14 percent in the Congress. You are way ahead of us. So keep up the good work and make sure that you stay that way, and one day you will have the same as we do. One day you will have the brochures that you pass out. One day you will have the sponges and the combs and the pencils that you are giving out to get elected. But what they have done, I think, has been fascinating, and they have just been able to move ahead and to be able to find out how to run a democracy. I think they are way ahead of the game; they really caught on very quickly. We had them doing some role-playing. They would pass on to the next group some of the tips that we would give them, like tell the provincial council that you are talking to what your name is, what group you represent, and why you want them to do something. As each group, during the 2\1/2\ days that we were there, came up and did some of this role-playing, they got better and better. But they loved doing it, and we loved having them. But again they came to us at great risk. They had to drive through Iraq, and they were shot at, a group of them was held at the Jordanian border for 13 hours, and you know what they have gone through for the freedoms that we believe in, that we sometimes do not, you know, take the great care and go out to vote, that we do not do the things that they think is, you know, they are willing to give their lives for. I think that we have to honor them and all of the other women that we see throughout these countries that are now going to vote and having the elections and making sure that they are included and their children are going to be included. I think that we honor them. I am very delighted to have the opportunity to be here tonight.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), for organizing this important Special Order for this evening. As co-chair of the Women's Caucus and founder of the Women's Action Public Affairs team, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite) is a strong leader in this body, dedicated to improving the lives of women across the country. Today, headlines in the newspapers across the country continue to address the issue of Social Security reform as they have for many months now. Here on the Hill, Members on both sides of the aisle continue to debate the nature of this crisis and argue what they think are the greatest problems within the current Social Security system and how they think we should best address the issues. I do want to address the issue of women and retirement tonight, but first I would like to add a few comments based on our colleague from across the aisle who just gave a 5-minute about the state of Social Security. He mentioned that in 1998 the Democrats took up the issue of Social Security. I was elected in 1998, and before I was even sworn in, which would have taken place in 1999, I was asked to join the Senators and House Members, both Democrats and Republicans, who were going to the White House Conference on Social Security. There were 24 Senators and 24 House Members, and I was included as one of the 24, even though I had not been sworn in. I was very proud to go, too, and we came down to Washington late in November. We were told we were going to solve Social Security that year, and by the next March we would have a bill to take to the House floor and to the Senate floor and we would do it early because this would be the first of the 106th Congress and we would have 3 months to do this. It would be before all of the election talks started, and we would be working together. I do think that Social Security reform needs to be bipartisan, and we are going to have to reach that in this debate at some time before we can find really meaningful reform. What happened is we came down for 3 days to this great conference. We had speakers the first days and learned a lot about Social Security and reinforced what we had believed. Then the third day, we met with President Clinton. We sat over at Blair House, and we talked about how we were going to do this bill, who was going to do this bill, who would be the one to put it on the table. The President said, I will do the bill and I will have it ready for you the end of December. There was a pause in my mind, because this is the one time that as an elected official you really have time to spend with your family, between Christmas and New Year's. I thought how am I going to go home and tell my family that I will have to be gone at that time, when we usually have taken our vacation, but for the good of the country, I will do this. So I went home and then came back to Washington for orientation meetings as a freshman, and I asked one of my colleagues who I had worked with during this 3-day conference, Does the President have the bill ready yet; I have not received a time yet that we will be coming back. My colleague looked at me and said, Judy, are you naive? There is not going to be any bill. This has been a great PR campaign but nothing has been done yet. It is very difficult for somebody to come up with a bill, and the President is not working on it. That was the last I ever heard of the Social Security reform for 1998. We are still working on it, and just a couple of other things. Since 1935, this has been a pay-as-you-go system, and I always believed when I first started talking about Social Security that there was a little box that had my name on it and it had my benefits for when I retired. That is not true. We might talk about a trust fund, but this has been a pay-as-you-go system, and in fact the Federal Government cannot hold money like that in a bank account. So we have to deal with Treasury notes, and that is what we do now. That is what we have done. I am here this evening because I think if the debate goes further than whether or not we are going to implement personal accounts or raise the retirement age or have a pot of money there that we are going to be able to pay back now, and I think in the heat of debate that people fail to address the current inequities in this system that does single out one group of Americans, and the fact is that women, more than anyone else, continue to draw the short straw when it comes to Social Security benefits. Right now, too many women who reach retirement age find themselves widowed or single, relying on their Social Security check for over half of their income. Women live an average of 5\1/2\ years longer than men, and consequently, they disproportionately rely on Social Security for their entire retirement income. I can remember going door to door and going to the house of a woman who must have been about 95 at the time. She had been living on her Social Security check, which really did not give her even the money to be able to pay her rent and to be able to buy her food and such for a long retirement. It is great that people are living longer, and this is what we want, but our Social Security system was not set up for that. It was set up at a time when people lived to be age 60 and the retirement age was age 65. It was easy to pay out the benefits then because there were not that many people that received them. Now women represent 58 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries age 62 and older and approximately 70 percent of beneficiaries 85 and older, and I think these inequities are astounding. The Social Security laws in the case of divorce are incredibly outdated. When Social Security was first created, few marriages ended in divorce. In fact, most of the women were nonworking. Fast forward to today, where the number of divorces has more than quadrupled since 1970 and under current Social Security rules must be married for at least 10 years to be entitled to the Social Security benefits of her husband, yet statistics tell us about one-third of all marriages end before 10 years has been reached. This translates into one-third of women who will receive zero Social Security benefits for those years that they were married. We have all heard experts reference the fact that the number of divorces in our country is expected to continue rising, and almost half of marriages are expected to end in divorce. That is a pretty scary statistic, and we certainly hope that does not happen. But where does that leave women? Unfortunately, it leaves women, again, to bear the brunt of inequality. We, as women, have fought for equal opportunity in the workforce for many years. Today, women have proudly gained a strong presence in the workforce. Now more women than ever are doctors, lawyers, CEOs, scientists, engineers and politicians, to name a few. However, the current Social Security system continues to punish these working women. Our 1930s-style retirement system has led to an astonishing two-thirds of married women who do not receive additional benefits from their Social Security contributions. And when it comes to single- and dual-earner couples with identical incomes, the single- earner couple stands to receive the higher benefit. Let me cite the Smiths and the Joneses. The Smiths have an income only from the husband of $3,000. The Joneses have an income of $3,000; but the husband earns $1,500 and the wife earns $1,500. What happens is only the higher income is considered for retirement. So if Mrs. Smith is widowed, she would received $3,000. And Mrs. Jones, if she is widowed, she receives the $1,500, not both of those incomes. And worst of all, the family of a single woman who dies before retirement age will not get back a single dollar from the Social Security system regardless of how much money she contributed to the system over the course of her working years. Widow benefits also favor single-earner households over dual-earner households, unnecessarily penalizing a woman who has chosen a life in the workforce and makes less than her spouse. A widow is eligible for the greater of her husband's work benefit or her own, not both. And this translates into a potential cut in household income up to one-half after her husband's death. So women here tonight stand together to call for changes to the system, changes that will ensure equal treatment for women under the law. The status quo of Social Security in this Nation today is unacceptable. But in addition to all of the overall reforms, we need to encourage women from a young age to establish financial security and a sound plan for retirement. That is one of the reasons we have formed the Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus to promote financial and economic education. Women should be afforded the opportunities to learn the skills necessary to guide their financial futures and successfully manage their finances. Surveys show that girls are less likely than boys to consider themselves very knowledgeable or confident about money management. In the United States, we live under the idea that all men are created equal; yet within the Social Security system, all men and women are not treated as equal. We need to work together to establish a system that creates equity among all Americans, individuals, men, women, divorced or widow; and we should not wait to do it until 2041 when we are faced with a largely depleted Social Security. So let us prepare for the future now. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together to help American women achieve financial certainty and equality. We must support the changes to the Social Security system to bring it into a new millennium so women, and all Americans, are not left financially unequipped, but are financially secure. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for leading this Special Order tonight.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Margaret Ellor, who has earned The Congressional Award Gold Medal. On June 22, 2005, Ms. Ellor will receive the award, which honors individuals who have completed over 400 hours of community service in a two year span, 200 hours of both personal development and physical fitness activities, and a four-night expedition or exploration. This award is bestowed upon only the most deserving of America's youth. Based on her record of personal and community service, Ms. Ellor certainly deserves this honor. Eighteen-year-old Margaret began volunteering for the Girl Scouts in Naperville, Illinois when she was five years old. Motivated by a desire to aid her fellow Americans living in rural West Virginia, she led a thirty-person crew into her community to collect donations, clothing, books, sporting goods, and other items for West Virginians in need. She then went to The Mountain State to personally deliver the items. She also spent one week in each of the past three summers remodeling and rebuilding homes in poor communities closer to home. When not helping others, Maggie has devoted time to improving her public speaking and musical abilities. In addition, she has undertaken intense training in Tae Kwan Do, swimming, and cross training. She undertook a three year study of the German language and culture, which included three weeks living abroad with a German family. She could have spent this time with friends or working in a local business. But instead, she sought to broaden her horizons while helping others. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Margaret Ellor is an exceptional young woman. Her warm heart and sharp mind have proven, at her young age, to be of great value to her fellow citizens. Her good deeds in her home town are the sign of a good spirit and an even better soul. As the late tennis champion Arthur Ashe once said, ``True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others, at whatever cost.'' I can think of no better example of that heroic ideal than Ms. Margaret Ellor of Aurora, Illinois. I congratulate her on receiving The Congressional Award Gold Medal and I look forward to watching where her career takes her in the months and years to come.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Naperville Baseball Association on its 50th anniversary and to thank its members for their enduring commitment to youth athletics throughout the Naperville community. The Naperville Baseball Association is an institution that, for a half-century, has provided local children with a fun, safe way to play organized baseball. The association will be honored as part of ``Naperville Baseball Day'' on June 3, celebrating ``baseball at its best for the past 50 years.'' As a mother and a grandmother, I fondly recall my days of shepherding kids to and from various youth sporting events in my station wagon. As a former youth soccer coach, I remember trying to balance winning while ensuring that all the kids got a chance to play and have fun. Each year as spring rolls around, kids across America grow excited with anticipation for baseball season. They come to the field hoping to emulate their big league idols, while their parents line the stands, anxious to see their son morph into the next Mickey Mantle or Ernie Banks, slamming the ball out of the park. After games, parents and kids, coaches and teammates, all congratulate one another and often celebrate over pizza or heaping scoops of ice cream. Mr. Speaker, this is youth baseball at its very best. As our national pastime, baseball holds a special place in the hearts of so many Americans. For generations, families have bonded over hot dogs and Cracker Jack at Wrigley Field, Comiskey Park, and other legendary cathedrals of summer. But as vital as these familial baseball bonds are to encouraging a love of the game, organized baseball also remains an excellent resource for teaching invaluable life skills like teamwork, friendship, and sportsmanship. The Naperville Baseball Association has promoted this vision of pure, timeless baseball for more than 50,000 children over its 50-year history. I am proud to add my voice to the many who wish to say thanks, and I am confident they will keep up the good work for at least another 50 years.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Markey amendment, which would cut funding for a program that ultimately could solve our nuclear waste problem. I am proud to say that I represent Argonne National Laboratory, which has been working for years on reprocessing and recycling technologies that will allow us to do something with spent nuclear fuel besides bury it in a mountain. If you think of nuclear fuel like a log, we currently burn only 3 percent of that log at both ends and then pull it out of the fire to bury it. The bulk of what we call nuclear waste is actually nuclear fuel, which still contains over 90 percent of its original energy content. Does that make sense? No, but that is our current policy, and it is just plain wasteful. Instead, scientists have developed ways to reprocess and recycle today's waste and turn it back into fuel. There are many advantages to these technologies which have names like UREX+ and pyroprocessing. They are proliferation-resistant, unlike other, older technologies already in use throughout the world, including places like France, England, and Russia. They reduce the volume of our nuclear waste so much so that we will not need to build another Yucca Mountain. They also reduce the toxicity, the heat and radioactivity, of the waste so that it will not have to be stored for 10,000 years, but rather for only 300 years. That is still a long time, but we can design with certainty a repository that will last 300 years and one that can meet necessary radiation standards. At the end of March, I visited reprocessing facilities in France with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson). The French have embraced reprocessing as a way to reduce the volume of the waste by a factor of four and safely store it until they decide exactly how to recycle it. That is good for the French, but we can do better. The French are using a technology that is between 20 and 30 years old and produces pure plutonium as a by-product. The process and technologies this bill supports today are cutting edge and could reduce the volume of our waste by a factor of 60, are proliferation-resistant, and almost eliminate the long-term radiotoxicity and heat problems associated with our current spent fuel. Unfortunately, the Markey amendment would have us forgo the benefits of this research.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman. Lastly, I would like the gentleman to clarify some language related to the FutureGen project on page 20 of the bill. The language states that the Department should manage FutureGen ``without regard to the terms and conditions applicable to clean coal technology projects.'' My understanding is that the phrase is intended only to apply to cost-sharing requirements. In fact, the phrase is unnecessary because the cost-sharing requirements for FutureGen are spelled out in the two provisos that immediately follow on page 20. Is my understanding correct?

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for his time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the chairman and I look forward to working with the chairman. I thank him for his cooperation. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, will you pledge to work with me to improve and refine these programs in a way that preserves the valuable contributions that LDRD makes to the science in this country?

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