Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1158, the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act. I would like to commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), for reintroducing this important legislation which she originally introduced and which passed the House in the 108th Congress. There are many reasons why we should pass this legislation today. First of all, the metals industry is highly energy-intensive. Taken together, the steel, aluminum, and copper industries account for more than 10 percent of industrial usage in the United States. President Bush's national energy plan recognized that improving energy efficiency in our most energy-intensive industries could yield large improvements in productivity, product quality, safety, and pollution prevention. Second, we have a strategic national interest in helping our metals industry remain competitive. For any industry, energy efficiency means increased production without increased energy consumption or costs. Improving energy efficiency helps the bottom line, making American metal products more competitive on the global market. That means more jobs here at home. But energy efficiency is more than that. Reducing energy use means reducing our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases, and increasing our energy security. In this way, energy efficiency just makes sense, dollars and cents, for the Nation. H.R. 1158 recognizes this fact and puts in place a new requirement that program managers consider the potential for technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when developing their research plans. In this way the bill updates the plan to address current concerns about the impact of energy-intensive industries. For these reasons, both the Committee on Science and the full House passed a similar bill by voice vote in the 108th Congress, and the Committee on Science approved H.R. 1158 by voice vote in March. I encourage my colleagues to demonstrate support for this bill again today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the Davis-Waxman amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the Chairman of the Committee on Science.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate both of the gentlemen for yielding time to me. I rise in opposition to this amendment which strikes from the bill a section that makes two simple, but important organizational changes at the Department of Energy. As the title of the section implies, these two changes are designated to improve the coordination and management of civilian science and technology programs at the Department of Energy. First, section 978(a) of H.R. 6 simply changes from Director to Assistant Secretary the title of the position responsible for overseeing the DOE Office of Science. Let me be clear about this. The Director of the Office of Science already is an Assistant Secretary in all but title. Like the other Assistant Secretaries at DOE, the Director of the Office of Science is already appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Like the other Assistant Secretaries at DOE, the Director position is on an executive schedule. Like the other Assistant Secretaries at the DOE, the Director position is a Level IV on the executive schedule. This is not a new position nor is it a promotion. This is a title change only, no extra pay, no extra head count, no extra bureaucracy. This simple title change is still critically important to the operation and organization of the DOE. We all know how important titles are within our Federal departments and agencies, and this title change appropriately acknowledges the central importance of science and technology to fulfilling the Department's varied missions. That is why the person with the primary responsibility for overseeing basic scientific research within the Department should have at least the same title as his or her counterparts who are responsible for applied energy research as their mission of the Department. The second provision contained in section 978(b) creates an additional Assistant Secretary at the Department and expresses the sense of Congress that the leadership for departmental missions in nuclear energy should be at the Assistant Secretary level. I would really like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for clarification of his position and his willingness to work to find an acceptable compromise, and also for the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) for his commitment to revisit this issue.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, the Chair did not ask him if he rose in opposition.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I express my appreciation for the leadership of the Committee on Science and my colleagues on the committee for their contributions to the development of the provisions in the R&D title of H.R. 6. They are bipartisan, forward thinking, balanced, and speak to the importance that we as a Congress place on the role of technology in our energy future. I would also express my appreciation for the extremely professional staff of all the relevant committees, as well as the key leadership staff who worked diligently on this bill for months and in some cases years. I want to thank the able staff of Committee on Science and its Energy Subcommittee. Their contributions and those of countless others have resulted in a better bill which I urge my colleagues to support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis), a member of the Committee on Science.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the illustrious chairman of the Committee on Science. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. As chairman of the Science Subcommittee on Energy, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, particularly those provisions that originated with the Science Committee and are now contained in Title IX of the bill, the Research and Development title. H.R. 6 represents a good investment in advanced, cutting-edge energy technologies to expand and diversify our energy supply, meet growing demand and reduce the environmental impact of energy production and use. The only changes to the R&D title from the 108th Congress are ones that reflect the latest research, the emergence of innovative technologies and new ways of thinking about our power problems. Most noteworthy is a pilot grant program to encourage the design and construction of energy-efficient buildings that demonstrates new efficiency technologies. Also worth mentioning are two new additions to the subtitle on renewable energy R&D. First is a grant program for States to support the development and demonstration of solar technologies nationwide. Second, the bill requires the Department to work with industry to create biorefinery demonstration projects. As a result, this bill does more for renewable energy R&D than any other energy bill previously considered by the House. The bill also recognizes that advanced energy technologies do not grow on trees. Instead, they grow out of basic scientific research like those that are supported by the DOE at our universities and national laboratories. That is why H.R. 6 increases authorized funding to the DOE Office of Science which supports over 40 percent of basic research in the physical sciences, more than any other Federal agency. This funding will support basic fusion research and greater use of supercomputers for energy applications, as well as systems biology research and the construction and operation of scientific facilities like the rare isotope accelerator. America cannot hope to compete in the world economy based on labor costs. Our competitive strength is the depth of our ingenuity and technology, and the science programs in this bill are the basic building blocks of our technological edge. In closing, I want to thank the leadership of the Committee on Science and my colleagues on the committee for their contributions to the development of the provisions in the R&D title of H.R. 6. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). (Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time on the majority side for the Committee on Science.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to express my strong support for The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. A Chinese proverb says: ``Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.'' And that's exactly what this bill before us today will do. There are many reasons to support this Bankruptcy Reform Bill, but I want to focus on one that is important to many of my colleagues, to me and to the American people. We should support the bill because it contains important financial literacy provisions. Financial literacy goes hand-in-hand with helping our citizens of all ages and walks of life to negotiate the complex world of personal finance. Financial literacy can help Americans avoid or survive bankruptcy. We have passed many laws that require the disclosure of the terms and conditions of the rich mix of financial products and services that are available to consumers. Unfortunately, for too many Americans, knowing the terms and conditions of financial products and services is challenging enough. However, understanding those terms and conditions is often an even greater challenge. Recognizing this fact, Congress included provisions in the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act to address the issue of financial literacy. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, S. 256, also contains important provisions addressing economic education and financial literacy. These provisions are designed to ensure that those who enter the bankruptcy system will learn the skills to more effectively manage their money in an increasingly complicated marketplace. Before the House considers S. 256, I want to highlight, for my colleagues, some of the bill's important financial literacy provisions: First: the bill will facilitate educating future generations. It expresses the ``Sense of the Congress'' that personal finance curricula be developed for elementary and secondary education programs. If we teach our children, early-on, how to manage money, credit, and debt, they can become responsible workers, and heads of households and keep their parents out of bankruptcy court. Second: the bill will provide for pre-filing credit counseling. It requires debtors, prior to filing for bankruptcy, to receive credit counseling from a nonprofit counseling agency. The counseling must include a budget analysis and disclosures regarding the possible impact of bankruptcy on a debtor's credit report. Next: the bill will provide for pre-discharge financial education, requiring debtors to complete an approved instructional course on personal financial management prior to receiving a discharge under Chapter 7 or 13. The bill will also include important exceptions. It authorizes phone and Internet counseling for both the pre-filing and pre-discharge education requirements to assist debtors in rural and remote areas. In addition, either or both requirements may be waived if services are not available or in exigent circumstances. Finally, the bill requires the Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees to: (1) develop a financial management training curriculum and materials to educate individual debtors on how to better manage their finances; and (2) evaluate and report to the Congress on the curriculum's efficacy. This will ensure that Congress can evaluate the effectiveness of these financial literacy provisions in the long- term. Last week, we passed House Resolution 148, a bill that supports the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month, which is this month, April 2005. H. Res. 148 was co-sponsored by 82 Members of this body and 409 Members of this body voted for it. Mr. Speaker, the number of bankruptcies remains at a historic high-- over 1.6 million bankruptcy cases were filed in federal courts in 2004. With that in mind and in the spirit of Financial Literacy Month, I urge my colleagues to pass S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, which contains important financial literacy provisions that will provide Americans with the skills needed to successfully navigate the world of personal finance. Mr. Speaker, let's help our fellow citizens avoid bankruptcy altogether. ``Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.'' Vote for S. 256.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, it is about great pleasure that I rise today to express my strong support for the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. A Chinese proverb says, Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. And that is exactly what this bill before us does today. There are many reasons to support this bankruptcy reform bill, but I want to focus on one that is important to many of my colleagues, to me, and to the American people. We should support the bill because it contains important financial literacy provisions. Financial literacy goes hand in hand with helping our citizens of all ages and walks of life to negotiate the complex world of personal finance. Financial literacy can help Americans avoid or survive bankruptcy. We pass many laws that require the disclosure of the terms and conditions of the rich mix of financial products and services that are available to consumers. Unfortunately for too many Americans, knowing the terms and conditions of financial products and services is challenging enough. However, understanding those terms and conditions is often an even greater challenge. Recognizing this fact, Congress included provisions in the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act to address the issue of financial literacy. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act also contains important provisions addressing economic education and financial literacy. These provisions are designed to ensure that those who enter the bankruptcy system will learn the skills to more effectively manage their money in an increasingly complicated marketplace. Last week we passed House Resolution 148, a bill that supports the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month, which is this month, April 2005. H. Res. 148 was co-sponsored by 82 Members of this body, and 409 Members of this body voted for it. Mr. Speaker, the number of bankruptcies remain at a historic high, over 1.6 million bankruptcy cases were filed in Federal courts in 2004. With this in mind, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man whose spirit and dedication to the world of science inspired him to give more than four decades of tireless service to the Nation as a scientist, administrator and a leader. This week Dr. Hermann A. Grunder will retire as Director of Argonne National Laboratory, a leading Department of Energy science laboratory that I am proud to say is located in my congressional district in Illinois. I have had the privilege of working closely with Dr. Grunder over the course of the last 5 years during his tenure at Argonne, and so I speak with personal knowledge and affection when I say that Hermann has left an indelible stamp on Argonne, the quality of life in my district, the DOE complex and the Nation. There is no doubt that he has created a positive and lasting legacy, both nationally and internationally, and I would like to take this time to pay tribute to his many achievements and wish him well on the occasion of his retirement. Dr. Grunder first entered the DOE system in 1959 at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California. After a short break to complete his Ph.D at the University of Basel in Switzerland, he returned to Berkeley as a physicist in 1964 and has served the Nation ever since. At Berkeley, his scientific excellence, vision and leadership earned him executive positions of increasing responsibility. In 1985, he left Berkeley to become the first Director of the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator facility in Virginia, which he helped to build from the ground up literally. Today, the Jefferson lab is one of the Nation's leading accelerator laboratories. In 2000, Dr. Grunder became Director of Argonne. The first thing I noticed when I met Hermann was his energy and enthusiasm for science. It is infectious. As a long-time member of the Committee on Science and chairman of its Subcommittee on Energy, I have had the good fortune of meeting many of the Nation's most talented scientists; and I can say without a doubt that Hermann's passion for science and his dedication to DOE's system of national laboratories stands out among the crowd. As Argonne's 10th Director, Dr. Grunder strengthened the laboratory by renewing senior management at the highest level and grooming the laboratory's next generation of leaders. Through his active efforts to encourage strong research ties between Argonne and regional universities and Fermilab, Dr. Grunder greatly enhanced the Midwest's reputation as a world center of advanced scientific research and development. These collaborations are expected to trigger new scientific, technological and economic benefits for Illinois and the Nation, while providing students from Illinois and around the world with a greater role in research at Argonne. While at Argonne, Dr. Grunder emerged as an international advocate for safe, proliferation-free nuclear energy, a strong steward of DOE's unique user facilities at our national labs, and a keen supporter of biosciences and technology's role in homeland security. Under his leadership, Argonne reviewed ongoing research in the aftermath of September 11 and identified many potential ways this research could improve our homeland security. Since then, Argonne has contributed to hundreds of research initiatives designed to anticipate, detect and counter terrorist acts. It came as no surprise in 2004 when Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham chose to honor Dr. Grunder's career with the DOE laboratory system by presenting him with the Secretary of Energy's Gold Award in recognition of his tireless engagement on issues of national importance, including nuclear energy, national security and international user facilities. The DOE and the Office of Science recognized how extremely lucky they were to have a true champion like Dr. Grunder on their team for so long; and we in Illinois were very, very lucky to have had such an outstanding professional at the helm of one of our two outstanding labs for the last 5 years. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Hermann Grunder has contributed greatly to the DOE laboratory complex, my district, and the State of Illinois and our Nation. His commitment and industrious efforts as a public servant serve as an inspiration to us all. I know that his presence at Argonne will be greatly missed, but I am confident that with his abundant energy and zeal for science he will continue to do great things in the scientific community for years to come. Today I congratulate Dr. Grunder on his retirement and wish him all the best in his many future endeavors.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my special order at this time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding me time and for cosponsoring this resolution and for his advocacy for financial literacy. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 148, which my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), and I introduced for a second year to designate April as Financial Literacy Month. We did this once again to raise public awareness about the importance of financial education in the United States and the serious consequences that come when young people, adults, and older Americans lack basic understanding of personal finance and economics. Madam Speaker, ours is a compelling case, and I know that many Members of the House who cosponsored this resolution agree that our country is in a financial literacy deficit. The most recent statistics indicate that most of our States do not require schools to have financial literacy programs, and 7 out of 10 of our children and grandchildren failed a basic financial literacy exam. The numbers look equally bad for young and older adults. Studies show that almost all of our Nation's college students have a credit card by the second year of college, but only about a quarter report that their parents actively taught them how to manage money. The number of bankruptcies remains at a historic high. Over 1.6 million bankruptcy cases were filed in 2004. And we all know Social Security will soon reach a juncture, and now is the time for us to encourage our children and young and older adults to embrace learning about finance and economics and engage in good budget and long-term savings habits. Abraham Lincoln, one of our most beloved Presidents and fellow Illinoisan, once said, ``You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today,'' and I agree. We should help our citizens avoid getting caught in a credit quagmire, stay out of bankruptcy court, and steer clear of a financially unsound retirement. I believe that we need to encourage all Americans to take ownership over their finances, to be financially astute, and establish financial security now. Now is the time. I pledge to continue to promote financial and economic education, and I know that I am joined by an army of supporters here on the Hill and across the country. In recent years, the Congress, Federal agencies, State and local governments, schools, the private sector, not-for- profit and for-profit groups have worked hard and made incremental strides toward improving the financial aptitude of Americans of all ages and walks of life. However, there is so much more that we can and must do to turn the tide. Many States have implemented outstanding financial literacy programs for children. In my home State of Illinois, State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka created the Bank At School program which helps children learn the fundamentals of money management through the operation of an in- school bank. Schools are partnering with financial institutions which conduct a monthly Bank Day at the school where students open savings accounts and make regular deposits. I believe that programs like this will provide the guidance that is desperately needed; but we do need to do more. We need to coordinate our programs. We need to improve America's financial report card, and we need to encourage financially sound behavior. In Congress we catapulted the Financial Literacy Movement into action when we passed the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. This act established the Financial Literacy and Education Commission, which has made great strides since its first meeting in 2004. They have established a Website, mymoney.gov., and are in the process of developing a national strategy. While the Commission's work to date has been commendable, some of us in Congress thought that we ought to do more. That is why in February, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) and I formed the Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus. The caucus currently has 45 Members with 23 Republicans, 21 Democrats, and 1 Independent. We all agree that financial literacy is a national priority, and our goal is to bring together interested parties and participants at the national, State, and local levels to establish best practices and to promote financial and economic literacy on Capitol Hill, at home in our districts and, eventually, around the world. We are forming an ambitious agenda for the weeks and months to come. On April 27 we will host our first Financial Literacy Fair in the House Cannon Caucus Room. I would encourage everyone to attend the fair. Our caucus also aims to establish a Website, provide a focal point in working with the Senate and executive branch, including the Commission, and showcase all of the great programs that have been launched in the business, education, and not-for-profit communities. Today I encourage all Members of the House to join the caucus and work with us to educate Americans about finance and economics. Madam Speaker, the state of financial literacy among our citizens may not garner much in the way of headlines, but it is an issue nonetheless that should command our attention. While it is a problem that is serious and urgent, it is one that can be solved through education. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this resolution in support of financial literacy. It is our duty to help our citizens of all ages and walks of life to succeed in today's increasingly sophisticated world of finance. I want to thank my distinguished colleague and friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), for his strong support and sponsorship of this resolution. I would also like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), for being a cosponsor of this resolution and moving it through his committee. I would especially like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), also members of the Committee on Government Reform, for managing this resolution. I would also like to thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for her support of the resolution and dedication to this initiative. In conclusion, I would like to thank all of the Members who cosponsored this resolution for their support.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Budget have until 4 p.m. on March 12, 2005, to file a privileged report to accompany a concurrent resolution on the budget.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Before I begin, I want to thank my cosponsor, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). No one has worked harder on this issue and has fought more to bring it more to the forefront. Back in 1993, this House passed H. Con. Res. 110, recognizing the sequencing of the human genome as one of the most significant accomplishments of the pass 100 years. It most certainly is. Thanks to this accomplishment, researchers now know more than ever how the human body works. Thanks to genetic testing made possible by this discovery, individuals can, for the first time, know their risks for developing one of more than 1,000 genetic disorders. Why would anyone want this bad news. Well, if you know you or someone in your family is going to get sick, you can plan accordingly. You can incorporate healthy habits to lessen the impact of the condition. For example, a woman who carries a gene known as BCRA, has a much higher risk of developing breast cancer than the rest of the population. If these women knew ahead of time that they were at greater risk, they would be more likely to eat better, stop smoking, have annual mammograms and take other steps to lower the likelihood of cancer. It also gives individuals and families the chance to mentally and financially prepare themselves for whatever condition they may later develop. The problem is that individuals are not taking advantage of this opportunity. And why not? Well, they are concerned that their genetic information will be used by health insurers to deny them coverage and by potential employers to deny them employment. To put it bluntly, we will never unlock the true promise and benefits of sequencing the human genetic code if Americans are too paranoid to get tested. Currently, Federal and State laws offer only a patchwork of protection against the misuse of genetic information. In addition, some States have enacted legislation on discrimination in health insurance and/or genetic discrimination in the workplace. Despite the presence of these State laws, only comprehensive Federal legislation can guarantee everyone in the United States protection from genetic discrimination. That is why I, along with the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), have introduced this legislation. No one should be afraid to take advantage of the latest science to protect their health or that of their families. It is exactly the same bill that our colleagues in the Senate passed without objection, and it is strongly supported by the administration. The bill provides commonsense protections for both consumers and companies. It contains protections against frivolous lawsuits with unlimited damages, but at the same time ensures that an individual's private, personal genetic information cannot be used against them. For example, employers cannot fire someone because they are more likely to develop a genetic disorder. Nor can they require employees to undergo genetic testing. At the same time, employers cannot be sued simply because of so-called ``water cooler gossip'' about an individual's condition that may or may not be true. Under this bill, health insurance companies cannot deny coverage or charge a higher premium to a healthy individual based solely on genetic disposition to a disease or a disorder. Health insurance is expensive and hard enough to get for many Americans. Let us not make it more expensive based on factors beyond an individual's control. As technology rapidly changes, so must Federal law. We must now act to protect our Federal investment in the human genome project. If individuals do not take advantage of the opportunities genetic research provides, we do not fully realize the return on our investment. This bill would allow them to do just that. I am proud to introduce this legislation. I thank my colleagues who have worked so hard on it already: the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo). I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense and much-needed legislation.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 27, the Job Training Improvement Act. Through local and State workforce investment boards, this legislation will strengthen job training programs to meet the needs of local businesses, many of which rely heavily on information technology, IT. In the span of just two decades, information technology has become a commonplace part of our lives and has also created nearly 10 million jobs in the United States. Information technology is a factor in the productivity and success of many different sectors of our economy. Whether one is an auto mechanic, a dentist, or a farmer, IT skills are essential--and will be increasingly essential--to one's job performance and productivity. Simply put, the IT industry and its workforce are significant contributors to productivity, innovation and global competitiveness. It is for this reason, Mr. Chairman, that the Committee report encourages States to examine whether providers of training offer the opportunity to obtain an industry-developed and maintained certification or credential. This is important, in as much as it recognizes that the industries themselves are the most qualified to determine what skills their workforce will need to succeed and excel. This is especially true with respect to the constantly changing and ever-evolving IT industry. Through certification, individuals receive validation of a level of expertise. This, in turn, can increase an individual's ability to find and retain a good job that utilizes that training. Employers also benefit when certification assures a level of skill that an individual could bring to a job. The success of WIA in expanding the computer skills of Americans-- through training and certification--will improve the productivity of every sector of our economy. This in turn will make America more competitive globally and is an effective step toward creating good jobs right here in the United States.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, February 5, 2005, will mark the 12th anniversary of legislation that has made an enormous difference in the lives of millions of working Americans since its enactment in 1993. I speak of course of the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA. I count myself among the Family and Medical Leave Act's strongest supporters. Since its enactment, this law has brought peace of mind and job security during critical times to millions of American workers and their families. The FMLA allows qualified employees to take unpaid leave from their employer for the birth or adoption of a child, to attend to the serious health crisis of a family member, or attend to their own serious medical issue. The law makes clear that no American should have to choose between caring for a gravely ill family member and losing his or her job. Since its enactment in 1993, millions of Americans have used the FMLA to take time to care for a newborn, to attend to an adult parent or child's serious illness, or perhaps to attend to their own critical medical needs. They have done so knowing that their job remained safe and secure. Indeed, many employers have gone far beyond the requirements of the FMLA, providing their employees with leave benefits beyond those required under state or federal law. In congressional hearings on the FMLA, in town meetings, and in speaking with both employers and employees in our districts, we hear that so much of the FMLA works the way Congress intended. As all of us who serve in this body know, however, actions we take here in Congress with the best of intentions often end up going in a direction we don't expect. In particular, with respect to the FMLA, we have heard that the ``family'' part of Family and Medical Leave has worked well, providing employees a much-needed benefit and the time to care for a newborn or adopted child, while enabling employers to manage and maintain the productivity of their workforce. It appears that implementation of ``medical'' leave has been less successful. It is plain that Congress intended FMLA to serve as a safety net for employees to meet serious and unforeseen medical needs. The Act was not intended to be--nor dare I say would it have been enacted if it were--a national ``sick leave'' policy. When medical leave is used for those serious health conditions for which it is intended, we hear from employers that morale and productivity are unaffected--indeed, that employees often rally to the aid of a colleague. In contrast, where medical leave is abused, or used beyond its intended purpose, morale and productivity suffer, employers are unable to manage their workplace, and resentment grows in co-workers who are forced to pick up chronic slack. Similarly, we have heard repeatedly that recordkeeping and notice requirements under the Act are not in tune with the realities of today's workplace, and serve as a barrier to both employers and employees in knowing and exercising their rights. Concerns about misapplying the FMLA have often discouraged employers from providing more generous leave policies to their workers. Research also has shown that confusion surrounding FMLA regulatory requirements has actually served to hurt those it was supposed to help--workers. Employers and employees alike have expressed concerns that the effectiveness of the law is being hampered by the way the Act has been implemented by regulatory agencies and interpreted by the courts. This is troubling and has, unfortunately, led to charges that the FMLA is a bad law. As a supporter of the FMLA, I would be the first to say that is not true: the FMLA is a good law, although with the benefit of 12 years of experience, perhaps a law in need of fine-tuning. Without action to clarify the law, we will surely see an increasing number of lawsuits challenging FMLA regulations--litigation that costs employees, employers, unions and the courts valuable time, effort and money. On the anniversary of its enactment, I look forward to working with a wide array of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of Congress, to keep the best parts of the FMLA intact, while targeting common-sense, necessary improvements where the Act has failed to meet Congressional expectations. Many issues in Congress are polarized, but restoring the Congressional intent of this law needn't be. I am confident that good minds can and will agree so that we can work to preserve the protections offered to workers by the FMLA, address failings in the Act that serve the interests of neither employers nor employees, and ensure that the benefits afforded to millions of working Americans in the last 12 years will be afforded to millions more in the years to come.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month I traveled with the Iraqi Women's Caucus members, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Tauscher) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) to meet with Iraqi women to discuss election procedures. We held the meeting in Amman, Jordan. These were women who were candidates for the January 30, 2005, elections in Iraq. And it seems kind of strange that we would be training them in election procedures, how to campaign, when certainly that is a very different place, and the elections are being held in a war zone, and it is very difficult for candidates to get their name out, to even have their picture out and so that they are on lists which provides for the different groups. The women were from all different parties that are involved in the election. There are over 100 parties. We had 20 of these women that came to discuss the elections. But we were so amazed and so impressed with the caliber of women. They are educated, articulate, well spoken, and at least five of them have Ph.Ds. But they are not only running for election, where we talk about how you have to speak against opponents, and you might say that you are going to really kill each other; they are actually putting their life on the line. So many of them have been intimidated. They have been threatened. One of the women has lost her 17-year old son along with her guard. Last week there was an assassination attempt on her again with four insurgents dressed as Iraqi policemen. Fortunately, they did not succeed, and she is still running. One woman had been kidnapped and held for ransom and was finally released. Another woman lost her son. Another woman had five family members who have been killed just recently. And yet they are willing. Because they believe so much in democracy, they are willing to put their names on a list to be elected. And fortunately for the women of Iraq, this is a national constituent type of election, and so it is not what we think of as having districts or provinces. But there is a list of the different parties, so people will have one vote for the list, and then the number of people that are elected will receive--will be included in the government that is being elected and will have the opportunity to write the Constitution. But it was decided by the transitional government that women would be included, and that 25 percent of those who are elected will be women. And the way that that was done is that every third name on the list is a woman. So we had the opportunity to meet for several days with these women, and the longer we met, the more engaged everybody became. You could have really very frank discussions. So many times when we go over there, it is just for a meeting of very short time. You never really got to know the women. There have also been women that have come over here to work with us. But despite the differences in the women, they were Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, independents and Christians, that they had not really discussed political issues with each other, and what we were able to do was to be able to facilitate and help them develop the tools and the skills to be able to work together and realize that politics really is the art of compromise. Some of them were very rigid in what they believe should be done, but they were able to see that you need to discuss, and it is very important to have a majority party, but also to have a minority party. Even the Sunni women that were there, who came in wanting to postpone the elections because their areas are obviously unsafe, they still want to participate. What all of the women told us was that they need to have everyone participate, all the different groups. Many of them, even within the different groups, are divided into other groups. But we were really able to discuss this with them, and I think they went away with a positive reinforcement of how to deal with that. What we came away with was such a feeling of how important it is, how they view the democracy that we have and the freedoms that we have and how they really want to have the same type of thing. Now, these elections are really only the first step in them reaching democracy, and they will be able to write their constitution and form an interim government. The constitution will have to be written by August 15, which is a very short time. The interim government will take effect, and then they will have a slate for eventual election of the permanent officers who will govern in December of 2005. But they are on their way. One thing that they said to us is, The U.S., we think of them as occupiers, but please do not leave us until the job is done. We need you there. We really need to have a democracy. And they are willing to give their life for it. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate them and wish them well on their election.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the High- Performance Computing--or HPC--Revitalization Act of 2005, which will ensure that America remains a leader in the development and use of supercomputers. When we think of how computers affect our lives, we probably think of the work we do on our office desktop machines, or maybe the Internet surfing we do in our spare time. We don't normally think of the enormous contribution that supercomputers--also called high performance computers--make to the world around us. These powerful machines are used in the development of pharmaceuticals, in modeling the earth's climate, in applications critical to ensuring our national and homeland security, and to strengthen our economic competitiveness. High-performance computers also are central to maintaining U.S. leadership in many scientific fields. Computational science complements theory and experimentation in fields such as plasma physics and fusion, astrophysics, nuclear physics, and genomics. Mr. Speaker, dramatic scientific and commercial breakthroughs will require increasing computing power by a factor of a hundred, or in some cases, by a factor of a thousand. While attaining these increases may seem daunting, the history of computer development has taught us that with a sustained commitment to research, such gains are within our reach. For nearly three years, Japan was home to the world's fastest supercomputer, the Earth Simulator. But during those years, the United States remained a leader in high performance computing as home to many of the world's fastest supercomputers. For example, a list of the world's fastest computers released last spring documented that 10 of the top 20 supercomputers were in the United States at that time. Then, just two months ago, the United States regained the lead when IBM's Blue Gene/L supercomputer was recognized as the fastest computer in the world. IBM and the U.S. supercomputing industry are to be commended for their impressive accomplishments. These are accomplishments upon which we must build if the United States is to retain its leading role in the development and use of supercomputers. That's why my legislation updates an important law not revised since it passed in 1991. The HPC Revitalization Act of 2005 clarifies the federal government's role in supporting supercomputing research and development in the United States. More specifically, my bill does four things: First, it requires that federal agencies provide the U.S. research community access to the most advanced high-performance computing systems, and technical support for their users. Second, there's more to supercomputing than building big machines. That's why the bill requires federal agencies to support all aspects of high-performance computing for scientific and engineering applications, including: Software, algorithm and applications development; Development of technical standards; and Education and training. Third, the bill requires the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to direct an interagency planning process to develop and maintain a research, development, and deployment roadmap for the provision of high-performance computing resources for the U.S. research community. This provision will help ensure an ongoing, robust planning process for our national high-performance computing efforts. Finally, the bill clarifies the missions of each of the federal agencies that have a role in developing or using High Performance Computing. Mr. Speaker, at a full committee hearing on May 13 of last year, Dr. John Marburger, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, communicated the Administration's support for this bill. Dr. Marburger and the Bush Administration recognize that we can't have world-class science if we don't have world-class computers. We cannot imagine the kinds of problems that the supercomputers of tomorrow will be able to solve. But we can imagine the kind of problems we will have if we fail to provide researchers in the United States with the computing resources they need to remain world-class. That's why the House passed this same bill in the 109th Congress. It will guide federal agencies in providing needed support to high- performance computing and its user communities. Our nation's scientific enterprise, and our economy, will be the stronger for it. To conclude, I want to recognize the bill's cosponsors, Chairman Sherwood Boehlert and Congressman Lincoln Davis, and thank them for their support. I hope the rest of my colleagues will again support this legislation when it comes to the floor for consideration in the 109th Congress. With your help, we will ensure that the United States maintains its distinction as home to the world's most powerful computer.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the members of Zion Lutheran Church in Naperville, Illinois on the 150th anniversary of the founding of their outstanding institution. Established in the difficult years leading up to the Civil War, Zion Lutheran Church has well withstood the test of time. Through the Great Depression, a closed school, a devastating fire, and other trials, the dedication and determination of its members have triumphed. Generation after generation, they have shown their unswerving commitment to faith, family and community. The countless and varied contributions of the members of Zion Lutheran have played a vital role in making the Village of Naperville, Illinois a great place to live and raise families. Over the past century and a half, their selfless community service has touched the lives of so many, especially children. Zion Lutheran Church is more than just a place of worship. It is a community with a strong tradition of service, faith, and values. Today, we all share in their joy as they celebrate 150 wonderful years. The world is a better place because of the people of Zion Lutheran Church, and the residents of Naperville and the 13th Congressional District are fortunate to count them as our friends and neighbors. I am happy to wish Zion Lutheran Church all the best for continued success in their good work. May the next 150 years be as great a blessing as the first.