Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to our former colleague Steve Horn. I also want to thank my friend and colleague the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for her spirit of bipartisanship in introducing this legislation to honor a man who worked well with Members on both sides of the aisle. I first met Mr. Horn longer ago than I would like to admit, back in my days at Stanford University. I was an undergraduate. He was a teacher's aide, commonly called a TA, in one of my government classes while he pursued his Ph.D. Even back then, he had established a reputation for being hardworking and thorough. When I first came to Washington, I was privileged to serve with Mr. Horn on the Committee on Government Reform. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations, he was always searching for ways to make government run more smoothly and more efficiently. This was not always the most glamorous or most exciting work, but Mr. Horn gladly took it on. Nowhere was this more evident than his work on the Y2K bug. It was Steve Horn who initiated a system of grading Federal agencies on Y2K readiness and publicizing the results using report cards. These report cards let agencies know where their weaknesses were and allowed them to focus their efforts on efficiently improving their operating systems for the switchover to the year 2000. The same report card system was recently used to evaluate Federal agencies on their bioterrorism readiness. It is only fitting that we name this post office after Steve Horn. Another one of his many legislative achievements was securing a separate ZIP code for the neighborhood surrounding the post office. I am very proud today to support this legislation to make this the J. Stephen Horn Post Office. I congratulate Mr. Horn on all his hard work and I wish him and his wife, Nini, all the best in their much-deserved retirement. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation to honor a truly deserving man.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1533.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to express my strong support for the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement. Mr. Speaker, it was back in late 1992, just as the former Bush administration concluded negotiations on NAFTA, that the U.S. announced its intention to pursue a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, or FTAA, with Chile as its first new partner. Now, at that time, no one could have predicted that it would take more than a decade to conclude an agreement and arrive here at the House today. The delay, of course, was not the result of changes in the administrations in the U.S. or Chile, President Clinton supported an FTA with Chile as did President George W. Bush when he was elected in 2000. And successive Chilean governments have backed an agreement. It was only last year, with the passage of Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA, that the logjam finally was broken and the negotiators, free to conclude the agreement that we address here today. There is no mystery as to why the United States moved forward first with Chile. It is true, Brazil is potentially a much larger Latin American market for U.S. products and services, and the nations of the Caribbean are undeniably closer to the United States. But it was Chile, not Brazil or the Caribbean or other nations of our hemisphere that exhibited our greatest promise for a partnership, and that is why we should support this agreement today. Truly a South American success story, Chile during the 1990s, more than doubled its gross domestic product, becoming the fourth fastest growing economy in the world. Even more significant are the political reforms that have supported this growth. Chile has rebuilt its historically solid democracy over the past decade. It has a transparent government that adheres to the rule of law. It has a firm legal commitment to human rights, including strong progressive labor and environmental protection regimes. Perhaps most importantly, Chile has demonstrated its commitment to open markets, lowering unilaterally many of its own trade barriers and working bilaterally, regionally, and multilaterally for trade liberalization. In short, Chile is a good partner who can only become a better partner within our hemisphere with the enactment into force of this agreement. It is not a huge trading partner for the United States. Its population of 15 million is only slightly larger than my home State of Illinois. And Chile is our 44th largest trading partner, whereas the United States is Chile's number one trading partner. Right now, most Chilean products enter the United States duty free under the GSP. In contrast, our products face a 6 percent across-the-board tariff when they enter Chile. This free trade agreement with Chile will put the United States back on an equal or better footing with the Europeans, Brazilians, Mexicans, and Canadians with whom we compete in Chile. It is an agreement that is strong on market access, service openings, intellectual property protection, and labor and environmental safeguards. The Free Trade Agreement with Chile was a good idea 10 years ago and it is an even better idea today. It is about reducing trade barriers, allowing our companies to compete successfully, and strengthening our friendships in the Western Hemisphere. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his kind words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 2210 and to oppose the Democrat substitute. Mr. Chairman, I am probably the only Member of Congress who has ever worked in a Head Start program, and that happened in 1964, the first year of Head Start. I worked as a volunteer in the summer when the program first started. So I really know firsthand the tremendous benefits Head Start has delivered to children; and I love the Head Start program, and I only want it to be better. I have gone out to visit the Head Start programs in my community and found them to be great schools. But to listen to some of my colleagues and their notions of Head Start, you would actually think the sky is falling. Let me make this clear. There really is no new block grant in this Head Start authorization. There really is no lowering of the standards or shrinking of Federal responsibility. There is no massive restructuring, and there is no falling sky. What there is in H.R. 2210 is a straightforward reauthorization with some improvements for 42 of the 50 States in the Union. For the other eight States, there is a new pilot program, a pilot program which is voluntary, maintains high standards, and is limited to the highest- quality States that have exhibited the strongest commitment to early childhood learning. So why is that so frightening? For those eight States with the strongest programs, there is an option of trying something slightly new for 5 years. That is what pilot projects are designed to do, to try something new that may work a little bit better. Yes, the Head Start program is, in my view, one of the most successful programs in history. But does that success rule out the possibility of improvement and need for progress and opportunity to make it even better? I do not think so. I will admit that when this reauthorizing bill first was introduced earlier this year, I had a few misgivings. Like many Members who have spoken this evening, why tinker with a program that works was what crossed my mind. But I must admit that many of my concerns later were addressed both in the improved legislation that came out of the committee and in the substitute amendment that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) has proposed that we are voting on tonight. The State pilot program has the potential to make Head Start even better, and that is why these changes are in the bill. For instance, States must match a sizable proportion of the Head Start funds they receive from the Federal Government with State funds, and Head Start funds may not be used for any other purpose. These are good solid safeguards that will allow for progress and improvements while preventing abuses and unintended consequences. In contrast, the Democrat substitute offers no incentive for States to improve their early childhood programs, nor does it give local Head Start centers the opportunity to coordinate with other programs to make Head Start better. The Democrat substitute says Head Start is good and cannot and will not be made better. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the Democrat substitute and support the improved H.R. 2210.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as opposed to this amendment. I served on the Committee on Government Reform in my first term here and then have served on the Speaker's drug task force. I have been to Colombia, and I have met the new President of Colombia, who has been here several times. I think it would be a real mistake to cut down on our funds to Colombia when things are moving ahead and have progressed so much in the last 5 years. I yield to the gentleman from Florida, whom I did travel to Colombia with.

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would allow the continued U.S. participation in and contributions to the World Bank's International Development Association, the Asian Development Fund and the African Development Fund, three key institutions for which funding has been adequately provided in the underlying bill. Requested by the Treasury Department, my amendment would enable the U.S. to deliver on its international commitments and continue the flow of crucial resources to the world's poorest countries. It enjoys the bipartisan support of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), ranking member, of the Committee on Financial Services. And I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), ranking member, of this subcommittee for working with us on this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and those kind words. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and of the underlying bills, H.R. 2638 and H.R. 2639, the U.S.-Chile and the U.S.- Singapore Free Trade Agreements. They are both outstanding agreements that are worthy of our support. We have heard a great deal of talk right here on the floor today and during the week from opponents of these agreements who talk about everything but the agreements themselves. They talk about unemployed Americans. They talk about damage to the environment. They talk about waves of immigration. There is no doubt that these problems exist. But there is also no doubt that these problems are not about the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether to approve implementing legislation for two particular agreements, the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements, not the NAFTA, not a CAFTA, and not an FTAA. We are not voting today on models for future agreements. The Trade Promotion Authority that Congress granted the President last year provides the road map for future agreements and negotiations. And future agreements will have to come up to Congress for future votes. What we are talking about today are the merits of these two individual agreements and the benefits they will bring to our businesses and our workers. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues in the hours remaining before we cast our votes to just take a few moments to look at the specific merits of these two agreements with the two key partners in Asia and Latin America. Mr. Speaker, you will find that they expand market access opportunities for U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and service providers. You will find that they secure extensive protection for U.S. companies' intellectual property rights and investment, and you will find that they provide strong labor and environmental protections. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the Chile and Singapore free trade agreements.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, over the last 6 years, the United States has lost nearly one-third of its share of Chile's import market. Not coincidentally, the plunge occurred while other nations were implementing their own free trade agreements with Chile and getting market share there. Since the early 1990s, Chile signed free trade agreements with Canada, Mexico and the four nations of MERCOSUR. And earlier this year, implementation of the European Union-Chile's FTA led to an immediate surge in exports to Chile from European firms in direct competition with U.S. firms. The lost Chilean sales not only cost the United States its long-time ranking as the top exporting Nation to Chile, it also cost U.S. businesses and workers thousands of higher-paying, export-related jobs. U.S. businesses have the expertise and the resources to compete globally, if they are allowed to do so on equal terms with our competitors. It is time to pass the U.S.-Chile free trade agreement and give our companies the opportunity they need to stay competitive in Chile.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, on June 6, 2003, the United States and Chile signed a historic and comprehensive free trade agreement designed to reduce barriers and facilitate trade and investment between both countries. Negotiations had begun back in December 2000, and 14 negotiating rounds were held. In the final round, 230 negotiators worked 9 straight days to come up with an agreement that contains more than 800 pages of text and annexes. The result of all this hard work is a state-of-the-art trade pact that includes groundbreaking provisions which have never been negotiated as part of a free trade agreement. For example, the agreement includes new anticorruption rules in government contracting, and commitments to make end-user piracy of copyrighted works a criminal offense. Also included are new customs procedures which will increase transparency, efficiency, and timeliness of customs clearance procedures while maintaining strong border security. Chile has agreed to new regulatory transparency commitments that will govern the interaction of service regulators with private parties, increasing public access to rulemaking procedures. In addition, the dispute settlement process will become more transparent with more public hearings, access to legal submissions, and the rights of third parties to submit views. But beyond the precedent-setting features of the agreement, there is a bottom-line reality. Right now most of Chile's products enter the United States duty free under the GSP, or generalized system of preferences. In contrast, our exports to Chile face a uniform tariff of 6 percent. Once the U.S.-Chile free trade agreement enters into force, Chile's 6 percent tariff will be removed immediately from more than 85 percent of U.S. exports. Tariffs on the remaining products will be phased out over 4 to 12 years. This is a good agreement which covers a particularly wide range of products and services. Not only does it address the liberalization of merchandise trade; it also includes groundbreaking areas such as e- commerce, express delivery services, strong copyright and trade protections, and across-the-board liberalization of trade in services. In short, there is something for everyone to like in this agreement. But as with other trade agreements, there is also something for everyone to question. The three areas that are often addressed by Members who have not had an opportunity to focus on the agreement, and we heard from a couple of them this morning, are: labor, the environment, and immigration. For instance, some Members who are not familiar with Chile and its labor laws question whether the labor provisions in this agreement are strong enough. The facts are that Chile has recently rewritten most of its Pinochet-era labor laws, reaffirming its obligation as a member of the international labor organization, and committed in this agreement to a key binding obligation not to fail to effectively enforce its labor laws through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction. Labor protections within Chile and within this agreement are strong and sound. And because it is a free trade agreement, other Members question whether it preserves environmental protections, but this free trade agreement includes provisions requiring parties to establish high levels of environmental protection and to not weaken or reduce environmental laws to attract trade or investment. It provides for dispute settlement and for environmental cooperation between the parties. And last, some Members have questioned the impact this agreement may have on our immigration policy and whether it will open the door to a new wave of immigrants. The answer is no. It is true that in order to facilitate trade and services this agreement does allow for temporary entry of business professionals into Chile and into the United States. The number of professionals allowed entry into Chile is unlimited, while the number of Chilean professionals in the United States is 1,400. But I want to point out that the implementing legislation ensures that Chile professional category comes under the existing H-1B umbrella as H-1B1. Further, the legislation clarifies that the Chile H-1B professional category is capped and these individuals will count under the overall H-1B program cap. The same fees can be charged for entry, and the agreement permits the U.S. to require attestations modeled after core elements of the Labor Condition Application of the current H-1B visa program. Mr. Speaker, this is a good agreement with a good trading partner that will be good for our businesses and workers. I plan to vote for the U.S.-Chile trade agreement, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, my home State of Illinois has been especially hard hit by the steep rise in medical malpractice insurance rates. In the greater Chicago area, premiums have increased between 24 and 34 percent over the past year. As a result, physicians cannot afford to keep treating patients and are forced to either limit what patients they can treat or close down their practice. When doctors cannot afford to keep their practices open, patients suffer; and because doctors in high-risk specialties like OB/GYN are hit the hardest, women patients suffer the most. The same thing is happening all over the country, with one exception. California already has in place a State law very similar to legislation the House passed earlier this year, and it is working. I urge my colleagues in the other body to pass medical malpractice reform legislation and make sure patients' access to health care does not suffer.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the substitute to H.R. 660. The mandates contained in this substitute will drive up costs and defeat the very purpose of H.R. 660, which is to make healthcare insurance more affordable. Talk to most business owners, small business owners, in my district, and they will say that the fastest growing cost to their businesses is rising health insurance premiums for their workers. Talk to other small business owners in my district, and they will say that they cannot afford to offer their workers healthcare coverage. In fact, if you talk to any of the 41 million Americans who have no health insurance, 6 out of 10 of them will say they work for a small business. It is not that these small business employers, employees or owners do not want health insurance or do not realize its importance; they simply cannot afford it. Health insurance is expensive, even if you work for a large company. Studies show health insurance costs rose by 14.7 percent in 2002, and others predict they will rise another 15 percent for 2003. In large companies, health coverage costs are spread out over many employees, making coverage more affordable for each employee. However, when there are fewer employees, each must bear a higher share of the costs and the cost per worker for the employer is very high. Far too often, small businesses either cannot afford to offer insurance, or, if they offer it, it is too costly and their employees cannot afford it. Let us give small businesses the same economies of scale that are enjoyed by large businesses. I urge my colleagues to vote against this substitute which would establish new mandates and turn the plan into a nationalized, government-subsidized health care plan. I urge a yes vote for final passage of H.R. 660. Let us give more working Americans access to affordable, quality insurance coverage.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, in 1903, the first airplane took flight at Kitty Hawk in North Carolina. In that same year, the life of a constituent in my congressional district, Elsie Boyd, also took flight--and is still going strong a full 100 years later. I proudly rise to join with the many people from my district who will help celebrate Elsie's 100th birthday on June 24. Friends and family who know and love Elsie understand what keeps her going strong--and I do mean strong. Elsie owns and lives in her own condominium. She is active with the Methodist Church women and helps with neighborhood rummage sales. She drives herself around town in a 1988 Chevy Nova and reads at least two hours each night--I hear she loves English history and any and every biography about Queen Victoria and Great Britain's royal families. Simply put, Elsie is one of those people who lives life to the fullest, always views the glass as half full and turns the tables on the most difficult trials life has to offer. According to her daughter Edie Boyd, ``mom always looks at the positive side of life. That is why she is so successful and independent.'' Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I find to be the most inspiring about her life is the path she took to achieve professional success. After her paternal grandmother pulled the plug on high school and declared that her help was needed around the house, Elsie decided to earn her diploma by taking night courses--no small task for a young woman in the early part of the 20th century. Fluent in German, Elsie moved on to spend many years as a legal secretary, including some time spent abroad and working on the private legal affairs of Judge Henry Homer, who later became Governor of Illinois. Next week, Elsie will celebrate 100 years of life with an immediate family that includes three daughters, six grandchildren and eleven great-grandchildren. Needless to say, the family cherishes each and every moment of time spent with her. Orville and Wilbur Wright set the stage for 100 years of aviation breakthroughs. In her own way, Elsie spent much the same amount of time accomplishing great things and inspiring others by always concentrating on the sunny side of life. Congratulations Elsie--you are a wonderful example and a wonderful person.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, today I joined President Bush in my home State of Illinois for a forum on Medicare. As a result, I missed a series of votes. Had I been present, I would have cast the following votes: ``Yes'' on the Previous question on the Rule for H.R. 2115, Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (roll No. 257); ``yes'' on Passage of the Rule for H.R. 2115, flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (roll No. 258); ``yes'' for H. Con. Res. 110, recognizing the sequencing of the human genome as one of the most significant scientific accomplishments of the past one hundred years and expressing support for the goals and ideals of Human Genome Month and DNA Day (roll No. 259); ``yes'' for H.R. 1320, the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (roll No. 260); and ``yes'' for H.R. 2350, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program Reauthorization Act (roll No. 261).

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of H.R. 1119, the Family Time Flexibility Act. Cosponsored by more than 80 of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this bill will give working men and women more choice and more flexibility in balancing work and family. H.R. 1119 allows hourly workers the option of choosing time-and-a- half wages for overtime hours worked or paid time-and-a-half hours off for overtime hours worked. The important point about H.R. 1119 is that it is completely optional. Employers may offer it to their employees or choose not to offer it. Employees may choose to take the option or not take it. Unions may choose to include it in their collective bargaining agreements so employees have the option to use it or unions may choose not to include it. This bill protects and preserves the sanctity of the 40-hour work week. Overtime hours are counted on the basis of a 40-hour work week. Any hour worked over 40 hours in a 7-day period is considered overtime, and overtime hours must be paid in time-and-a-half pay or time-and-a- half time off. Here is how H.R. 1119 works. Beth is a single mom of two school age boys. She makes $10 an hour at a print shop that offers the comp time option. Beth has worked at the shop for 6 months, and she decided to take the comp time option in the event she needs time off to take care of the boys when they are sick or off from school. So Beth signs her company's comp time option agreement. In week A, she works 50 hours, 10 hours overtime. She gets paid for 40 hours and banks the 10 overtime hours. In week B, the boys must be picked up at 2 p.m. each day. So Beth checks with her employer and leaves 3 hours early each day during the week. She decides to use her 10 banked overtime hours, which become 15 hours off at the time-and-a-half rate. Beth takes 15 hours off for the work, working only 25 hours, but Beth receives her regular paycheck of $400 or 40 hours times $10 an hour, even though she only worked 25 hours. On an hourly basis, her employer has paid her $400 for 25 hours of work or $16 per hour. Let us say that before she uses her banked overtime hours Beth changes her mind. She decides she prefers to be paid in overtime dollars instead of overtime off. Under the bill, an employee can change his or her mind at any time and cash out any overtime hours he or she has banked. So Beth tells her employer that she wishes to cancel her comp time agreement and cash out for the hours she has banked. Within 30 days, her employer issues her a check, in addition to her regular weekly pay of $400, for the $10 overtime hours worked in week A at her overtime pay rate of $15. So Beth receives a payment of $550 which includes her regular pay for 40 hours and her $10 banked overtime hours at the time- and-a-half rate of $15 an hour, just as she would have had she never signed the comp time request. Let us use another example. Let us say it is the end of the year and Beth has not used her banked overtime hours. Her employer issues her a check for the 10 overtime hours worked in week A at her time-and-a-half rate of $15 per hour. This is in addition to her regular paycheck of $400. Under the bill, the employer must cash out any unused, banked overtime hours at the end of each year, but our bill has another attractive feature for the employee. Beth's employer must cash out these hours at the highest rate of pay that Beth has earned during the period she accumulated the banked hours. It turns out Beth received a raise in October. She now makes $12.50 an hour. At the end of the year, she still has not used her banked hours. So her employer issues her a check for the unused hours at the highest rate of pay; $12.50 an hour at time-and-a-half is $18.75 an hour or $187.50 for the 10 banked hours. This is in addition to Beth's regular paycheck. Under H.R. 1119, Beth and other working members will have the flexibility to turn their overtime hours into time-and-a-half wages or paid time-and-a-half off. They will have the peace of mind that comes with knowing they can pick up a sick child from school, make it to the soccer tournament or take time off without using up their vacation days. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1119, the Family Time Flexibility Act.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest challenges working men and women face today is balancing the needs of family with demands of work schedules. This conflict may weigh most heavily on women; but all workers, regardless of gender, experience conflict between work and family, watching their child's soccer game or going through the stack of papers on their desk. To address this problem, I introduced the Family Time Flexibility Act, legislation that would provide hourly workers the option of taking paid time and a half off in lieu of time and a half pay for hours worked overtime. This concept is a very simple one. If workers have to work overtime, they should be allowed to choose how they are compensated, with more money or paid time off. The editorial page of the Detroit News recently weighed in on this important topic by saying: ``Having more flexible hours is among the top wishes of working parents in this country. But an archaic Federal law has become a big impediment to parents and other workers in getting their wish.'' Mr. Speaker, this ``archaic'' law, the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, has been frozen for more than 60 years, locked in a time when women worked in the home, most families had only one wage earner, and nobody went to their kids' soccer games. Times have changed. Families have changed, and the workforce has changed. Yet the law has not changed. We know that workers in Federal, State, and local governments are permitted to choose time and a half off for working overtime hours and thus enjoy a great deal more flexibility than their private sector counterparts. Federal workers use it and like it. Police officers use it and like it. Park district workers use it and like it. In fact, one employee back in my district in suburban Chicago told me that he banks plenty of overtime hours plowing the snow during the long winter months and that allows him to take a longer vacation or spend more time with his family later during the few months when the weather is actually nice in Chicago. For some employees, time can be more valuable than money, particularly if they have been putting in a lot of overtime hours. Their spouses begin to wonder if they are married to their job. Their children begin to forget what they look like. Their paychecks are growing, but they really would rather have just a little more time and a little more money. Most workers just want the freedom to make that choice for themselves, and many employers would like to offer them that choice. That is what this bill does. It gives employees choice and flexibility, and it gives employers another option to offer those employees who want it. That is what the bill does. Here is what the bill does not do: this bill in no way affects the sanctity, the primacy, or the inviolability of the 40-hour work week. Let me repeat. The 40-hour work week is the law. Under this bill, an employee would earn overtime in the very same way that he or she currently does, by working more than 40 hours in a 7-day period. The bill does not alter the way that overtime is calculated. What this bill does not do is require employees to take compensatory time or require employers to offer it. In fact, this bill contains numerous safeguards to protect the employee and to ensure that the choice and selection of compensatory time is truly voluntary on the part of the employee. This bill does not give employers all the choices. Where necessary, there are effective sanctions under the bill and the Fair Labor Standards Act for employers who violate the employee protections and other provisions of this legislation. For example, the bill expressly prohibits an employer from directly or indirectly intimidating; threatening; coercing, or attempting to coerce, any employee for the purposes of interfering with an employee's right to take or not to take comp time or to use accrued comp time. The bill creates a new remedy under the Fair Labor Standards Act for employers who violate the anticoercion language just described. Let me note that this bill is not mandatory for anyone. The employer need not opt to offer family time, and the employee need not opt to take family time. It is all about choices. The employer chooses whether to offer the option, and the employee chooses whether to use the option; and if an employee changes his or her mind, he or she can at any time choose to cash out, and the employer must make the payout within 30 days. H.R. 1119 is a comprehensive, balanced bill that gives more choices for employees and more opportunities for employers to keep their employees happy. This bill is not a mandate on employers or employees. It simply gives both parties the opportunity to agree to these arrangements, an opportunity which is now denied to them by law. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Family Time Flexibility Act.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, Hollywood may have the script for its next sports movie classic. Think Hoosiers, the true story of how a small town high school basketball team became Indiana State Champions. Think David slays Goliath with little more than a wicked set, spike and serve. Think NCAA history. Just think about it. No Division II team in NCAA collegiate history has ever won a team championship. In a sport dominated by California and other sun-soaked States, no men's volleyball team from a Midwest university has ever won a national title in the sport. No Chicago area university has won an NCAA national title in 40 years. That is, until now. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Lewis University Flyers, 2003 NCAA Men's Volleyball Champions, from Romeoville, Illinois, in my congressional district. Under the leadership of head coach David Deuser and assistant coach Ryan McNeil, Lewis University defeated second- ranked Brigham Young University in five breathtaking sets, in front of a national television audience and a sellout crowd. Brigham Young has almost eight times the student body population of Lewis, not that they needed the extra motivation. Almost as impressive, the Flyers upset top-ranked and perennial powerhouse Pepperdine University in the semifinals to reach the title game. Who are the Flyers? They are Enrique Escalante, Jose Castellano, Alex Karjavine, Weyni Johnson, Jeff Soler, Matt Miller, Ryan Stuntz, Fabiano Barreto, Gustavo Meyer, Kevin Miller, Brandon Sisk, Marco Quintana, Greg Pochopien, James Elsea and Jose Martins and student manager John Sullivan. Mr. Speaker, all of Illinois, and especially the city of Romeoville, is proud of the team's accomplishments. In fact, alumni, educators and friends from across the country have called to personally congratulate the team and the university. These are exciting times in Romeoville. There are two other things about these athletes that are not making the headlines and should. One, the team is a diverse group of student athletes. Four of them have received awards this year for outstanding academic achievement. Mr. Speaker, no matter the age, we all know how important it is for our student athletes to balance the books with time spent on the court. Second, the Flyers have played the David versus Goliath role twice before. They reached the national semifinals twice in 1996 and 1998, losing both times to UCLA. What, my colleagues might ask, was the big difference this year? As my friend and president of Lewis University, Brother James Gaffney, said recently, ``This year, David was well-armed.'' Even Brigham Young coach Tom Peterson graciously said, ``Give Lewis all of the credit. They are a great team.''

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Bell amendment to H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science and someone who is very passionate about energy research, I certainly am one who would be inclined to elevate energy applications above all other applications in just about any research area, including nanotechnology research. However, the purpose of this bill is to ensure coordination and collaboration of nanotechnology research by all Federal science agencies, including the Department of Energy. I believe that this bill in its current form already includes the kind of research the Bell amendment is attempting to advocate or emphasize. It does so by authorizing a significant amount of funding for research at the Department of Energy, the Federal agency with the central mission and responsibility to encourage the development of clean, inexpensive energy. As a result, the bill will revolutionize energy production and use. Key enabling technologies such as catalysts, membranes, and filters all operate at the nanoscale. A better understanding of the nanoscale and the development of nanotechnologies will enable dramatic cost reductions in hydrogen production, carbon sequestration, and a host of other energy applications. I do not think that specifying research development in the statute adds anything new and will only tie the administration's hands and the Federal agencies' hands. I urge my colleagues to support the bill as reported by the committee and oppose the Bell amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, as on original cosponsor of H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, I rise today to express my strong support for this bill. I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the Committee on Science; and my committee colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), for developing such a comprehensive and forward-looking piece of legislation. Unlike so many other complex scientific concepts, nanotechnology is actually something we all should be able to grasp. Most Americans learn in grade school and high school that atoms are the building blocks of nature. In the years since I was in school, incredible machines have allowed us even to see every one of those items. The challenge now is to develop the tools, the equipment and expertise to manipulate those atoms and build new materials and new machines one molecule at a time. This bill takes up that challenge, ensuring coordination and collaboration among the many Federal agencies engaged in nanotech research. Unlike other research efforts, some of which are undertaken for the sake of science and our understanding of it, the broad and practical application of nanotechnology and its benefits can be described in laymen's terms. Here are just a few benefits: Sensing the presence of unwanted pathogens in blood; improving the efficiency of electricity distribution; dispensing medication; cleaning polluted soil and water; or building the next generation of spacecraft one molecule at a time. I do not think I am being overly optimistic. Just consider how far we have come since the creation of the first microchip. Sixty percent of Americans now own a personal computer or a laptop, and 90 percent of them use the Internet. The public, private and nonprofit sectors invested in research that reduces the size of the microchip while increasing its speed exponentially. This investment was made because the applications were many and the possibilities endless. After all, microchips are now found in cars, pacemakers, watches, sewing machines, and just about every household appliance. With all its potential applications, nanotechnology could have an equal, if not greater, impact than the microchip on our lives, our wealth, our health and safety, our environment and our security at home and abroad. All levels of government, academia, and industry recognize the potential of nanotechnology, as well as the benefits of collaborating to realize that potential. Nanotechnology could very well be the catalyst for national competitiveness for the next 50 years. In countless ways, our lives will be better as a result of coordinated investment in nanoscience research and development. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 766, the Nano- technology Research and Development Act.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for all of his work on this necessary initiative. I also applaud the bipartisan manner in which he and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), have completed this difficult task. In addition, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) should be commended for the groundwork that they laid with their previous efforts in creating a World Bank/AIDS Trust Fund. This amendment does two things: First, it states that the World Bank, or the IBID, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, is the trustee for contributions made by sovereign nations. This makes the underlying bill consistent with both the charter of the Global Fund and with legislation previously passed and signed into law concerning the global fight against HIV/AIDS. This amendment in no way restricts the movement of the trustee role to any other financial institution if the board of the Global Fund deems it necessary some time down the road. Second, it expresses the sense of Congress that we wish to encourage individuals and private entities to make contributions to the Global Fund. The President, in his State of the Union address, specifically requested that $1 billion of emergency relief for AIDS go towards the Global AIDS Fund over a 5-year period. The Hyde bill has authorized $1 billion in the first year alone and more money to be authorized in subsequent years, if necessary. While we all agree that government contributions on a multilateral level should be the main source of funding for the Global Fund, we also must agree that individual and private entity donations should not be discounted, discouraged, or dismissed. They should be encouraged. Governments alone cannot concur this enemy. There is so much more that individual citizens and charitable foundations can and will do if we give them the avenue, the information and the opportunity. To illustrate my point, we are all aware of the $100 million contribution made by two very well known and generous Americans from the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation. This single contribution from an American-based foundation is roughly half the amount that was pledged by the governments of Italy and Japan combined to this Global Fund. The amendment seeks to encourage and enable other foundations and generous individuals, even those who might be thinking more in the neighborhood of a $10 or $100 contribution to contribute to the Global AIDS Fund to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic. These funds promote expansion of public-private partnerships.

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

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support of this amendment. I urge its passage. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.