Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today of H.R. 258. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the sponsor of this bill.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 258) to ensure continuity for the design of the 5-cent coin, establish the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these changes to the NADBank and join me in voting to approve H.R. 254.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, food is one of life's greatest pleasures. Food is also one of life's greatest necessities. Yet, for many, food is an enemy and the act of eating is torture. An estimated 5 million to 10 million Americans suffer from eating- related diseases, including anorexia, bulimia, and binge-eating disorders. As many as 50,000 of those affected will die as a direct result of these disorders. Young women are the most common victims of these deadly diseases, but a significant number of males also experience eating-related disorders. We are all aware of the medical complications that result from anorexia and bulimia: malnutrition, liver damage, gum erosion, and even death. However, an often-overlooked consequence of eating disorders is the negative impact they have on a child's educational achievement. Students with eating disorders often see their school performance decline due to lapses in concentration, loss of self-esteem, depression, and engaging in self-destructive behaviors. Listen to how one young woman in our district describes the destruction done to her life by an eating disorder: ``I am a 16-year- old with anorexia. Having this disease has been the most horrible experience of my life. It completely takes control of your life. It breaks up your family, friends, and your actual thinking decisions. I have had this disorder for over a year and a half. Over that year and a half I have been slowly killing myself.'' Despite the social and physical devastation that these diseases inflict on young people such as this girl, very few States or school districts have adequate programs or services to help children suffering from weight-related disorders. It is not that educators or parents do not realize the problems caused by bulimia or binge-eating or are unable to identify affected students; in many cases, they either do not know how to respond to the problem or are without the resources to help educate our youth about the dangers of eating disorders. It is for this reason that I am introducing the Eating Disorders Awareness, Prevention and Education Act of 2003. This legislation has three parts which together are designed to raise awareness nationally of the problems caused by eating disorders, and to expand opportunities for parents and educators to address them at the school level. This last goal is particularly important as 86 percent of the affected individuals develop their eating disorders before the age 20. Here is a quick summary of what the Eating Disorders Awareness, Prevention and Education Act will do: First, the legislation provides States and local school districts with the option of using title V funds to set up eating disorder prevention, awareness and education programs. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, title V funds can be used for nine specific activities to improve the academic outcome of students. This legislation would make eating disorders awareness, education and prevention the tenth allowable use. Because this legislation expands what States and school districts can do with funds they already receive, it allows us to help vulnerable students without increasing the Federal Government's involvement in local education matters or creating a new Federal program. The second major provision of this bill ties in with the first. It requires the National Center for Education Statistics at the Department of Education and the National Center for Health Statistics at the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a joint study and report to Congress on the impact eating disorders have on educational advancement and achievement. The study will evaluate the extent to which students with eating disorders are more likely to miss school, have delayed rates of development, or reduce cognitive skills. The study will also outline current State and local programs to educate youth about the dangers of eating disorders, as well as evaluate the value of such programs. The third and final piece of this legislation calls for the Department of Education and Health and Human Services to carry out a national eating disorders public awareness campaign. This campaign will be similar to the antidrug campaign now being run by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Mr. Speaker, there is no easy solution to the problem of eating disorders. They present a serious threat to the health and educational advancement of our Nation's children. They must be addressed. The Eating Disorders Awareness, Prevention and Education Act gives States, local school districts, and parents the tools needed to address this problem at its root: in schools and classrooms across America. At the same time, it continues the principle of local control of education, makes good use of limited Federal resources, and increases educational opportunities for this group of at-risk children. Let me close by quoting another young woman from my district struggling with an eating disorder. After describing her tragic battle with anorexia, she closed her letter by saying this: ``I really hope that you now realize how important it is to have some awareness and programs in schools about eating disorders.'' I do understand, Mr. Speaker, and hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this much needed legislation.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague, Mrs. Maloney of New York, in introducing The Privacy Protection Clarification Act. Gramm-Leach-Bliley was landmark legislation that for the first time permitted companies to engage in banking, insurance and securities transactions simultaneously. While considering these new freedoms for entities to operate across business lines, Congress also wanted to ensure that consumer privacy would not be placed at risk. Title V sought to address this issue by giving regulators latitude to enforce privacy provisions among financial institutions. Unfortunately, in interpreting the language of the law, some confusion has arisen over what, specifically, those ``financial institutions'' might be. Well, in seeking to clarify the confusion, the Federal Trade Commission concluded that ``financial institutions'' include any business that ``significantly engages in financial activities.'' What's the definition of ``significantly''? Well, it could be as little as once a year. And what's a financial activity? There are four: debt collecting, financial advisory activities, tax planning preparation and advising, and leasing real or personal property. Okay, that's fair enough. But in writing its regulations in this way, the Federal Trade Commission appears to have unintentionally swept under its umbrella the one group of professionals that already is governed by the strictest possible confidentiality or privacy regulations. What group is this? It's attorneys. Attorneys already are bound by a duty of confidentiality, enforceable under the laws of all 50 states, that prevents misuse of client information and provides a higher degree of privacy than Gramm-Leach- Bliley. For example, lawyers in my home state, Illinois, are prohibited from releasing confidential information. Our code reads, ``except in certain specified circumstances, a lawyer shall not, during or after termination of the professional relationship with the client, use or reveal a confidence or secret of the client known to the lawyer unless the client consents after disclosure.'' And Illinois is no exception. All 50 states have equally restrictive language. In all 50 states, lawyers who violate these laws face disbarment and/or other penalties that are much more onerous than those for a violation of Title V under Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Do attorneys ``significantly engage in financial activities'' as defined by the FTC? Yes, some attorneys do give tax-planning advice. Others may handle debt collection cases. Still others may take up cases related to the other two named ``financial activities'' providing financial advice or leasing real or personal property. Yet in order to comply with the privacy provisions under Gramm-Leach- Bliley, these attorneys now run the risk of violating the client- confidentiality restrictions placed on their profession. Why is that? Well, under the FTC interpretation, every attorney who engages in any of the four defined ``financial activities'' for a non- corporate client must mail to that client a privacy notice--every year, for as long as he or she is in practice. And what does that privacy notice convey? Well, it informs clients that they may direct their attorney not to share their personal information with other entities-- the so-called ``opt-out'' provision of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Yet the attorney-client confidentiality relationship is, by nature, an, opt- in'' protection. In short, for attorneys, the very act of disclosing a privacy policy can create a confidentiality violation. This was not the intent of Congress. It was not our intent to regulate attorney-client relations. Our intent was to regulate the growing use and sale of consumers' personal information for marketing, profiling and other commercial purposes by banks, thrifts, securities firms, insurance companies, credit unions, and other bona fide financial institutions. At the end of the day, our bill will make the intention of the Gramm- Leach-Bliley Act crystal clear. The scope of the law was not intended to include law firms and sole practicing lawyers. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4. This legislation will continue the remarkable success of welfare reform. I still cannot get over the statistics. Nationally, welfare caseloads have dropped more than 50 percent from the all-time high of 5.1 million families in March 1994 to 2.1 million in December 2001. Back in my home county of DuPage, there were 2,333 families on assistance in 1996. Today, there are only 419. Some may argue that caseloads are dropping because individuals have exhausted their eligibility, but the numbers show that this is not true. The most recent census figures show that employment by mothers most likely to go on welfare rose by 40 percent between 1995 and 2000. This legislation keeps our commitment to America's kids and to America's great promise of welfare reform. And with the addition of $2 billion in extra funding for child care and development block grants, a very good bill is even better. I thank Chairman Thomas of the Committee on Ways and Means for including this funding, as well as my Republican women colleagues who have worked very hard for this. Why is this funding such good news? More funding means more kids covered, and it means that more parents will be able to afford better quality care. More kids covered means more parents working. That is our ultimate objective, to give every American the opportunity to work and to gain the dignity and self-respect that comes with providing for your own family. The past 6 years of welfare have shown us what works and what does not. When I meet with former welfare recipients throughout my congressional district, each and every one of them tells me that their success simply would not have been made possible without child care assistance. This is an outstanding bill that builds upon the welfare successes of the past 6 years. Let us get it to the President's desk and into law as quickly as possible.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for this legislation to give our Federal judges a cost-of-living adjustment. There is no question that they deserve and need this COLA and more. In 2001, the American Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association released a report detailing a fundamental problem that has escalated over the past decade, the erosion of fair and adequate compensation for the Federal judiciary. These two well-respected groups issued this report because they found that the current salaries of Federal judges have reached such levels of inadequacy that, and I quote, ``they threaten to impair the quality and independence of the third branch.'' Yes, it is true that Federal judges earn a higher salary than many Americans, but it is also true that in many cases a first-year associate at law firm earns considerably more than does a judge. I think that all of us would agree that public service has its own rewards, but those rewards do not pay the bills. Members may wonder why it is that we must take up this legislation to authorize a COLA for Federal judges. The short answer is that we should not have to do so. But because of a provision enacted back in 1981, every year, year in and year out, Congress must authorize the COLAs of Federal judges even though those COLAs are the very same COLAs that are automatically granted to Members of Congress and senior executive branch employees. It is inefficient and it is unfair to make judges scale this additional hurdle. That is why I soon will introduce legislation that puts judges back on the same track as Congress and senior members of the executive branch, automatic COLAs, unless Congress specifically votes against it. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Let us give our judges the pay they deserve, and let us eliminate the provision that requires us to take this action each year.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce three bills that address issues affecting our health care system, our workplace, and the future of science research in the United States. Topping our agenda as we begin this first day of the 108th Congress are the serious challenges facing our Medicare system: enacting a prescription drug benefit for seniors and providing fair and adequate reimbursement for physicians, hospitals, and care facilities in my home State of Illinois and across the Nation. So the first bill that I introduce today is one that will make it easier to provide this funding by cracking down on the waste, fraud, and abuse that drain more than $12 billion a year from the Medicare system. The Medicare Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Act of 2003 will put an end to that theft. It will strengthen the Medicare enrollment process, expand certain standards of participation, and reduce erroneous payments. Perhaps most importantly, it gives criminal investigators at the Department of Health and Human Services the Federal law enforcement tools to help them pursue and prosecute health care swindlers. The time to modernize Medicare is not next week, not next month or next year; the time is now. But true reform will not be achieved without first protecting Medicare from fraud and scandalous exploitation. The second bill I introduce today, the Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act of 2003, will make a good act work even better for our Nation's workers and employers. What do I mean by that? Well, since its enactment in 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act, or FMLA, has brought peace of mind and job security during critical times to thousands of workers and their families. That is a good thing. But along with this good thing has come the bad: conflict with existing workplace policies, misinterpretations, and misapplications of the law, intrusions into the privacy of employees, and other consequences that were never anticipated or intended by Congress. While none of us would say that FMLA is broken, all of us, employees and employers alike, must recognize that it should be fixed. How will my bill fix the unintended and unwanted consequences of FMLA? First, it clarifies what is now regarded as a confusing definition of a ``serious health condition.'' Second, it allows for employees to request leave time in blocks of at least 4 hours so that they have enough time to take care of their business without feeling rushed to return to the office. At the same time, it cuts down on the paperwork that employers must process and the intrusive questions they must ask employees before granting leave. Third, it allows employers to require employees to choose whether to take unpaid leave under FMLA or a paid leave of absence under a collective bargaining agreement. It provides an incentive for employers who offer sick leave to continue to do so while providing a disincentive for those who are considering termination of such employee friendly plans. The FMLA Clarification Act is a reasonable measure and fair response to many of the concerns raised by workers and employers around the country. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Last but not least, I introduce today the Energy and Science Research Investment Act, which recognizes the urgent need to finance and manage well our Nation's basic research initiatives. Over the past 5 years, Federal funding for medical research has nearly doubled, yet funding for research in the physical sciences has remained stagnant at 1990 levels. The Energy and Science Research Investment Act will provide additional resources to the Department of Energy's Office of Science and make organizational changes that will enhance the accountability and oversight of energy research and science programs at the DOE. Mr. Speaker, I thank those who have signed on as original cosponsors of these bills, and I urge others to join us in becoming cosponsors of these three key measures.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague from New York, Mr. Israel, in introducing a resolution recognizing the goals and ideals of Runaway Youth Prevention Month, which is being sponsored by the National Network for Youth and the National Runaway Switchboard. Recently, a number of highly publicized child abductions focused the attention of Americans on the plight of exploited and abducted children, and the pain and agony suffered by the families left behind. Recognizing the serious threat that faces our children every day as they travel to and from school and play with friends in parks and neighborhoods, President Bush last week convened a conference on missing, exploited and runaway children. Again, the main focus was on abducted and exploited children. And rightly so. One child abduction is one too many. But let's put the problem of child abductions into perspective. Five times as many children run away as are abducted in this country, and one runaway child is also one too many. There are approximately 1.3 million young Americans on the street every day as a result of running away and/or homelessness. One in seven children between the ages of 10-18 will run away. Some will return within a few days, while others will remain on the streets and never return. And each year, assault, illness or suicide will take the lives of 5,000 runaway youth. That's 5000 too many. There are many reasons why children run away from home. Some are expelled from their homes by their families, or separated from their parents because of death or divorce. As much as violence is involved in the abduction of a child, so too does physical, sexual, and emotional abuse at home often cause a child to run away. Having run away, these youth are now homeless, too poor to secure their own basic needs, and are often ineligible or unable to access medical or mental health resources. Many runaway youth also have difficulty obtaining an education because they are homeless. Being a runaway or being without a home should not mean being without an education. Yet that is what homelessness means for far too many of our poor and runaway children and youth today. Congress recognized the importance of educating homeless and runaway youth when it enacted in 1987 the McKinney Education program. But despite the progress made over the past decade, we know that homeless children continue to miss out on what often is the only source of stability and promise in their lives--school attendance. That's why I introduced H.R. 623, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Act of 2001, which was included in the No Child Left Behind Act that became law at the beginning of this year. By incorporating the innovative provisions contained in my legislation, H.R. 1 strengthened the McKinney program, ensuring that a homeless or runaway child is immediately enrolled in school. That means no red tape, no waiting for paperwork, and no bureaucratic delays. A school liaison helps runaway or homeless youth make certain decisions about their education, and upon enrollment, ensures they have access to the special assistance and services available to runaway and homeless youth. This is one small way that more is being done to help children who are runaways or homeless. There are many others--individuals and organizations--who are doing whatever they can to assist America's runaway youth by providing food, shelter, clothing, and counseling. Others are working with families to prevent a child from running away in the first place. And still others are intervening and advocating on behalf of children and giving them options other than running away. One such organization is the National Runaway Switchboard, which provides crisis intervention and referrals to reconnect runaway youth with their families, and to link young people to local resources that provide positive alternatives to running. I am compelled to call attention to this important resource because it originated in Chicago. Founded by a group of Chicago agencies, the National Runaway Switchboard was established in 1971 to provide comprehensive crisis intervention services for young people in Chicago. It was conceived as a centralized organization with free, 24-hour services, expertise in all youth-related issues, and as an information clearinghouse. In 1974, it became a national resource, and now is the federally designated national communication system for runaway and homeless youth. The Switchboard is still available 24 hours a day, and fields more than 100,000 calls each year from the nation's runaway and homeless youth. The National Runaway Switchboard and the National Network for Youth have designated November as National Runaway Prevention Month. The purpose of this month is to call attention to the problem, its causes and impacts, and all those organizations and services that exist to help both runaways and their families. It is fitting for Congress to support the goals and ideals of National Runaway Prevention Month, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this resolution.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret but strong conviction that I rise today to express my support for House Joint Resolution 114. No member of this body ever wishes to cast a vote that could ultimately lead to the loss of even one American life. Yet that is exactly what all of us, those who vote for this resolution and those who vote against, are doing today. Those of us who vote for the resolution must know that granting the President the authority to use force could lead to an invasion of Iraq and the possible loss of American troops. Those who vote against the resolution must know that denying the President the authority to use force could allow Saddam Hussein to use his weapons of mass destruction against us, costing untold loss of American lives. So the question before us is not whether there is a safe course of action that will guarantee no loss of American life. Unfortunately, there is no such guarantee and no such option. Instead, the question is whether the threat posed by Saddam Hussein can best be removed by granting our President the authority to use force against him. In short, is this mission in our vital national interest? Well, I say there is no interest more vital to the United States than protecting our citizens from the kind of attacks we suffered on 9/11 and could well suffer again at the hands of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Must we grant the President the authority to use force in order to achieve this goal? In my view, the answer is yes. Force and the threat of force are the only message that Saddam Hussein understands. He is not a rational leader who acts in the interest of his citizenry. He is a despotic dictator who terrorizes his own people, his neighbors and the world community at large. President Bush put it best in his address to the United Nations when he said that Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself. He has ignored with impunity every promise made, every commitment undertaken and every Security Council resolution passed. Why has he done this? Because he can. We must grant our President the tools he needs to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he no longer can. He no longer can fire at our aircrafts, evade U.N. inspectors or continue his quest for weapons of mass destruction. If granted this potent authority, will our President do the right thing? I say he will do the right thing. No President of the United States ever wants to live again a day like 9/11. No President ever wishes to account for a fatal breach in national security. No President ever wishes to send our troops into harm's way for the sake of anything short of our vital national interest. And I have no doubt that no President, least of all this President, will use force unless it is the best means possible to keep America and Americans safe and secure.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I would like again to commend my colleague and sponsor of this bill, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), for her work on the legislation and to thank the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. And I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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 include extraneous information on H.R. 5542.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5542) to consolidate all black lung benefit responsibility under a single official, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5542, a bill to consolidate all of the administrative responsibilities related to the black lung benefits program within the Department of Labor. By eliminating overlapping and duplicative responsibilities between agencies, the bill will improve efficiency and ensure a continued high level of customer service for all beneficiaries. Currently, the black lung benefits program is administered by the Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation in the United States Department of Labor. The bill provides monetary and medical benefits to former coal mine workers who are completely disabled by pneumoconiosis, a crippling respiratory condition. When the program was enacted in 1969, the Social Security Administration, SSA, was given the initial responsibility for processing and paying claims. In 1972, however, amendments to the Act transferred responsibility for all new claims to the Department of Labor. Then, under a 1997 memorandum of understanding between DOL and SSA, all claims, including those filed with SSA prior to July 1, 1973, became the responsibility of the Department of Labor. The bill we consider today will formalize what has been the current practice and procedure since 1997. I want to point out this program enjoys a high level of customer satisfaction. In fact, recent survey results and joint audits by the Offices of the Inspector General at SSA and DOL confirmed the quality of service provided to program beneficiaries. While eliminating the confusion that can result when administrative responsibilities are divided between two agencies, this legislation will ensure that the beneficiaries continue to receive the highest quality of service. The legislation also implements a long-standing recommendation by the Inspectors General of SSA and DOL that the administrative responsibility for the program should be consolidated with DOL. It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation would retain all the regulations currently applicable to the beneficiaries' entitlement. In addition to the specific provisions regarding the transfer, the legislation provides that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the heads of SSA and DOL, is authorized to make such determinations as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague and sponsor of this bill, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), for her work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), the sponsor of this bill.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule on H.R. 4600. Malpractice lawsuits are spiraling out of control. Too many doctors are settling cases even though they have not committed a medical error, and good doctors are ordering excessive tests and procedures and treatments out of fear. These were the primary issues a panel of experts highlighted at a medical forum I hosted last month in my congressional district. The experts said these issues, or cracks in our medical system, are driving physicians and hospitals out of business. Are some malpractice lawsuits necessary? Absolutely. Patients must have access to justice and restitution. But it is wrong when excessive costs of malpractice suits and excessive costs of malpractice insurance drive out health care providers. Mr. Speaker, Congress had the opportunity to fix the malpractice system last summer, but we failed to do so. The good news is that we have another chance today to take the big step towards preserving the long-term viability of the medical system in Illinois and around the country. I urge my colleagues to support the rule on H.R. 4600.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 540. Throughout the Nation employers pay good money to provide an excellent benefit to their employees' 401(k) plans run by professionals, and yet our 27-year-old law effectively silences those professionals, denying employees a major part of the benefit their employers want them to have. Now more than ever the 42 million Americans investing their retirement income in 401(k) plans need access to critical investment advice that will help them achieve their financial goals. Retirement security and investment advice legislation has passed by a bipartisan vote in the House, not once but twice during this Congress. What I like best about this bill that we have passed is it gives workers more freedom to diversify their retirement savings. American workers need relief and they deserve it now. Let us get our pension reform legislation to the President's desk before Congress adjourns this year.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) in introducing the Judicial Code of Conduct Privacy Clarification Act. As the title suggests, this bill would clarify a provision in title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that deals with privacy protections for consumers. Gramm-Leach-Bliley was landmark legislation that for the first time permitted companies to engage in banking, insurance and securities transactions simultaneously. While considering these new freedoms for businesses to operate across lines, Congress also wanted to ensure that consumer privacy would not be placed at risk. Title V sought to address this issue by giving regulators latitude to enforce privacy provisions among financial institutions. Unfortunately in interpreting the language of the law, some confusion has arisen over what specifically those financial institutions might be. In seeking to clarify the confusion, the Federal Trade Commission concluded that financial institutions include any business that, and I quote, significantly engages in financial activities. What is the definition of ``significantly''? Well, it could be as little as once a year. And what is a financial activity? There are four: debt collecting, financial advisory activities, tax planning preparation and advising, and leasing real or personal property. Okay, that is fair enough. But in writing its regulations in this way, the Federal Trade Commission appears to have unintentionally swept under its umbrella the one group of professionals that already is governed by the strictest possible confidentiality or privacy regulations. What group is this? Attorneys. Attorneys already are bound by a duty of confidentiality enforceable under the laws of all 50 States that prevents misuse of client information and provides a higher degree of privacy than Gramm-Leach- Bliley. For example, lawyers in my home State of Illinois are prohibited from releasing confidential information. Our code reads, ``Except in certain specified circumstances, a lawyer shall not, during or after termination of the professional relationship with the client, use or reveal a confidence or secret of the client known to the lawyer unless the client consents after disclosure.'' And Illinois is no exception. All 50 States have equally restrictive language. In all 50 States, lawyers who violate these laws face disbarment and/or other penalties that are much more onerous than those for a violation of title V under Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Do attorneys significantly engage in financial activities as defined by the FTC? Yes. Some attorneys do give tax planning advice. Others may handle debt collection cases. Still others may take up cases relating to the other two named financial activities, providing financial advice or leasing real or personal property. Yet in order to comply with the privacy provisions under Gramm-Leach-Bliley, these attorneys now run the risk of violating the client confidentiality restrictions placed on their profession. Every attorney who engages in any of the four defined financial activities for a noncorporate client must mail to that client a privacy notice, every year for as long as he or she is in business. And what does that privacy notice convey? It informs clients that they may direct their attorney not to share their personal information with other entities, the so-called opt-out provision of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Yet the attorney-client confidentiality relationship is by nature an opt-in protection. In short, for attorneys, the very act of disclosing a privacy policy can create a confidentiality violation. It was not the intent of Congress to regulate attorney-client relations. Our intent was to regulate the growing use and sale of consumers' personal information for marketing, profiling and other commercial purposes by bona fide financial institutions. At the end of the day, our bill will make the intention of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act crystal clear. The scope of the law was not intended to include law firms and sole practicing lawyers. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order today.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of House Resolution 525. This resolution keeps our commitment to America's kids and to America's great promise of welfare reform. Our welfare reform bill adds an additional $2 billion in extra funding for childcare and developmental block grants. This makes a very good bill become even better with more child care. Why is that? Well, more funding means more kids covered. More kids covered means more parents working, and that is our ultimate objective, to give every American the opportunity to work and to gain the dignity and self respect that comes with providing for your own family. The past 6 years of welfare reform have shown us what works and what does not work. When I meet with former welfare recipients throughout my congressional district, each and every one of them tells me that their success simply would not have been possible without childcare assistance. The House has passed an outstanding bill that builds upon the welfare successes of the past 6 years. Let us get it to the President's desk and into law as quickly as possible.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in strong support of permanently repealing the death tax which was passed by the House. In a former life I practiced estate law. I worked with people to navigate this extremely complex tax. And I was not helping the Warren Buffets or the Bill Gateses of the world. I was helping the sons and daughters of small business owners to try and keep their parents' dreams alive so that they would have that property. This insidious tax punishes thrift. It has discouraged entrepreneurship and it has penalized working families. What is more, taxing money that has already been taxed is patently unfair. In Illinois alone, over 5,500 families filed a death tax form in 2001. Many of them were small business owners and many of them were family farmers. Mr. Speaker, sound decisions cannot be made without permanency. The uncertainty of the future of the death tax makes it difficult for owners of family businesses and farms to make wise economic decisions. Any way you look at it, Americans are taxed too much, not too little. It is time for Congress to bury this burden once and for all.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness and regret that I rise today to express my support for H. Res. 495 in the matter of James A. Traficant, Jr. Let me make this very clear. No Member of Congress ever wishes to sit in judgment of a colleague, least of all a colleague as colorful and as indomitable as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). Yet at the same time no Member ever wishes to see the rules of this institution broken or the standards of its Members brought low. Many Americans who have read or heard of the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Traficant) conviction in Federal court wonder why we in the House have bothered with our own investigation and hearings. They ask, ``Why go through all of that? A jury found him guilty on 10 felony counts.'' They find it hard to find to understand why expulsion from the House would not be automatic once a jury finds a Member guilty of felony offenses in a court of law. The answer, quite simply, is found in the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers left it not to the Judiciary nor to the executive branch to determine when, how, or if expulsion of a Member is warranted. They left it to us, the Members of this body. It falls to us today to look at three things: One, the statement of violations of our own code of official conduct, drawn by our own investigative subcommittee; two, the evidence presented at our own adjudicatory hearing by our own subcommittee counsel and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant); and, three, the findings and sanctions recommended by our own full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. If my colleagues will look at these three things, they will conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence that the violations occurred and that the resolution should be approved by this body today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), and our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for their outstanding work on this resolution. Throughout the long weeks and days leading up to and including the hearings, they showed the greatest integrity, patience, and fairness, often going out of their way to give the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) every opportunity to counter the clear and convincing evidence presented against him. I salute my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), for his outstanding work.