Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to talk about the success of a small business in Illinois, a business that can continue to offer products and services to foreign markets if we pass H.R. 3005, a bill to renew Trade Promotion Authority. W.S. Darley & Company, a Melrose Park, Illinois-based, family-owned small business will have to hire more workers to fill a $12.8 million order for 40 fire trucks, spare parts and services from the Ghana National Fire Service. The company, founded in 1908, overcame stiff foreign competition to win Ghana's government contract, which is expected to lead to substantial additional business. Passing H.R. 3005 is a necessary step in continuing to expand exports to foreign markets, including new and emerging marketplaces. W.S. Darley & Company is just one of more than 14,000 Illinois companies that rely on exports and are eager to find new opportunities in the global marketplace. Passing TPA will give U.S. negotiators the credibility they need to make agreements that will create those opportunities.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, we hear many reasons why this House should pass legislation to renew Trade Promotion Authority. Today, I rise on behalf of working American families who need TPA. American families in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale spend 52 percent of their after-tax income on food and clothing. Unfortunately for these hard-working families, food and clothing are the most heavily taxed income sectors, accounting for more than half of U.S. import taxes. In fact, the average American family of four pays $1,100 every year because of import taxes. Talk about regressive taxation. Families struggling to make ends meet are disproportionately hit by import taxes at the same time our trade negotiators sit on the sidelines, lacking authority to make the deals needed to eliminate these taxes. Passing TPA will help working families. Let us pass H.R. 3005 and give them a break.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, the insured losses from September 11 attacks are expected to total more than $70 billion, the largest insured catastrophic loss in history. The good news is that the insurance industry is paying these claims and has stated that all claims will be paid expeditiously. The bad news is that the insurance industry cannot withstand multiple events of this magnitude without harming all consumers. This is uncharted territory, and it will take some time for an efficient market for terrorism insurance to develop. That is why passage of H.R. 3210 is so important at this critical time. For those who think that this bill applies only to the market for commercial insurance, they should think again. Right now there are more than 140 public self-insured risk pools operating in 41 States; and they, too, will be covered by this bill. What are public, self-insured risk pools? They are the entities that provide coverage for those most often at the greatest risk: our firefighters and police officers, our children in schools, teachers, city workers, and many others. In short, public self-insured risk pools provide an enormous cost saving to State and local taxpayers. When private insurance premiums are prohibitively expensive, these pools absorb the risk across their membership base. Failure to include public risk pools in this bill would have resulted in a dramatic increase in insurance premiums for those providing critical public service and, ultimately, for taxpayers. I appreciate the strong support this provision received in the committee, especially from the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker). I look forward to working closely with them to see that this provision is retained in the conference. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leadership members of the Committee on Financial Services for including key litigation management provisions in this bill. Let us face it, there is no reasonable way for even the most responsible property owner or business to prepare for every conceivable attack by a terrorist. Yet under current law, they would be on the hook for 100 percent of such damages, facing total financial ruin. This bill limits the potential liability by barring punitive damages and providing other protections if and when the Secretary of the Treasury determines that an act of terrorism has occurred. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3210 is a responsible approach to a very difficult situation. By demanding that every tax dollar is repaid, we will provide a helping hand, not a handout, to the insurance industry. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me this time. As the brutal Taliban regime is coming to an end in Afghanistan, the women and children there need our help. That is why I am proud to support Senate 1573. For 5 years, the women and children and girls of Afghanistan have been denied medical care and schools have been shuttered. Women have been forced to beg in the streets to feed their children. This bill will provide the much-needed health care and education assistance to begin the long road to recovery. Afghanistan's women and girls have been singled out by the Taliban for abuse. We have not seen such a state- sponsored systematic program of discrimination and oppression since Nazi Germany or South Africa under apartheid. A recent State Department report details a shocking story about the shooting of an Afghan woman whose child was in dire need of medical attention. The doctor was across town; and because she did not have a male escort, the woman was prohibited from making the trip to take her child to the doctor. Knowing that without medical care her child could die, the Afghan woman set out to go across town with her child in her arms, but without that male escort. The woman was tragically intercepted by a Taliban officer and shot repeatedly in front of her child. These and other atrocities will hopefully come to an end with the demise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the women and children of that country will continue to need our help to recover from this regime of terror. So far, the United States has been the largest provider of humanitarian aid to the Afghan people. We have contributed more than $1 billion in aid since 1979. I applaud the President's recent decision to contribute an additional $320 million in aid to the Afghan people. There is need for humanitarian aid throughout Afghanistan, but the women and children need it the most. Afghan women have been forbidden from activity outside their homes unless accompanied by a male relative and dressed in the now-familiar burqa. These women have not felt the sunlight touching their skin for many years. I was moved to see in the photographs the smile on women's faces as they took off their burqas and the sun touch their faces. Attending a school or university has been out of the question for Afghan women. For years now, the only semblance of education has been for Afghan boys, who learned hatred at those schools. The girls have had no education. In many cases, Afghan women risked their lives to provide secret schools for girls in their homes. Madam Speaker, children across Afghanistan are dying. Over one-third of Afghan children under 5 years of age suffer from malnutrition, leading to 85,000 needless deaths per year. The United States has an opportunity to play an integral role in restoring humanity and decency to a country desperately in need of both health care and education after years under this regime. I applaud the President for his charge in leading this. As the Taliban regime crumbles, the United States has a vested interest in the restoration of a civil society in Afghanistan. This will only be accomplished when healthy women and children are able to walk the streets without fear of assault, realize their potential, and develop the sense of worth to which they are entitled. I would like to thank Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for originally introducing this legislation in the Senate and my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for carrying this bill in the House. This measure was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. I would also like to thank President Bush for his strong support of women in Afghanistan, and women's rights generally. I am told the President is anxious to sign this bill. I would also like to applaud our good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), who serves as co-chair, with me, of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. This has been a top priority of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. The House leadership should also be thanked for making it a top priority on their agenda and putting it as the number one bill today, as should the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, who was instrumental. Afghan women need to have a seat at the table when their government is rebuilt. We must pass this legislation now.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, when a person has a cold, he can go to his local drugstore and choose among dozens of different cold remedies. When he is not sure which medicine is appropriate, there is a pharmacist available who can provide expert advice and help him to make the best selection. Yet, when it comes to 401(k) plans in the workplace, Congress, in effect, has gagged the pharmacist. Employers pay good money to provide an excellent benefit to their employees, 401(k) plans run by professionals, yet our 27-year-old law, ERISA, effectively silences those investment professionals, denying employees a major part of the benefit their employer has intended for them. Now, more than ever, Americans investing their retirement income in 401(k) plans need access to critical investment advice that will help them achieve their financial goals. The Retirement Security Advice Act of 2001 updates our laws so workers can have access to high-quality professional investment advice. These advisors will be required to fully disclose their fees and any potential conflicts. This legislation also establishes important safeguards to ensure that investors' goals are met. Mr. Speaker, let us stop gagging the pharmacist or silencing the investment advisor. Let us make it easier for the 42 million Americans who participate in 401(k) plans to choose among investments. Let us pass H.R. 2269, which will increase employee participation and enable more workers to live out their American dreams. I urge my colleagues to support the Retirement Security Advice Act of 2001.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I appreciate all the work that the gentlewoman from Texas has done on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Put Our Children First resolution. I believe that this measure will help to ensure that children impacted by the terrorist attacks of September 11 will receive the assistance, services and benefits they need. Words cannot express the effect of September 11 on the children who lost one or both parents in New York, Pennsylvania, or at the Pentagon. I know all of us have been stunned to learn that as many as 10,000 children lost one or both parents at the World Trade Center. I strongly believe that we have an obligation to do all that we can to help these young people move forward with their lives. In the coming weeks and months, each child will require something different and something special. Some children will require everything from medical care, and others may need foster care and adoption assistance. Still others will require the experienced ear of a therapist, counselor, or a psychologist. Our country has seen a remarkable display of unity in the 8 weeks since September 11. I know of the hard work and assistance of countless individuals who have put their lives on the line to help others. As the rest of the country returns to a more normal routine, we must not forget that the events of September 11 will affect these children forever. The Put Our Children First resolution urges our Federal agencies responsible for assistance to these children, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education and others, to continue their hard work and to provide the necessary services to each affected child without delay. This is the least we can do. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution. Again, I thank the sponsor of this bill, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 400, a bill to establish the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home National Historic Site, in Dixon, Illinois. This bill would allow the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the Reagan boyhood home to ensure that this important historical structure is protected for future generations to enjoy. Ronald Reagan holds a special place in the hearts and minds of the citizens of northern Illinois. Many believe that President Reagan was a Californian. But his core values and bold conservatism were the product of a childhood in Illinois. Ronald Reagan continues today to serve as a model of optimism and hope. In his very first inaugural address, President Reagan set the tone for his eight years in office when he proclaimed that, ``no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'' President Reagan truly was the ``Great Communicator.'' One of my favorite lines of his was when he said that the best view of big government is in the rear view mirror as you're driving away from it. Throughout his presidency, Reagan used his trademark humor and wit to unite a nation, end the Cold War, and restore prosperity. He championed the notion of individual responsibility and accountability. And most importantly he made people feel good about being proud of our great nation. President Reagan once said that he would like to go down in history as the President who made Americans believe in themselves again. There is no more appropriate time than now to remember Ronald Reagan, one of our great patriots and most inspired Presidents. There is no better way to do that than to preserve the boyhood home where he spent his formative years. I am proud to support this bill and urge its passage.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the workers, farmers, and entrepreneurs of my State whose families are supported by exports from Illinois. Together, they exported more than $32 billion in goods and services to some 208 foreign countries last year. It is important to realize that these individuals not only are helping to keep our State's and Nation's economy rolling, they are sharing America's best with the world. Numbering more than 400,000, these workers expect their government to do everything in its power to protect their markets and new opportunities. Unfortunately, America's trade negotiators lack the one essential tool, trade promotion authority, or TPA, that they need to make the deals that eliminate barriers to trade and open doors to new marketplaces. Make no mistake, our foreign competitors have this authority and they use it to their advantage. Of the more than 130 free trade agreements in force today, the U.S. is party to just three. If this were the military, we would be charged as AWOL. Mr. Speaker, we cannot let our exporting companies and their workers down. Let us pass H.R. 3005.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month and to introduce the Legal Assistance for Victims of Dating Violence Act, which will turn that recognition into action. In recent weeks, much attention has been focused on humanitarian issues in Afghanistan, particularly the cruel treatment of women under the Taliban and their struggle with domestic violence. While conditions for women in the United States are light years ahead of those for the women of Afghanistan, domestic violence has too long been a problem in our country, as well. The Justice Department reports that there were over 791,000 domestic violence victims in 1999, with 85 percent of these attacks occurring against women. Over half of domestic violent crimes against both men and women from 1993 to 1999 were committed by a current boyfriend or girlfriend, and almost one-third of women murdered annually are murdered by their current or former partners. Most troubling for me is that dating violence most often affects our youth. The age group of 16 to 24, which is the group most likely to be in dating relationships, experiences the highest rates of dating violence. These statistics are alarming. Dating violence crimes are not restricted to any one racial, cultural, or socioeconomic group. Dating violence could happen to anyone in a dating relationship. These acts occur everywhere, and are committed not by a stranger in a dark alley but by people known and trusted by the victims. These heinous crimes not only violate the victims, but can destroy their ability to trust their friends and loved ones. Dating violence affects every aspect of a victim's life, from his or her relationship to their performance at school or work. We must act now to help the victims of dating violence, these men and women who are attacked by the very people in their lives who they trust the most. In the last Congress I was proud to cosponsor the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. I was more than pleased that the overwhelming majority of my colleagues agreed with me on the value of this legislation. With 239 cosponsors, VAWA passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 371 to 1 in the House and 95 to 0 in the Senate. VAWA went a long way in addressing the problem of domestic violence in the United States. Unfortunately, however, VAWA omitted critical protections for victims of dating violence. When VAWA took the much needed step of creating a first-ever legal definition of dating violence, as well as authorized a new grant program to provide civil legal assistance to domestic violence victims, dating violence victims were not covered under the new grants. Many domestic violence and dating violence victims do not have the money or resources necessary to regain control over their lives. These grants go to nonprofit organizations that then collaborate with domestic violence and sexual assault service agencies to provide civil legal assistance to victims of violence. Access to the legal system can make the difference in these victims' power to break the cycle of oppressive abuse and regain control over their lives. Mr. Speaker, my legislation addresses this omission within the VAWA legislation. My bill will address this inconsistency by allowing grant recipients to use their funding to assist victims of dating violence. This legislation does not cost anything. It simply allows grant recipients to help dating violence victims in the same way they currently help domestic violence victims. The victims of dating violence deserve the same legal assistance given to other victims of domestic violence. The ability to obtain a legal protection order or pursue other legal remedies is just as important for victims of dating violence as it is for domestic violence victims. We must ensure that all of these victims receive the assistance they need to get their lives back in order. I would like to thank our former colleague, Mr. Hutchinson, who is now the administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, for introducing this important legislation before he left Congress. He recognized that it is only right that dating violence victims have access to the same services as domestic violence victims, and I wish him the best of luck in his new post. I would also like to thank my friend and neighbor, Senator Mike Crapo, who has introduced this bill in the Senate. As we recognize Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I can think of no better way to show victims we care than to pass this legislation. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important bill and help make a difference in the lives of so many men and women in our country.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support granting the President Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA. Formerly known as Fast Track Authority, TPA has worked well in the past, giving our Presidents the flexibility and authority they need to negotiate the best deals for America. From our first free trade agreement with Israel, to the FTA with Canada, the NAFTA with our two North American trading partners, and the Uruguay Round of GATT world trade talks which created the WTO, Trade Promotion Authority has proven effective. Trade Promotion Authority for the President does not mean no authority for Congress and the American people. Our trade negotiators have proven their commitment to developing consensus positions so that, once the negotiations are concluded, the trade agreements will win the approval of Congress and the American people. Without Trade Promotion Authority, there can be no more Free Trade Agreements. Without free trade, America loses.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) as the Vice Chair of the women's conference for leading this Special Order, along with my cochair of the women's conference, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald). I am delighted the two of you could do this tonight. It is so important that we do this and recognize October as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. For far too many Americans, no month of awareness is needed to remind them of breast cancer. On a daily basis they and their families and friends are well aware of the existence of this disease. Next to skin cancer, more women in the United States, about 2 million, live with breast cancer, more than with any other form of cancer. This year, some 233,000 women will be diagnosed and more than 43,000 will die of this terrible disease. I think it is fair to say that we are all well aware, some painfully aware, of breast cancer. But as the American Cancer Society so succinctly put it, our challenge is to turn awareness into action. Let us turn October into breast cancer action month. What does this mean? Well, first it means breast examinations. Thanks to early detection techniques, breast cancer can be beaten and life can be extended. That is why it is so important for women to have a clinical breast examination at least once a year. Between the ages of 35 and 40, a woman should have at least one mammogram, and then one every 1 to 2 years, until the age of 50. After age 50, women should get a mammogram each year. That is action. Second, in addition to early detection of breast cancer, we must support research to find a cure for it. Many of our colleagues and I did that when we strongly supported doubling the funding for the National Institutes of Health as well as increasing the funding for the Department of Defense's Peer Review Breast Cancer Research Program. That is action. Now, while scientists have made tremendous advances in the diagnosis and treatment of this terrible disease, there still is much more to be done. In recent years there has been much discussion over the link between the environment and breast cancer, and I believe it imperative for scientists to continue to examine this issue. This body was good enough last year to grant my request to fund a study to examine why the breast cancer mortality rates in my home county of Du Page in Illinois are so much higher than in the rest of the State and the country. We do not know whether it is environment, socio-economic status or other demographics; but we are hopeful this study will shed some light on it. Mr. Speaker, whether it is through a family member or a friend, everyone has been touched by this horrible disease. We are aware of breast cancer. We must ensure our awareness turns to action. While we do not know yet how to prevent breast cancer, we do know how to help women detect it early and treat it more effectively once it is found. The successes of recent years give me tremendous hope that we will conquer breast cancer. We must all continue to work to achieve this goal and ensure a healthier future for the many women and men who will face breast cancer during their life times. I am so happy we are doing this Special Order tonight to raise that awareness and that we can take the action. So, again, I thank the gentlewoman.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the committee, for yielding me this time. I stand in opposition to the amendment. I think that the Mink substitute would eliminate needed reforms to the 12-hour rule and incentive compensation prohibitions within the Higher Education Act. The substitute would really gut this important legislation. H.R. 1992 eliminates the burdensome requirement that programs offered on the nontraditional basis must account for at least 12 hours per week of seat time for each student. Instead, the bill requires that programs offered on a nontraditional basis be held to the same accountability standards as those offered on a traditional semester-quarter basis. It further requires schools offering such programs to notify the Secretary to ensure that they are adequately monitored. This is very important, that of requiring institutions that offer such programs to maintain attendance records for every student is overly burdensome and may prevent schools from offering programs to serve working adults or others that cannot attend the traditional campuses on a traditional basis. At one institution, the 12-hour rule requires an additional 370,000 attendance records per year to be kept just to prove compliance. It is doubtful that these records would ever even be reviewed. But even with the elimination of the 12-hour rule, institutions offering nontraditional programs will still be held to high standards. They must provide at least 30 weeks of instruction to qualify under the Higher Education Act. Course quality and quantity of instruction are also ensured by accreditors that must be recognized by the Secretary of Education. The law requires these accreditors to review all eligible programs for quality and to ensure that the amount of instruction is adequate to fulfill the goals of this program. So I think we have taken certain steps to address the concerns that have been raised on the other side of the aisle. Specifically, we have defined third-party service relationships and specified that they are subject to incentive compensation provisions unless they have no control over eligibility for admission or enrollment or the awarding of financial aid and provided they do not pay any employee solely on the basis of student recruitment. This allows common business practices while preventing schools from hiring bounty hunters. We have also clarified that a salary payment can only be considered such if it is made on a regular basis and it is not adjusted more than once every 6 months. This will prevent institutions from disguising incentive compensation payments as salary. Madam Speaker, I think these provisions really provide the quality of education to nontraditional students, and I urge defeat of this amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1992, the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001. The adult student, or the nontraditional student, is the fastest growing population of students in higher education. These students have different needs and different pressures than the traditional student. Many have families and jobs that require much of their time and attention. American universities and colleges have been working diligently to meet these unique needs of this student population by using technology and advanced telecommunications, including the Internet, to make it easier to attend and participate in classes while ensuring program integrity. Their successes have been acknowledged by recognized accreditation bodies. That is great. America needs an educated populace. America needs an educated workforce. American colleges and universities should be rewarded for developing new and innovative ways to remove the barriers that prevent people from obtaining an education. Unfortunately, accredited American colleges and universities have been punished by outdated and outmoded Federal regulations. These regulations limit the number of distant learning courses a college or university can offer. They define the academic year and academic week in ways that never contemplated advancements in technology and distance learning. As a result, one college located in the district I represent may have to return a significant portion of its title IV funds because it offers distant learning courses that do meet the needs of many students but do not meet outdated Federal regulations. This bill corrects the inadequacies of current regulations. It gives American colleges and universities the flexibility to provide educational opportunities to students who would not otherwise be able to pursue higher education, and it does so while maintaining fiscal and program integrity in Federal financial aid programs. In 2 years, Congress will reauthorize the Higher Education Act. By making these improvements now, Congress will have an opportunity to review their success and effectiveness in just 2 short years. With technology and the Internet changing the landscape of higher education so quickly and so often, Congress needs to act now. The Internet Education and Equity Act is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 717, the Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Childhood Assistance, Research and Education Amendments Act. This legislation will provide much needed resources for research on this terrible disease. Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy primarily, affects boys, and is usually discovered during their toddler or preschool years. Nearly all children with DMD lose the ability to walk sometime between the ages of 7 and 12. DMD is a truly devastating disease for those who have to live with it every day, like the DeGrenier family in my District. Their son has this horrible disease, and they have been tireless in their fight to gain exposure for this issue. The most tragic part of DMD is that there is so little known about the disease and no known treatment for it. Treatment has traditionally been aimed at managing the sumptoms in an effort to optimize the quality of life. The medication required just to treat the sypmtoms is often too expensive for families to handle. Research is what is desperately needed to fight this deadly disease. This bill will provide a significant step in addressing the lack of knowledge about DMD. By expanding the programs at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, as well as establishing research centers of excellence and authorizing research grants, we can start to find out more about DMD and give hope to families like the DeGreniers. I urge my Colleagues to support this importannt legislation.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Joint Resolution 61. Like most Americans, the very first thing I did as the tragedy unfolded was to call my family to ensure that everyone was safe, and to assure them that I was safe. My heart and my prayers go out to all those families who did not get that reassuring phone call they hoped for. Today will be the hardest day for them as shock melts to grief, and grief makes way for the anger that is sure to come. Today is the hardest day for us as a Nation. As we stated in this resolution, this day stands as a national day of unity and mourning. It is not a day for anger; it is a day of resolve: cold, calculated, patient and unemotional and universal resolve. In passing this resolution today, what we as a body say to Americans, to the world community, and to those who perpetrated or aided these crimes is simple: never forget and never again. Never will we forget the terror and tragedy of this day. Just as our children and grandchildren ask, Where were you when Pearl Harbor was bombed by Japan or when President Kennedy was shot by Oswald, so too will they ask where were we when America was attacked by the stealth enemy of cowardice and terror, now vanquished. Never again will Americans face the horror and the loss that we feel today. Never will we be lulled into a false sense of complacency that the world is safe or that national security can ever take a back seat to other more popular priorities. Cynics say this is a resolution that is nonbinding, that it holds not the weight of law nor the power of resources. Cynics are wrong. Mr. Speaker, there is no more important statement this body has made or will make that holds the strength and meaning of our vote today. This measure is more than an expression of support for our people, our values, our President. This measure codifies our commitment and unites us in our pledge: never forget, never again.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend all who have worked on H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act. A national energy policy is long overdue; and this bill is a step in the right direction, and we need to include all sources of energy in this bill. As a Member of the Committee on Science, I was very pleased that the bill our committee reported included provisions to strengthen nuclear research and nuclear science and engineering programs at America's universities and colleges. Fewer Americans are entering this field and even fewer institutions are left with the capability to train them. Current projections are that 25 to 30 percent of the nuclear industry's workforce and 76 percent of the nuclear workforce at our national laboratories will begin to retire in the next 5 years. Nuclear science and energy engineering in the United States is a 50- year success story that has been written by some of the brightest minds the world has ever known. America has truly been blessed as the world leader in this area, and this bill assures we maintain our leadership. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution disapproving the President's extension of the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam. Mr. Speaker, it has been 7 years since we ended our trade embargo and began the process of normalizing relations with Vietnam. Over these few years, good progress has been made. From its accounting of U.S. POWs and MIAs, to its movement to open trade with the world, to its progress on human rights, Vietnam has moved in the right direction. Granted, Vietnam certainly is not there yet, but Vietnam is moving in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 55 is the wrong direction for us to take today. Who is hurt if we pass this resolution today? We are. It is the wrong direction for U.S. farmers and manufacturers who will not have a level playing field when they compete with their European or Japanese counterparts in Vietnam. It is the wrong direction for our joint efforts with the Vietnamese to account for the last remains of our soldiers and to answer finally the questions of their loved ones here, and it is the wrong direction for our efforts to influence the Vietnam people, 65 percent of whom were not even born when the Vietnam War was being waged. Let us not turn the clock back on Vietnam; let us continue to work with them and, in doing so, teach the youthful Vietnamese the value of democracy, the principles of capitalism, and the merits of a free and open society.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution to revoke normal trade relations for China. Some of my colleagues have said that this body should signal our disapproval of Chinese policy by denying NTR. Mr. Speaker, I would caution those who seek to signal China by ending NTR to think for one moment today about the likely consequences, and first answer some very basic questions: Will Members' vote for NTR for China today actually change the behavior of China tomorrow? Will ending NTR free the political prisoners, end the military buildup, enhance respect for human rights, and stop the persecution of religious groups? Will denying NTR bolster the moderates, or will it strengthen the hand of hard-liners as they struggle to control the future course of Chinese policy? Most importantly, will revoking NTR teach the youth of China the values of democracy, the principles of capitalism, and the merits of a free and open society? Mr. Speaker, if I thought that ending NTR would achieve these goals in China, I, too, would cast my vote of disapproval today. But make no mistake, denying China NTR denies the U.S. the opportunity to influence China's workers, China's human rights policies, China's politics, and perhaps, most importantly, China's future. Make no mistake, ending NTR for China will end our best hope of getting China to open its markets and live by the world's trade rules. It will effectively put an end to our trade with China. In short, revoking NTR for China will send much more than a signal. It will portend the end of U.S. trade with China and the end of our influence in China. I urge my colleagues to vote to retain our influence and our trade relations with China by voting against the resolution today.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my support to H.R. 2133. This legislation commemorates through the establishment of a commission the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision, which sparked the end of school segregation based on race in this country. It goes without saying that school segregation and desegregation were among America's most controversial social issues during the last half of the 20th century. Along with many Americans, I can clearly recall scenes of violence and upheaval that took place in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s in places as diverse as Boston and Little Rock as our Nation's public schools made the transition to integration. We have much to be thankful for as a result of the Supreme Court's decision some 50 years ago. Today our children and our children's children find themselves interacting daily in the school setting with other boys and girls of different colors and backgrounds, broadening their perspectives and expanding their horizons in ways that were not experienced by previous generations. Today we no longer see the blatant and blanket denial of educational opportunities to children based solely on the color of their skin. As a result of the Brown decision, we as a society no longer accept the flawed doctrine outlined in the earlier case of Plessy v. Ferguson that separate meant equal. These are all things that should be rightly celebrated and commemorated, but before we go patting ourselves on the back while claiming that education segregation is dead, we may first want to take a closer look at our public schools. What we will find is that, while race is no longer the basis for segregation in some States, homelessness is the basis for segregation. Some 47 years after the historic Brown v. Board of Education ruling, Congress may inadvertently be endorsing de facto segregation of homeless children. Mr. Speaker H.R. 1, passed in May by this body, contains a grandfather clause permitting school districts that currently receive Federal dollars that segregate homeless children in separate schools or classrooms may continue to do so. This is contrary to what the Federal law currently says. It is also contrary to the spirit of Brown v. Board of Education that we commemorate today. I am hopeful that this body will reconsider this provision in conference before we send it to the President for his signature. Now, that would be a fitting tribute to the decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court on May 17, 1954. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, when politicians talk about needing a comprehensive energy policy instead of price controls, I bet a lot of Americans wonder what we are talking about. Well, consider this fact: ninety-seven percent of the power plants currently under construction are natural gas-fired power plants needed to meet the increased demand for electricity. Natural gas that is typically produced during the summer for storage and later used during the winter is, instead, being used for electricity generation. Basically, we use natural gas to keep our electricity rates lower in the summer, but in the end we pay higher rates on our natural gas use in the summer. Not a very comprehensive policy, is it? President Bush has proposed the first comprehensive energy plan in a decade that will increase efficiency, improve how our energy is delivered, diversify our energy sources, protect the environment, and assist low-income Americans through these current price increases. Americans want affordable energy and a clean, safe environment.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, day in and day out I hear calls for price controls on electricity, and I wonder were the 1970s that long ago, or are we just suffering from convenient amnesia? Am I the only one who remembers the gas price controls imposed by President Richard Nixon in an effort to ensure an adequate supply of gasoline at reasonable rates? Am I the only one who remembers that the resulting artificial low prices did not lower consumption, but did lower supply? I guess I am the only one who does not look fondly back on the days of long lines at the local service station and gas rationing. Price controls may be nice politics, but they are lousy policy. The bottom line is that we are trying to meet today's energy needs with yesterday's energy infrastructure, and it is not working. Our energy demand has increased 47 percent over the last 30 years, and yet we have half as many oil refineries, static pipeline capacity and 20 times as many mandated gasoline blends. Low energy prices through the 1980s and 1990s have lulled American consumers and producers into believing that low prices will always be there, but now we know that is not true.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a lot about how big oil and big energy companies are picking on California. We are told they are gouging their citizens and only price controls can stop this. Has anyone asked the question, Why California? Why are the big oil and energy companies not picking on Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio or New York? Maybe it is because they are not picking on anyone at all. Energy costs are high across the country, but energy prices are higher in California because that State has prevented through burdensome regulations the construction of new power plants for the last 10 years. The prices that the rest of the country is paying are high because we are trying to meet today's needs with yesterday's energy infrastructure, and it is not working. Our energy demands have increased 47 percent over the past 30 years, and yet we have half as many oil refineries, static pipeline capacity and 20 times as many mandated gasoline blends. Low prices throughout the 1980s and 1990s have lulled American consumers and producers into a belief that low prices will always be here. But we know now that is not true. President Bush has proposed the first comprehensive energy plan in a decade that will increase efficiency, improve how our energy is delivered, diversify our energy sources, protect the environment and assist low-income Americans through these current price increases. I suggest we get off the rhetorical high horse and get to work passing this energy plan.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to strengthen nuclear science and engineering programs at American universities, colleges, and National Laboratories. Nuclear science and engineering in the United States is a 50-year-old success story that has been written by some of the brightest minds the world has ever known. America has truly been blessed as the world leader in this area. But even as there is renewed interest in nuclear energy as one of the solutions to our Nation's energy problems, there are fewer Americans entering the nuclear science and engineering field, and even fewer institutions left with the capacity to train them. In fact, the supply of 4-year-trained nuclear scientists has hit a 35-year low, and there are only 28 universities that operate research reactors, less than half the number there were in 1980. These statistics tell but the beginning of the story, however. Current projections are that 25 percent to 30 percent of the nuclear industry's workforce and 76 percent of the nuclear workforce at our national laboratories are eligible to retire in the next 5 years. And a majority of the 28 operating university reactors will have to be relicensed in the next 5 years, a lengthy process that most universities cannot afford. When I consider these facts, I wonder how long we can continue the success story that is nuclear science in the United States. Not long is my guess, and that is why action must be taken to reverse this troubling trend. That is why I am introducing the Department of Energy University Nuclear Science and Engineering Act. This legislation is the House companion bill to legislation introduced in the Senate by my friend and colleague, Senator Jeff Bingaman. This bill provides financial support for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of expensive, yet essential, university nuclear research reactors; resources for the professional development of faculty in the field of nuclear science and engineering; incentives for students to enter the field and opportunities for education and training through fellowships and interaction with national laboratory staff; and general research funds for students, faculty and national laboratory staff. Now, more than ever, nuclear scientists and engineers are needed for much more than simply operating nuclear power plants. Trained in American universities and national laboratories, these specialists are needed to help design, safely dispose of, and monitor nuclear waste, both civilian and military; to develop radio isotopes for the thousands of medical procedures performed every day; to operate and maintain the Nation's existing fission reactors and nuclear power plants; to help stem the proliferation of nuclear weapons and respond to any future nuclear crisis worldwide; and to design, operate, and monitor current and future naval reactors. These are not small tasks, but if we continue on the path we are on, there will not be enough people to do the job down the line. The legislation I am introducing today incorporates a number of approaches recommended by reports from the National Research Council, the Department of Energy and its Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee, all leaders in the nuclear field. The bill advances four components essential to strong nuclear science and engineering programs: students, faculty, facilities, and finally research. Mr. Speaker, my written statement goes into greater detail about these components, so I want to conclude by saying that this legislation is important, not only to a handful of American universities, but to our national labs, our industry, our Navy, our national security and those engaged in life-saving medical research involving radiation. This legislation ensures that America continues to realize the benefits of a competent, well-trained, highly skilled nuclear workforce. More important, this bill is critical if we are to maintain America's standing as number one in the world in the area of nuclear science and engineering. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are cosponsors of this important legislation, including the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert). Mr. Speaker, I urge the rest of my colleagues to join us in this endeavor by cosponsoring the bill.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Department of Energy University Nuclear Science and Engineering Act, the text of which follows:

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I intend to ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment at the end of my time; but before I do, I would like to explain its purpose and then enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. Simply put, my amendment authorizes funding for the Federal share of a Federal-State-local partnership to build a maritime safety station along Chicago's lakefront. Though my congressional district does not encompass any of the Chicago lakefront, I, like most Illinoisans, am concerned about the area's safety needs. Many of my constituents sail on Lake Michigan, and the U.S. Coast Guard's marine safety office is located in Burr Ridge, Illinois, in the district I represent. From the Burr Ridge location, the servicemen and women of the U.S. Coast Guard are responsible for commercial vessel safety, marine environmental response, port safety and security, and waterways management for the Illinois River and its tributaries, the Des Plaines River, the Chicago River and portions of Lake Michigan. Despite this extensive mission, the U.S. Coast Guard has no presence or base of operation in Chicago along the lakefront. The U.S. Coast Guard resources nearest to the Chicago lakefront are in Burr Ridge, Waukegan, or Calumet Harbor, all of which are at least 45 minutes away. Anyone who has visited Chicago knows how much Chicagoans enjoy and take advantage of our beautiful lakefront. In fact, Chicago's lakefront includes a number of very busy harbors and marinas and hosts a number of important events. There are approximately 95,000 recreational boats registered in the nine-county Chicago metropolitan area, and over 30 excursion, dining, or tour vessels operate out of Chicago. The city of Chicago also celebrates many events, including the Air and Water Show, the Chicago/ Mackinaw Sailboat Race, the Fourth of July Fireworks and the Taste of Chicago, and Venetian Night along its lakefront, attracting substantial pedestrian and recreational boat traffic from around the Great Lakes region. I believe we can enjoy the lakefront with greater safety if we establish a marine safety station along the lakefront. Let us not wait until it is too late. Let us not wait until the Coast Guard finds itself unable to respond in a timely fashion to an emergency situation along Chicago's lakefront. An intergovernmental group of marine emergency service providers consisting of the U.S. Coast Guard, the city of Chicago's Marine Police and Illinois' Department of Natural Resources Conservation Police identified the old Coast Guard station, a facility in a state of disrepair and partially condemned, as an ideal location for redevelopment as a Chicago marine safety station. The U.S. Coast Guard has offered to relocate some of its existing resources including staff and rescue vessels to this facility to provide a more effective response in the downtown Chicago area. The total project would cost $6 million split evenly between the Federal, State and local jurisdictions. It is my belief that the $2 million Federal share is a small price to pay for significantly improving public safety and law enforcement. I respect the chairman's wish that this authorization bill not include projects and withdraw my amendment. I believe strongly in the bill that has just been debated, but I would like to engage him in a brief colloquy to ask for his assistance in moving this project forward.