Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman very much for his efforts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Will the gentleman work with me and other interested parties to include authorization for this much-needed project in future legislation to be considered by the subcommittee and full committee?

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce a bill entitled the Working Families Flexibility Act. This bill has several components. First of all, the Working Families Flexibility Act allows employees to choose, through a written agreement with their employer, entered into knowingly and voluntarily by the employee, to receive paid time off instead of cash wages for overtime. A compensatory time agreement may not be a condition of employment, and an employee could withdraw from a compensatory time agreement at any time. As with cash overtime pay, compensatory time would accrue at a rate of 1\1/2\ times the employees regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 within a 7-day period. The legislation would not affect the 40- hour workweek or the calculation of overtime. Employees could accrue up to 160 hours of compensatory time each year. An employer would be required to pay cash wages for any unused, accrued time at the end of the year or within 30 days after receiving a written request from an employee. Employers must provide employees with at least 30 days' notice prior to cashing out any accrued compensatory time or discontinuing a compensatory time program. An employer may, however, only cash out accrued time in excess of 80 hours. Employees may use accrued compensatory time within a reasonable time after making the request. All of the enforcement remedies, including action by the Department of Labor and individual law suits, under current law will apply if an employer fails to pay wages to an employee for accrued compensatory time or refuses to allow an employee to use accrued compensatory time. Employers who coerce employees into choosing compensatory time instead of overtime wages or using accrued compensatory time will be liable to the employee for double damages. One would think that providing working men and women with more control over their work schedules is a no-brainer, but private sector employees and employers alike are bound by the Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, which does not permit such flexibility. I think it is fair to say that this law which was enacted during the Depression and established a workweek of 40 hours in overtime pay was designed to be effective in a different day and age and needs to be updated. Over the past 60-plus years, the America workplace has undergone a dramatic change in composition, character, and demands. What was once a static, agriculture-and-manufacturing-based economy with a primarily male workforce has evolved into a fast-paced, working environment based on global services and high technology with nearly equal numbers of women as well as men in the workforce. Workers today, more than ever, need and do face a difficult dilemma: how to balance the demands of a job while having adequate time for family, friends, and outside commitments. This situation has become even more pronounced because many families now rely on two incomes to survive. While this conflict weighs most heavily on women, all workers, regardless of gender experience, conflict between work and the family and between watching their child's baseball game or going through a stack of papers on their desk. The Working Families Flexibility Act will help to ease these pressures by providing the flexibility that working parents need to spend quality time with their families. Before I go any further, I would like to stress that nothing in this legislation would require employees to take comp time instead of overtime pay, nor could employers force employees to take comp time. Rather, now they are given the choice of comp time or overtime. This bill does not relieve employers of any obligation to pay overtime. I want to stress that this bill does not affect the standard 40-hour workweek. The legislation contains numerous safeguards to ensure that employees could not be coerced into choosing comp time over cash wages. The legislation requires an employer to annually pay cash wages for any unused comp time accrued by the employee. Employees may withdraw from a comp time agreement at any time and request a cash-out of any or all of his or her accrued unused comp time. Mr. Speaker, comp time makes good policy; and it also has another benefit, making employees happy. There will always be working men and women who want and need the extra pay that comes from working overtime hours. But for many workers, having the additional time off is a far more attractive option, and that is an option they should have. Comp time is also good for business because smart companies know how flexibility can help to recruit and retain top-notch employees. In sum, Mr. Speaker, the Working Families Flexibility Act is good for workers. It is good for women and is especially good for families. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Working Families Flexibility Act, which allows employers to offer American workers the option of voluntarily taking compensatory time off in lieu of taking overtime pay. I am pleased that 33 of my colleagues have joined me as original cosponsors of this pro-family, pro-worker, pro-women legislation. One would think that providing working men and women with more control over their work schedules is a ``no brainer'', but private sector employees and employers alike are bound by the Fair Labor Standards Act of FLSA, which does not permit such flexibility. I think it's fair to say that this law, which was enacted during the depression and established a work week of 40 hours, and overtime pay, was designed to be effective in a different day and age and needs to be updated. Over the past 60-plus years, the American workplace has undergone a dramatic change in composition, character, and demands. What once was a static, agriculture- and manufacturing-based economy with a primarily male workforce has evolved into a fast-paced, working environment based on global services and high technology with nearly equal numbers of women and men in the workforce. Workers today, more than ever before, face a difficult dilemma: how to balance the demands of a job while having adequate time for family, friends and outside commitments. This situation has become even more pronounced because many American families now rely on two incomes to survive. And while this conflict weights most heavily on women, all workers--regardless of gender--experience conflict between work and the family, between watching their child's baseball game or going through that stack of papers on their desk. The Working Families Flexibility Act will help to ease these pressures by providing the flexibility that working parents need to spend quality time with their families. This legislation, which mirrors a bill passed by the House during the 105th Congress, amends the FLSA to allow private sector employees to access something that their colleagues working in federal, state and local governments have had for many years--the option of choosing either cash wages or paid time off as compensation for working overtime hours. Before I go any further, I want to stress that nothing in this legislation would require employees to take comp time instead of overtime pay. Nor could employers force employees to take comp time. Rather they now can be given the choice of comp time or overtime. This bill does not relieve employers of any obligation to pay overtime. I also want to stress that this bill does not affect the standard 40-hour workweek. Now, here is what the bill does do: under this legislation, employers will be able to offer comp time as an option for employees. Employees would then have a choice, through an agreement with the employer, to opt for overtime pay in the form of paid time off. As is currently the case with overtime pay, comp time hours would accrue at a rate of one and one-half hours of comp time for each hour of overtime worked. Employees could accrue up to 160 hours of comp time within a 12-month period. This legislation contains numerous safeguards to ensure that employees could not be coerced into choosing comp time over cash wages. The legislation requires an employer to annually pay cash wages for any unused comp time accrued by the employee. Employees may withdraw from a comp time agreement at any time and request a cashout of any or all of his or her accrued, unused comp time. The employer has 30 days in which to comply with the request. The legislation also requires an employer to provide the employee with at least 30 days notice prior to cashing out any accrued time in excess of 80 hours or prior to discontinuing a policy of offering comp time. Employees are able to use their accrued comp time at anytime, so long as its use does not unduly disrupt the operations of the business--this is the same standard used in the public sector and under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Employers also would be prohibited from requiring employees to take accrued time solely at the convenience of the employer. Again, I want to reiterate that this legislation has no effect on the traditional 40-hour workweek or the way in which overtime is calculated. Mr. Speaker, comp time makes for good policy and it also has another benefit--making employees happy. There always will be working men and women who want and need the extra pay that comes from working overtime hours. But for many workers, having the additional time off is a far more attractive option, and that's an option they should have. Comp time also is good for business because smart companies know how flexibility can help efforts to recruit and retain top-notch employees. Concerns over the well-being of the family often force parents to leave jobs that do not fit their family needs or forego jobs that would put stress on home lives. In sum, Mr. Speaker, The Working Families Flexibility Act is good for workers, it is good for women, and it is especially good for families. The bill updates an outdated law designed for the 1930s workplace and makes it relevant for today's workforce. Today's working men and women want increased flexibility and choices regarding scheduling and compensation, yet federal law prevents them from having such options. I trust my colleagues agree that employees and employers should not be prevented from making mutually agreeable arrangements that meet both personal and business needs. I think the time and circumstances are right for us to pass this much-needed legislation. I urge my colleagues to join this effort to pass a strong comp time bill that will be good for workers, businesses, the economy, and America's families. Let me take a moment to recognize Congressman Cass Ballenger for his dedicated and untiring work on the comp time issue and to the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Representative Charlie Norwood, for his strong commitment to this issue. Finally, let me thank the Chairman of the full Committee on Education and the Workforce, John Boehner, for his support of America's working men and women.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am pleased to say that H.R. 1 encompasses President Bush's vision for education in America. The bill empowers parents, helps children learn to read at an early age, and grants unprecedented new flexibility to local school districts while demanding results in public education through strict accountability measures. I know that many of my colleagues have and will speak in more detail about these provisions, so let me turn to a section of the bill that will not receive as much attention but is important because of the direct and positive impact it will have on the estimated 1 million homeless children and youth in our country. Mr. Chairman, being without a home should not mean being without an education. Yet, that is what homelessness means for far too many of our children and youth today. Congress recognized the importance of education to homeless youth when it enacted in 1987 the McKinney Education Program. But, despite the progress made by this Act over the last decade, we know that homeless children continue to miss out on what is the only source of stability and promise in their lives: school attendance. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1 strengthens the McKinney program by incorporating the provisions contained in the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Act of 2001. This bill ensures that a homeless child is immediately enrolled in school. That means no red tape, no waiting for paperwork, no bureaucratic delays. It limits the disruption caused by homelessness by requiring schools to make every effort to keep homeless children in the school they attended before becoming homeless. It also creates a mechanism to quickly and fairly resolve enrollment disputes, ensuring that such process burdens neither the school nor the children's education. Last, it assists overlooked and underserved homeless children and youth by raising the program's authorizing level to $60 million in fiscal year 2002 and reauthorizing the McKinney-Vento program for another 5 years. As a former school board and PTA president, I believe H.R. 1 and its homeless education provisions meet our commitment to local control, while making the best use of Federal education dollars. I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the committee, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, for understanding that being homeless should not limit a child's opportunity to learn and for addressing in the bill before us the needs of homeless children. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the No Child Left Behind Act. This education reform legislation is what America deserves and what America's children need.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 974, ``the Small Business Interest Checking Act of 2001.'' This bill will repeal the prohibition against banks paying interest on checking accounts. When this bill was considered in the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, I expressed my concern that this legislation could be interpreted in a way that would effectively eliminate the financial benefits and checking services that large depositors now receive from banks in lieu of interest. These services are now provided in accordance with substantial interpretive guidance that has been issued by the Federal Reserve under Regulation Q. Current law states that the provision or the receipt of such services and benefits does not constitute interest. I am pleased that Chairman Oxley agreed to modify the bill by including a new section and accompanying report language. These provisions clarify that the current provision of services by banks in accordance with Regulation Q will be continued. This legislation will not alter the legal definition of interest for real estate closing escrow transactions and provides that current Regulation Q Federal regulatory interpretations regarding the definition of interest on deposits will continue to stand. Title companies and agents currently receive bank services that defray the overall cost of maintaining real estate settlement escrows. These services subsidize settlement service operations, ultimately lowering the cost of closing and settlement services to the public. As a highly developed financial system, Federal banking law and regulations have consistently operated to facilitate the smooth and efficient flow of real estate transactions and promoted American homeownership. I am grateful that the Committee included a clear statement of congressional intent with respect to this issue in relationship to the proposed changes in the bill and I fully support H.R. 974.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, in 1995 and 1996, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) released reports outlining the deplorable conditions in many of our nation's elementary and secondary schools. A GAO survey showed that America's schools are in need of an estimated $112 billion in repairs and that $11 billion alone is required to get schools in compliance with federal mandates requiring the elimination of hazards such as asbestos, lead in water, radon, and to improve accessibility for the disabled. It's no small wonder these repair bills are mounting--the U.S. Department of Education has found that the average age of a public school building is 42 years. And while our school buildings are aging, student enrollments are expanding--putting even more pressure on a crumbling infrastructure. According to the Projections of Education Statistics to 2010 by the National Center for Education Statistics, total K-12 student enrollment in 2010 will exceed 53 million. The decline in the condition of our nation's schools is not limited to one particular region. Every state has schools that are in need of repair and modernization, and my home state of Illinois is no exception. The Illinois State Board of Education estimates that over the next five years, Illinois' school districts will need more than $8.2 billion in infrastructure work. Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of local control of education, I believe that school construction and renovation are areas best directed by states and local communities. That's why I applaud those states that have passed measures designed to help schools replace and modernize their facilities. Illinois is one of those states that have stepped up to the plate in this regard. In December 1997, The Illinois General Assembly passed a school construction law to address the shortage of classroom space brought on by population growth and aging buildings. To fund the program, the General Assembly approved the sale of $1.4 billion in school construction bonds over a five-year period. Illinois Governor George Ryan's ``Illinois FIRST'' program later added another $ 1.1 billion to extend the program. But despite the best efforts of Illinois and other states, the long- term costs of repairing and upgrading our nation's schools are proving more than many state and local governments can bear. In an attempt to assist in their efforts, Congress last year provided over $1 billion in grants for school modernization purposes. But that amount is like a drop in the bucket, and our schools continue to fall into further disrepair and obsolescence. That's why I rise today to introduce the ``Building, Renovating, Improving, and Constructing Kids' Schools (BRICKS) Act''--legislation addressing our nation's burgeoning demand for elementary and secondary education school repair. This legislation is a slightly modified version of legislation I introduced last year and is the companion bill to S. 119, which was introduced in the Senate by my friend and colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. Here is what the BRICKS Act does. First, it provides $20 billion in interest-free and low-interest federal loans to support school construction and repair at the local level. These loans can be used in two ways. One, at least 50 percent of the loans are designated to pay the interest owed by states and localities to bondholders on new school construction bonds that are issued through the year 2003. And two, the loans can be used to support State revolving fund programs or other State-administered school modernization programs. These loans will be interest-free for the first five years, with low interest rates to follow. The BRICKS Act allocates these school construction loans on an annual basis, using the Title I distribution formula. Monies would be distributed to states at the request of each state's governor and without a lengthy application process. The money provided for under this bill is used to support, not supplant, local school construction efforts. These loans are designed to allow states and localities to issue bonds that would not otherwise be made due to financial limitations. Third, and perhaps most importantly, these loans will be distributed in a fiscally responsible manner that does take away from the Social Security program or the projected on-budget surpluses. Specifically, my bill will generate funding from the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF)-- a fund that was created through the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 and that currently has more than $40 billion in assets. This is a fund that some--including former Federal Reserve Board Governor Lawrence B. Lindsey--have called for liquidating, Finally, the school construction and modernization loans are not a government handout. The BRICKS Act requires a State entity or local government that receives funding under this legislation to repay the loan to the Exchange Stabilization Fund. At the same time, this proposal ensures that states and local governments will not be burdened by excessive interest rates--or be forced to repay the loan in an unreasonable amount of time. After the first five interest-free years, the interest rates on these loans will be no greater than 4.5 percent. Again, no payment will be owed, and no interest will accrue for five years, unless the federal government prior to that time meets its financial commitment to funding 40 percent of the costs borne by local school districts for providing special education services, as is currently required by federal law. Mr. Speaker, the BRICKS Act is a fiscally responsible answer to a serious national problem. I am proud to offer this legislation for the House's consideration. I also am pleased to note how this legislation will help schools located in the 13th Congressional District of Illinois, which I represent. As my colleagues may know, the 13th District encompasses some of the fastest growing communities in the nation. School administrators in my district have made it known that school construction and renovation have failed to keep pace with the explosive population growth and increased rates of student enrollment. Time and again, they have told me that the growth in tax revenues from new households has not kept up with the costs of construction needed to serve them. By providing schools and states with more fiscal flexibility and options, the BRICKS Act addresses this problem in my congressional district and in districts across the United States. I urge my colleagues to support the BRICKS Act. This timely legislation makes responsible use of limited federal resources and effectively meets a commitment to giving every child an opportunity to attend school in an, environment that is physically safe and conducive to learning.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Richard Kwasneski, who in just a few weeks will be retiring as Mayor of Lemont, Illinois, which is located in my congressional district. Our local governments could not work if it were not for people like Rick--they serve their hometowns for no other reason than because they love where they live. Rick Kwasneski surely loves Lemont. For the past 16 years, Rick has served the people of Lemont with dedication and honor, first as a Village Trustee for eight years and then as Mayor for the past eight. As Mayor, Rick led the economic and physical revitalization of Lemont's historic downtown area, created a Historic District in the downtown area to promote and preserve the rich history of Lemont, and reconstructed the town's aging infrastructure and roadways. He also lowered the Village's property tax rate to its lowest level in 25 years. Rick is a tireless champion for Lemont, always working to improve the Village wherever there is a need. The residents of Lemont were lucky to have him as Mayor and I know he will be missed. I am going to miss Rick as well. Since I came to Congress a little over two years ago, Rick has been a valuable partner on issues important to Lemont, such as the southern extension of I-355 and extra train service on the Heritage Corridor rail line that serves Lemont. Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying that we need more excellent individuals like Rick Kwasneski to go into public service. His selfless hard work and advocacy for Lemont are a model for all of us. And even though he will no longer serve as Mayor of Lemont, I know that he will continue to have a strong presence in the community, lending a hand whenever and wherever it is needed.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Democrat substitute and in strong support of the underlying bill, the Death Tax Elimination Act. This unfair tax has long outlived its usefulness. We are here in Congress to make things better for the American people. When more than 70 percent of small businesses do not make it to the second generation, something is wrong and must be made better. I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel that their proposal will make things better, but the fact is that the Democrat substitute does not go far enough. Here is why. I met with representatives from the Illinois Lumbermen's Association yesterday. They are owners and operators of independently owned retail lumber stores. I asked them whether they would be affected by the death tax if the Democrat substitute passed. After thinking for a minute or two, they said that while a $2 million exemption or a $5 million exemption sounds like a lot of money, they would still be subject to the tax. Lumber dealers need land and they need a lot of it. It is a simple fact of their business. Because they own land in the Chicago area, it will appreciate and push the value of their estate above that exemption and they are right back to where we started from. These lumber dealers are the very definition of small businessmen. They put their hearts and souls into their businesses, making a living, creating jobs and hoping to pass something on to their children. But a larger exemption is still not enough. They need a full phase-out. They need the Death Tax Elimination Act. I urge all my colleagues to oppose the Democrat substitute and to support the Death Tax Elimination Act. The time is now to once and for all put an end to the death tax.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, March is Women's History Month, a time to reflect upon and honor the contributions of women that have made this country a better place. Today, we are going to recognize one of our own. Few dispute the positive impact of Title IX, the landmark civil rights legislation that prohibits sex discrimination in federally- funded education programs. But I wonder how many of my colleagues realize that we have the privilege to serve with one of the driving forces behind that law--the Gentlelady from Hawaii, Patsy Mink. As a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, Patsy was one of the architects of Title IX. And since its enactment 30 years ago, she has been a leading voice in the call for full enforcement of the law. The importance of her work cannot be understated. This is demonstrated by my own family's experience. Only the youngest of my three daughters, Adrienne, had the opportunity to play soccer from kindergarten on through college. As the assistant soccer coach for her team in the mid and late 1980s, I can well remember the excitement of the girls--and their parents-- when girls' soccer first became a recognized team sport in our high school. That meant that Adrienne, just like my son Rody before her, would have the opportunity to play a sport she loved throughout her years in school. But the impact of Title IX is widespread. Thanks to its passage in 1972, my daughter Adrienne and so many other young women and girls throughout America have come to benefit from the opportunities enjoyed for so long by young men and boys in America. A recent GAO study reported that, since the enactment of Title IX, the number of women enrolled in college has more than doubled from about 3.7 million to 8.2 million. The number of women participating in intercollegiate sports also has grown from about 30,000 to 157,000-- this is an increase from 1.7 percent to 5.5 percent of all full-time, undergraduate women. The unparalleled opportunities that women and girls currently have in the classroom and on the playing field are due in large part to Title IX. Title IX has enabled young women to participate in school sports--to learn the value of teamwork and competition, and to gain the self- confidence and skills that are so valuable in business and in other future careers. I cannot say enough about how instrumental Patsy was in bringing out these opportunities for young women. As with any issue on which Patsy Mink takes a stand, she has consistently shown her passion for enforcing gender equity, particularly as it relates to education. And as the legislative record shows, she has been steadfast in her commitment to preserving the advances and effectiveness of Title IX. Congresswoman Mink is to be commended for her leadership on Title IX. She will long be remembered for her tireless efforts toward achieving true equality for women. And her efforts truly represent the spirit and ideals of Women's History Month.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to switch subjects for a moment to talk about another matter during this month of women's history. As the Republican chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus, I would like to take the opportunity to discuss an issue that affects thousands of women each year, violence against women. There are two types of violence against women that need to be addressed: domestic violence and sexual assault. Scratch the surface of any of our Nation's most challenging social problems, from crime in the schools to gang violence and homelessness, and you are likely to find a root cause of domestic violence. Law enforcement officials are reporting that domestic violence situations are among their most frequent calls. Judges find that children first seen in their courts as victims of domestic violence return later as adult criminal defendants. Schools are noticing that children with emotional problems often come from an environment where violence is the norm. Violence begets violence, and we must break the cycle. We have begun to address the problem, but there is still much work to be done. Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act in the 106th Congress was a giant step in the right direction. Since it passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has been effective. In fact, the Justice Department estimates that violence against women has decreased by 21 percent since the law was originally passed. The law also has been credited with providing shelter space for more than 300,000 women and their families. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my many colleagues here in the House who supported and fought for this important legislation, both in 1994 and the reauthorization last year. I am proud that reauthorization received such strong bipartisan support, and I am hopeful that our future efforts to address this tremendous problem will receive similar levels of support from both sides of the aisle. The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act brought much- needed attention to these issues, attention that will be translated into greater public awareness of this issue and a greater public commitment to solving the problems of violence against women. But another particular area of violence against women that needs more congressional attention is sexual assault. The statistics on this issue are staggering. A rape occurs every 90 seconds, and estimates show that one out of every three women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. Seven out of every 10 rapes are committed by someone the victim knows. Seventy-six percent of the women over 18 who are raped and/or physically assaulted are assaulted by a current or former husband, cohabitating partner or date. What can we do to address this horrendous problem? We must talk about it. We must raise public awareness. For years, these problems have been swept under the table, and women have been hesitant about talking about them in public or even reporting them. I am thankful that this trend is in reverse and the public is becoming more outraged about these heinous crimes against women. We, as leaders, must be willing to bring more attention to the fight against sexual assault and domestic violence. By focusing public attention on these acts of brutality against women, we can raise public awareness. We can make a difference. We have already seen positive effects of the Violence Against Women Act, but that is just a start. As the month of March draws to a close, I would like to point out that the month of April is nationally known as National Sexual Assault Awareness Month. I would like to see this designation made official. Officially designating April as National Sexual Assault Awareness Month would raise public awareness. Violence against women is a large, unrecognized and all-too-often ignored problem in all of our communities. The costs of these violent acts is borne not only by the women who experience it, but by their families, communities and our Nation as a whole. This is a national issue, and it must receive national attention. We must continue our congressional commitment to making our streets and homes safe for women and children.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, as the Republican co-chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus, I am very excited about what the 107th Congress promises for women, particularly in the area of health care. There have been great strides made in recent years in the area of women's health care, and I think that since the month of March is Women's History Month, I would like to thank my colleagues from the Congressional Women's Caucus who are taking the time to come down here this afternoon out of their busy schedules to discuss women's health issues. I think that a number of women will be discussing issues from eating disorders, breast cancer, and long-term care; and these are issues that affect all women, no matter their age, race, nationality or sexual orientation. I commend my colleagues for continually taking the lead on these important issues and look forward to continuing our work in the 107th Congress. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, I think, look at one issue, but I cannot begin really without talking about that, for the first time in history, that the House Subcommittee on Health will be chaired by a women, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), our friend and colleague. That is very fitting when the issues that affect women have become so dramatic. One of the issues that I would like to address in the area of women's health care that I care deeply about is long-term care. I think long- term care has long been called the sleeping giant of all U.S. social problems. This issue affects all Americans but particularly women for three reasons: Number 1 is we live longer; number 2, we are the ones who take care of our aging relatives; and, number 3, we are much more likely to retire with little or no pension savings. That makes us especially vulnerable to the high costs of long-term care. The Census Bureau estimates that there are currently 34 million Americans aged 65 and older living in the United States. By 2030, that number is expected to more than double to 70 million, some 20 percent of the population. The fact that Americans are living longer and living more healthy lifestyles than at any time before should be celebrated. However, it does present a challenging public policy problem. These numbers demonstrate the demand for long-term home or institutional care is going to grow exponentially. Neither the public nor the private sectors have adequately planned to meet the overwhelming future demand for long-term care services. We must increase the public's awareness of the importance of preparing for long-term needs, as well as encourage individuals to save for their future, to invest in IRAs and mutual funds and to purchase long-term care insurance policies. In addition, we must encourage employers to provide long-term care coverage as part of their employee benefit plans. This is why I plan to reintroduce legislation that I introduced in the 106th Congress, the Live Long and Prosper Act, Long-term Care and Retirement Enhancement to address this issue. There are several ways my bill addresses the problem facing long-term care. First, my bill provides an above-the-line deduction, starting with 60 percent in 2002 and rising to 100 percent in 2006, for the cost of long-term care insurance premiums paid during a given year for the taxpayer, his or her spouse and dependents. These provisions will make long-term care insurance more financially accessible, particularly for the young and those with lower incomes. Second, my bill gives employers the option of providing long-term care insurance coverage as part of a cafeteria plan, in which employees are able to choose from a variety of medical care or other benefits, or flexible spending account, in which employees set aside pretax dollars for copayments or deductibles on insurance plans. Third, my bill provides an additional personal exemption to the estimated 7 million Americans who provide custodial care to an elderly relative living in their home. The exemption was valued at $2,750 in 1999 and should help to alleviate some of the financial burdens involved with caring for a loved one at home. These are just a few of the provisions of the bill, and they represent a market-based solution to an ever-growing demand for long- term care services and financing. But the financial incentives alone will not be enough to address the potential long-term care delivery and financial crisis. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to take a look at that bill and to look at the women's health issues that are involved therein.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the rule on H.R. 3. Webster's dictionary defines the word ``refund'' thus: to give back or put back; to return money in restitution; repayment or balancing of accounts. Today, we have the opportunity to take a small part of the Federal surplus and give it back to Americans who have overpaid their taxes. It is a refund. Now, I have heard that some suggest that this refund is nothing more than a giveaway to the wealthy. They will be able to buy a new Lexus, while others will only be able to buy a new muffler. Well, that was the message that was broadcast across the country, and here is what one of my constituents wrote to me. ``Dear Judy, I want my tax relief, even if I only get the muffler.'' Well, under H.R. 3, taxpayers of all income levels will get much more than a muffler. They will get the tax relief they deserve and the refund they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support the rule on H.R. 3.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 6. I have absolutely no quarrel with the idea of OSHA or Congress writing or implementing an ergonomics law or regulation. What I do have a problem with is this particular ergonomics regulation. It is exceedingly costly, overly broad, and it wrongly presumes that every muscle strain or ache a worker suffers is caused by the workplace. For instance, it does not take into account personal attributes that may cause body pains such as obesity or age, nor does it anticipate the possibility that employees may actually hurt themselves outside of the workplace while skiing, playing basketball, or gardening. Here is what the Chicago Tribune had to say about the new rule: ``In short, they amount to a simplistic and expensive meat-ax solution for a complex scientific puzzle that researchers do not fully understand.'' Workers do have legitimate claims to workplace-induced repetitious motion injuries, but not with this regulation.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, as the Republican co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, I am pleased to join the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), the other co- chair of the Women's Caucus, and my other colleagues in celebrating March as women's history month. Women accomplished so much in the 20th Century and I am fortunate and proud to co-chair the first Women's Caucus of the 21st Century. Let us hope that this century is productive for our daughters and granddaughters as it was for our mothers and us. The last 100 years have seen women make important advancements in the area of public service. Not only did our predecessors gain the right to vote, but in recent years we have been considered a decidedly important voting block. We now have more women serving in the House and the Senate than ever before, 61 women in the House and 13 in the Senate. I think we will keep seeing these numbers increase. We have women serving as Supreme Court justices, governors, Attorneys General and in many other elected offices, but we still have a long way to go. For all the accomplishments that women have achieved in the 20th century, we should not be complacent. We still have a lot to do. One of the areas where females have made important strides is in the area of education. Women currently make up over 50 percent of college freshmen in the country. To think that in 1872, over 100 years ago, only 97 educational institutions even accepted women. The National Center for Education Statistics report that females are now doing as well or better than males on factors measuring educational attainment. Nevertheless, women continue to trail their male counterparts in the areas of mathematics and science. This is something that I hope, through my position on the House Committee on Science, to help rectify. What is more, women are still underrepresented in doctoral and first professional degree programs, although, as the NCEC points out, women have made substantial gains in these areas during the last 25 years. There are other areas of education where improvements need to be made, most notably in the area of school access for so-called disadvantaged students. A group of disadvantaged students whose needs are often overlooked are homeless children. Homeless children face unique problems when attempting to access a quality education. Some schools do not allow homeless children to register for classes without school or medical records. Others will not enroll children without a home address, and there is nobody in the schools whose job it is to help them. As a result, homeless children wait days and even weeks just to get into the classroom. Obviously this has serious and negative consequences for their educational advantages. Mr. Speaker, some may be wondering why I am talking about homeless children during this recognition of the achievements of women. Well, it is because, as data shows, educating homeless children is a women's issue. According to a Federal study released in 1999, 84 percent of parents or guardians of homeless children are female. The average homeless family is composed of a single mother in her twenties and two children under the age of 6. Single mothers are vulnerable to homelessness because of the high cost of housing for families, the high cost of child care and lack of housing assistance. We must work together as women, as leaders in our community and as public servants, to find answers to the destructive cycles caused by homelessness and poverty. That is why I have introduced H.R. 623, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Act of 2001. This bill will ensure that all homeless children are guaranteed access to public education so that they can acquire the skills needed to escape poverty and lead healthy and productive lives. It will also strengthen the parental rights at a time when mothers of homeless children find themselves most vulnerable. It will help homeless mothers pay for school supplies and other emergency items that children need to participate in school, such as clothes, eyeglasses and hygiene products. Many mothers have expressed gratitude through letters and cards for these items which they could not otherwise afford at such a difficult point in their lives. Working hard now to ensure a brighter future for all Americans is something that we as women learn the importance of during our struggle to gain equality in the 20th century. During the month of March, it is fitting that women take time to reflect back upon and celebrate our collective accomplishments over the last 100 years. We must use every opportunity to show how we are going to use the lessons learned in yesteryear's battles to eliminate illiteracy, increase educational opportunity for all and promote high academic achievements. If we do so, that would give women 100 years from now something to crow about.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``McKinney- Vento Homeless Education Act of 2001.'' This legislation builds upon legislation I introduced during the last Congress, numbered H.R. 2888, to improve educational opportunities for homeless children. As my colleagues will recall, a majority of H.R. 2888 was incorporated into H.R. 2, the Students Results Act, which overwhelmingly passed the House in October of 1999. 1 am hopeful that this year's version of the legislation will garner the same kind of bipartisan support as did the last bill and ultimately will find its way into law. Mr. Speaker, I think you would agree that being homeless should not mean foregoing an education. Yet, that is what homelessness means for far too many of America's children and youth today. Even with our healthy economy, estimates are that one million kids will experience homelessness this year. Due to red tape, lack of information, and bureaucratic delays, some homeless children are missing school or are being turned away at the schoolhouse door and, as a result, losing out on the chance for a better life. Studies show that as a result of these problems, some 45 percent of homeless children do not attend school on a regular basis. In addition, homeless children are twice as likely to repeat a grade and have four times the rate of delayed development. Congress recognized the importance of school to homeless children by establishing the Stewart B. McKinney Education of Homeless Children and Youth program. This program is designed to remove barriers that prevent or make it hard for homeless youth to enroll, attend and succeed in school. And, for many homeless children, it may make the difference between success in the classroom and failure in life. Yet today, more than a decade after the passage of that important program, inadequacies in the federal law inadvertently are acting as barriers to the education of homeless children. We must act to strengthen these weak areas, and we must act now. This Congress has the rare chance to review, redefine, and improve our federal education policies. Not since 1994, when programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) were last authorized, has Congress had a similar opportunity to examine K through 12 education in total. I believe it is incumbent for Members from both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to take advantage of this unique opportunity to renew our commitment to homeless children. As the 107th Congress rushes forward to reauthorize our federal K-12 education programs, we must pause long enough to ensure that all homeless children are guaranteed access to a public education, so that they acquire the skills needed to escape poverty and lead productive lives. In doing so, we will be meeting America's commitment to, as President Bush has clearly stated, leaving no child behind. Mr. Speaker, the following is what the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Act does. The bill: One: ensures that homeless children are immediately enrolled in school. This means that no homeless child will be prevented for days or weeks from walking through the school doors because of delayed paperwork or other bureaucracy; Two: limits the disruption of education by requiring schools to make every effort to keep homeless children in the school they attended before becoming homeless, unless it is against their parents wishes. This provision ensures that homeless children are not unwillingly ripped away from their friends and environments where they are comfortable learning; Three: keeps homeless students in school while disputes are being resolved. Homeless children often spend weeks or even months out of school while enrollment disputes remain unresolved. This legislation address this serious problem by creating a mechanism to quickly and fairly resolve such disputes, ensuring that the enrollment process burdens neither the school nor the child's education; Four: requires local school districts to select a contact person to identify, enroll and provide resource information and resolve disputes relating to homeless students. Because many schools don't currently have a point of contact for homeless students, these children frequently go unseen and unserved; Five: strengthens the quality and collection of data on homeless students at the federal level. This is particularly crucial, as the lack of a uniform method of data collection has resulted in unreliable information and the likely underreporting of the numbers of homeless students; Six: prohibits federal funding from being used to segregate homeless students. Despite McKinney Act requirements to remove enrollment barriers and to integrate homeless students into the mainstream school environment, some school districts continue to segregate these children into separate schools or Seven: increases accountability by providing States with greater flexibility to use authorized funds to provide technical support to local school districts in order to bring them into compliance with the Act; Eight And finally: assists overlooked and underserved homeless children and youth by raising the program's authorized funding level to $90 million in FY2002 and reauthorizing the program for another five years. Mr. Speaker, a majority of these provisions are derived from the Illinois Education for Homeless Children State Act, which many consider to be a model for the rest of the Nation. These provisions also are a reflection of the best ideas of some of America's most dedicated people--homeless advocates, educators, and experts at the US Department of Education. Like many of my colleagues here in the House, I am a strong supporter of local control of education. I believe the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Act of 2001 meets this principle while making the best use of limited federal resources. Regrettably, homelessness is and will likely be for the immediate future a part of our society. However, being homeless should not limit a homeless child's opportunity to receive what every child in America is entitled--a free and quality public education. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this much-needed and timely bill. In closing, let me take a moment to thank Illinois State Representative Mary Lou Cowlishaw, as well Sister Rose Marie Lorentzen and Diane Nilan with the Hesed House in Aurora, Illinois for bringing this issue to my attention and for their years of tireless, and often unrecognized, work on behalf of the homeless. I also want to thank Barbara Duffield with the National Coalition for the Homeless for her help in putting together this bill and my colleagues Representative Doug Ose of California and Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania for being original cosponsors.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Federal Judicial Fairness Act of 2001. This morning, the American Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association released a report detailing a fundamental problem that has been escalating over the past decade, the erosion of fair and adequate compensation for the Federal judiciary. These two well-respected groups found that the current salaries of Federal judges have reached such a level of inadequacy and quality that the independence of the third branch of our Federal Government is threatened. I agree with these findings. Since 1993, Congress has granted Federal judges only three of a possible nine cost-of-living adjustments, leaving our judges with a 13.4 percent decline in purchasing power. Not coincidentally, 54 Federal District Court and Circuit Court judges have left the bench in the 1990s, compared to only three during the entire 1960s. Yes, the salaries of Federal judges are higher than the average salary in many occupations. But, yes, the salaries that our Federal judges could earn in the private sector could be exponentially higher than what they earn as judges. No individual agrees to serve in the Federal judiciary because of the pay. Individuals seek and accept nominations to the bench because they want to serve their country. But this does not mean that they should forego fair compensation for their critical work. It should be Congress' goal to ensure that the judges can afford to commit to public service and make certain that the judiciary is not open only to those with the financial means to do so. Absent a change in the way we compensate these judges, I fear that the superior quality of our Federal judicial system may deteriorate over time. This is why I am introducing the Federal Judiciary Fairness Act. The bill restores the six cost-of-living adjustments that Congress failed to grant the Federal judiciary in the 1990s, amounting to an immediate 9.6 percent salary increase. My bill also fixes the annual pay adjustment problems for Federal judges. Unlike other Federal employees, Members of Congress and the President's Cabinet, Federal judges receive a COLA only if Congress specifically authorizes it. Under the Federal Judiciary Fairness Act, Federal judges will receive an annual COLA not subject to the approval of Congress. The size of the COLA would be determined by the Employment Cost Index, but it would not be larger than one received by other Federal employees under the General Schedule pay rate. Together, these provisions will do much to remedy a problem, disparity in pay between the private and public sectors, that plagues one of the three branches of the Federal Government. But, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about more than just fairly compensating the individuals who sit on the Federal bench. We must ensure that our Federal judiciary can attract and retain the best and the brightest. Passing the Federal Judicial Fairness Act is a small but important step in achieving this goal. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), for agreeing to be original cosponsors of this legislation; and I urge all my colleagues to support the Federal Judicial Fairness Act.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Dee Leverson, the 2000 Citizen of the Year for Darien, IL. The city of Darien is at the heart of Illinois' 13th Congressional District. It is a central crossroads for a growing region. And its residents continue to work hard to live up to the city's understated motto--``a nice place to live.'' Sometimes, though, that is a tall order. We all know that civic involvement is declining. Even the pillars of our communities, such as the Parent Teachers Association and the Boy Scouts, are experiencing declining rates of participation. But we also know that there are those in our communities that set a shining example to which we all should aspire. Dee Leverson is one of those people. When one looks at all that Dee has done for Darien, it becomes clear why she was selected as Darien's 2000 Citizen of the Year. She helped found the Darien Women's Club. She assisted in organizing the Darien Chamber of Commerce. She served on the Darienfest committee for several years, including two as its cochairperson. She then served as chairperson of Darien Day for 2 years as well. In between all of that, Dee somehow found time to serve on the committee for the first Darien Bookmobile, was active in the Lace School PTA, was a Cub Scout leader, and coowned and operated a women's apparel store in Darien. She also served as a cochairman for the first Cystic Fibrosis drive in the area and helped her husband, Ron, launch the Darien Lion's Club needy family drive. However, I could not sum up what Dee has meant to Darien better than what her own neighbors said about her. They wrote: ``Dee exemplifies what good citizenship is. Her strong commitment to home, family, community, and the less fortunate make her an outstanding candidate for Citizen of the Year.'' I could not agree more. Dee is the kind of person who keeps our communities vibrant and alive. Congratulations to Dee Leverson, Darien's 2000 Citizen of the Year. She has made Darien much more than a ``nice place to live.''

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we have touched upon this afternoon, James Madison was a man who strongly embodied and advanced the principles that our government represents: economic freedom, limited government, the rule of law, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. James Madison also was a man who believed in the greatness of the United States and hoped to see it always remain as a whole. In a note that was opened after his death in 1836, Madison wrote that, I quote, ``the advice nearest to my heart and deepest in my convictions is that the union of the States be cherished and perpetuated.'' At a time when we face unprecedented challenges to our electoral challenge, James Madison's words are something we should all heed. Before I close, let me thank Senator Sessions for introducing this fine bill. Let me also thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for his thoughts and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Burton), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for allowing this bill to move forward. Mr. Speaker, let me also thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support this bill.

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer for consideration by the House S. 3137, the James Madison Commemoration Commission Act, introduced by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. S. 3137, which was passed unanimously by the Senate on October 25, 2000, establishes a commission to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the birth of James Madison, which falls on March 16, 2001. Born in 1751, James Madison was raised in Orange County, Virginia. He later attended Princeton University, then called the College of New Jersey, where he was a student of history and government. Drawing from his studies, Madison served as a delegate to the Continental Congress and to the Annapolis Convention of 1786. More important, he was a fervent supporter of the bill of rights and an instrumental force in creating the United States Constitution, which is why he is often referred to as the Father of the Constitution. James Madison also served as a representative in Congress from 1789 to 1797; the United States Secretary of State under President Thomas Jefferson from 1801 to 1809; and President of the United States from 1809 to 1817. As President, James Madison led our young Nation in a war against Great Britain. While considered by many to be a draw, the war did serve to draw a diverse country closer together and to demonstrate to the world the strong resolve and will of the American people. Mr. Speaker, in addition to advancing the interests of a growing Nation, Madison's written works have had a lasting impact. Historians acknowledge that among the most distinguished of American state papers are James Madison's notes on the Federal Convention and his contributions to The Federalist Papers, many of which are now housed at the University of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in order to honor this great American hero on the 250th anniversary of his birth, S. 3137 establishes a commission that will be charged with planning and coordinating activities to celebrate the life of James Madison. This is the least we can do to recognize a man whose devotion to liberty made a lasting contribution to our system of government and to freedom-loving people around the world. Mr. Speaker, like the bill to create the Abraham Lincoln Commission before it, I am proud to offer this legislation to my colleagues for consideration. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues' support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3137) to establish a commission to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the birth of James Madison.