Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3703.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing from the other side of the Chamber today. When the Democrat-controlled Congress passed this tax increase on seniors in 1993, they told them that the purpose was deficit reduction. It was to balance the federal budget. Now, seven years later, there is no federal budget deficit. There was no federal budget deficit last year. There will be no budget deficit next year or the following year. We look ahead, and as far as any projection ventures forward, there will be no federal budget deficits. Seniors know this. Everyone in this Chamber knows this. So who are we attempting to fool? And why do we continue to force this budget deficit reduction tax on America's seniors when there is no budget deficit? The answer is that we owe it to our seniors to repeal this onerous tax. For seven years, ten million American seniors have paid more than their fair share to reduce federal budget deficits. They have succeeded. The very least we now can do is to repeal this tax. To do less would be to engage in the worst kind of bait-and-switch tactic. What are we to say? In 1993, the tax was needed for deficit reduction. In 2000, there is no budget deficit so it is needed for spending? That's dishonest and unfair. Let's face it, this Democrat substitute is little more than an attempt to do justice for some and not for others. Let's do the right thing for all seniors--the honest thing--and repeal this tax.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 569), and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, 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. Rejecting this resolution is especially important now that the United States and Vietnam have signed a bilateral trade agreement which will allow Vietnam in the future to gain Normal Trade Relations status renewable on an annual basis. But before that bilateral agreement is approved by Congress, we must continue the process of normalizing trade relations with Vietnam that began when we ended our trade embargo 6 years ago. 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 taken the right steps. Vietnam is not there yet, but Vietnam is moving in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 99 is the wrong direction for us to take today. Who is hurt if we pass this resolution? We are. It is the wrong direction for U.S. farmers and manufacturers who do 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. It is the wrong direction for our efforts to influence the Vietnamese people, 65 percent who were not even born when the war was being waged. Let us not turn back the clock on Vietnam. Let us continue to work with them and, in doing so, teach the youthful Vietnamese the values of democracy, the principles of capitalism, and the merits of a free and open society.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I represent a suburban Chicago district and, as we all know, the Chicago area now faces the highest gas prices in the nation. This is not a distinction of which we are proud or happy. Today, Governor Ryan of Illinois and the Illinois General Assembly took an important step to provide the residents of Illinois with some relief, and they should be commended for their swift action. In one day, the General Assembly passed and the Governor signed a law that suspends the Illinois gas tax for six months. They were forced to take the extraordinary action of sacrificing badly needed road improvement funds in order to give consumers at the pumps an extra ten or twenty cents per gallon relief. We cannot allow residents of states like Illinois and Wisconsin to confront this situation again in the future. The burden is just too great on individuals and small businesses in the region. That's why I rise today to announce the introduction of a bill to help prevent future crises involving the price and supply of gasoline in the Midwest. The Midwest Clean Air Gasoline Reserve Act would give the Secretary of Energy the authority to establish a Midwest reserve of reformulated gasoline or the petroleum products used to make reformulated gasoline. The President would release this stock of reformulated gasoline in the event of a severe energy supply disruption, a severe price increase, or another emergency affecting the Midwest. We know now that two factors adversely affected the supply of gasoline in the Midwest, causing prices to rise. In addition to pipeline disruptions, Phase 2 of the Reformulated Gasoline--or RFG-- program required the inventory of Phase 1 RFG gasoline to be purged from the supply chain. In this case, supply was interrupted at the same time that inventories were depleted. And in the Midwest in particular, sources of reformulated gasoline are few and far between, and difficult to replace when supply is interrupted. As a result, the price of reformulated gasoline spiked. With a Midwest, Clean Air Gasoline Reserve in his arsenal, the President may have been able to combat this crisis when it presented itself, at least reducing the initial impact on consumers. This bill will give any President an important tool with which to respond to energy supply disruptions. I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Foley/Markey amendment to eliminate the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, or NERI. I support both renewable energy research programs and nuclear energy research programs, but the numbers speak for themselves. This bill already provides $350 million for solar and renewable energy programs compared to $40 million for nuclear energy research and development. With passage of the Salmon amendment earlier this evening, funding for solar and renewable research programs has increased to almost $400 million. Funding for solar and renewable energy research now dwarfs funding for nuclear energy research. In this situation, it makes no sense to eliminate what little funding exists for research aimed at an energy source that provides 20 percent of the nation's electricity. In my home state of Illinois, that percentage is even higher. Again, the numbers speak for themselves. In FY 1999, 91 percent of NERI's funding went to independent, peer-reviewed research projects at America's research universities and national laboratories, including Argonne National Laboratory, a Department of Energy multi-program laboratory located in the district I represent. Only 9 percent went to private sector entities. I would encourage my colleagues to remember that we are talking about a source of energy that does not produce harmful air emissions. Again, the number speak for themselves. At least 165 million metric tons of carbon are not emitted each year because of this country's operating nuclear power plants. Mr. Chairman, as electricity demand grows, we cannot ignore a viable and significant source of electricity like nuclear energy, especially one that does not dirty the air. I support nuclear energy research and development, and would urge my colleagues to oppose the Foley/Markey amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for clarifying this issue for me. Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I have concerns regarding the level of funding provided for the National Institute of Standards and Technology's scientific and technical research and services account, including the Global Standards Program. As the chairman knows, the Global Standards Program is intended to provide guidance to industries and to facilitate global harmonization of standards where possible. An issue has come to my attention that involves standards for anchor bolts that are post-installed in concrete. The Transatlantic Business Dialogue has recommended that NIST facilitate a transparent standards harmonization process for these products, which are sold in Europe and the United States. Is it the gentleman's opinion that this bill provides adequate funding for this effort?

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Sanders- Boehlert-Kind amendment. This amendment purports to benefit energy efficient programs by cutting $45 million from the Department of Energy's fossil energy research activities. In reality, this amendment will cut energy efficiency research. Today, 70 percent of the electricity generated from this country comes from fossil fuels. Our Nation's demand for electricity will continue to increase with the rapid growth of our high-tech economy. Do we really want to cut funding for research that will allow us to use nonrenewable resources more efficiently? Do we really want to cut funding for research that will further reduce the impact of fossil energy on the environment? The answer is no. Funding for fossil energy research supports national laboratory and university efforts to improve the fuel efficiency and reduce the emission of fossil energy facilities. Although it does not fall under the budgetary category of energy efficiency, fossil energy research is in reality energy efficiency research relating to fossil fuels and fossil energy. The United States is already benefiting from the improved efficiency and environmental protections of fossil energy research. For example, three-quarters of America's coal fire power plants use pollution boilers developed through private sector collaboration with the Department of Energy. Future research efforts promise to reduce the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by sequestering carbon. Other research could lead to the capture and use of by-products from fossil energy generation for other commercial purposes. Scientists are attempting to construct better filters that can screen out pollutant-forming impurities from the hot gases of power plants. Let us not halt this kind of progress by cutting important fossil energy research. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Sanders-Boehlert-Kind amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Sununu-Andrews amendment to eliminate the Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle, or PNGV program. This is a shortsighted cut when residents in my State of Illinois are paying the highest gas prices in the continental U.S. The PNGV program is one of the true success stories of the Department of Energy. It has been reviewed annually by the independent National Research Council and each year it has received high marks for addressing the important national goals of improving vehicle efficiency and reducing emissions. Without this program, how do we achieve these goals? Do we abandon the successful public/private partnership and return to a costly regulatory regime? I do not think so. I believe Congress should send the right message to agencies that have performed as intended. At the same time, we should signal to industry that the government is a reliable partner in research that has national benefits. Cleaner, more efficient transportation, is the goal of the PNGV program. It is not a subsidy for the Big Three auto makers. It is an investment in American jobs, our transportation system, our environment and our national security. Let us not jeopardize our program by eliminating the PNGV program. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Sununu-Andrews amendment.

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the DeFazio amendment. This amendment purports to benefit the National Forest Service by cutting $53 million from the Department of Energy's fossil energy research activities. In reality, this amendment will cut energy efficiency research. Today, 70 percent of the electricity generated in this country comes from fossil fuels. Our nation's demand for electricity will continue to increase with the rapid growth of our high tech economy. Do we really want to cut funding for research that will allow us to use nonrenewable resources more efficiently? Do we really want to cut funding for research that will further reduce the impact of fossil energy on the environment? The answer is no. Funding for fossil energy research supports national laboratory and university efforts to improve the fuel efficiency and reduce the emissions of fossil energy facilities. Although it does not fall under the budgetary category of ``Energy Efficiency,'' fossil energy research is, in reality, ``energy efficiency'' research relating to fossil fuels and fossil energy. The United States is already benefiting from the improved efficiency and environmental protections of fossil energy research. For example, three-quarters of America's coal-fired power plants use lower-pollution boilers developed through private sector collaboration with the Department of Energy. Future research efforts promise even greater benefits. Let's not halt this kind of progress by cutting important fossil energy research. I would urge my colleagues to vote against the DeFazio amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Death Tax Elimination Act. This unfair tax has long outlived its usefulness. I come to this debate with something of a unique perspective on this issue. For more than twenty years, I practiced estate law. I have actually sat down and helped people navigate this extremely complex tax. I was not helping Bill Gates or Ross Perot--I was helping the sons and daughters of small business owners try to keep their parent's dreams alive. Unfortunately, because they have to pay a tax of 37 to 55 percent on their estate, it is often impossible for them to continue. It is simply heartbreaking to see children who want to keep their parent's business alive have to sell it just to pay the taxes. 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. The Death Tax Elimination Act will make things better. I urge all my colleagues 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, it is no secret that agriculture is of primary importance to the economy of the State of Illinois. Our more than 76,000 farms cover about 80 percent of Illinois' land and generate more than $9 billion annually for our economy. While rows of corn have turned into rows of homes in DuPage County, my home county, we have not forgotten the importance of agriculture. For the past ten years, the ``Teachers on an Agricscience Bus'' program has provided the youth of Illinois with current, up-to-date, technological information in the importance of agriculture in their everyday lives and of the vast array of career opportunities available to them in the agriculture industry. When the first ``Teachers on an Agriscience Bus'' was first sponsored by the Illinois Pork Producers Association in 1991, who could have predicted that it would be so enthusiastically received that nearly 400 teachers, school administrators, and counselors would participate? Those 400 individuals, in turn, provided an estimated 45,000 elementary through high school students with new experiences and background in the field of today's agriculture. Mr. Speaker, although Illinois' food and fiber industry employs nearly one million people, the number of farm operators has dropped from 164,000 in 1959 to 76,000 today. And most farmers in Illinois are more than 50 years old. Who will take their place? The ``Teachers on an Agriscience Bus'' program hopes to answer that question. By making suburban children aware of the numerous opportunities available to them in agriculture and by making them more aware of the field in general, the program helps ensure that our country's agriculture economy remains strong. As the ``Teachers on an Agriscience Bus'' program celebrates its tenth year in existence, we should recognize its foresight and contributions to agriculture education and we should renew our emphasis on agricultural education among our nation's educators and youth. Agriculture was and is the backbone of our country's economy. Programs such as ``Teachers on an Agriscience Bus'' will help keep it that way. And for that, we should be thankful.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague from California (Mr. Rogan) to introduce the Club Drug Antiproliferation Act of 2000, legislation to combat the recent rise in trafficking, distribution and abuse of club drugs such as Ecstasy, Liquid Ecstasy, Speed and PMA. Club drugs refer to drugs being used by young adults at all-night dance parties such as raves or trances, dance clubs and bars. Young Americans are lured into a belief that club drugs are safe ways to get high, escape reality, and enhance intimacy. The drug traffickers make their living off of perpetuating and exploiting this myth. The Office of National Drug Control Policy's year 2000 Annual Report on the National Drug Control Strategy clearly states that the use of club drugs is on the rise in the United States, particularly among teenagers and young professionals. Data also reflects the increasing availability of club drugs in metropolitan centers and suburban communities. In a speech to the Federal Law Enforcement Foundation earlier this year, the United States Customs Commissioner, Raymond Kelly, stated that in the first few months of fiscal year 2000, the Customs Service already had seized over 4 million tablets of Ecstasy, an immensely popular club drug. He estimates that the number will grow to at least 8 million tablets by the end of the year, representing a substantial increase from 500,000 tablets seized in fiscal year 1997. Do not be fooled by the innocent term ``club drugs;'' no club drug is benign. Chronic abuse of club drugs appears to produce long-term damage to the brain, and sometimes the damage caused by club drugs can do more than harm the brain. It can be deadly. Recently in my district in Illinois, a Naperville Central High School student died after ingesting a very powerful party drug called PMA. Sadly, Federal law does not take club drugs seriously enough. For example, under current Federal sentencing guidelines, one gram of Ecstasy is equivalent to only 35 grams of marijuana. In contrast, one gram of methamphetamine is equivalent to 2 kilograms of marijuana. These weak sentencing guidelines result in relatively short periods of incarceration for individuals sentenced for Ecstasy-related crimes. When the potential profitability of this drug is weighed against the potential punishment, it is easy to see what makes club drugs extremely interactive to professional smugglers. Mr. Speaker, the Club Drug Antiproliferation Act of 2000 addresses this fast-growing and disturbing problem. First, the bill addresses the base level offense for club drug-related crimes, making those crimes equal to that of trafficking methamphetamine. This provision also accomplishes the goal of effectively lowering the amount of drugs required for a swift prosecution sending a message to Federal prosecutors that club drugs are a serious threat. Second, through law enforcement and community education programs, this bill will provide for a national club drug information campaign. As more Americans are made aware of the unpredictable impurities and side effects of club drugs, it is our hope that law enforcement will begin to see a dramatic reduction in the quantities of club drugs present on our streets. Let us do what we can to save our children from the fate of that young high school student in our district. Mr. Speaker, the Club Drug Antiproliferation Act of 2000 can only help in our fight against drug abuse in the United States. I urge all of my colleagues to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) and myself in this important effort by cosponsoring this bill.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues who are wavering on China PNTR to cast a ``yes'' vote for U.S. world leadership, U.S. jobs, and the continued prosperity of the U.S. economy. The ``yes'' vote that we cast today is not a vote for China. It is a vote for the United States. It is not a vote to allow China into our market. China is already in our market. Rather, it is a vote to allow our workers, our farmers, our investors, ideals and ingenuity to compete successfully in the world market. This is not a vote to maintain the status quo. Rejecting this resolution today will not force the world economy into a fixed and stationary condition, with the U.S. as leader in its own smug, self- satisfied isolation. Denying China PNTR will not deny the Chinese access to the WTO, nor will it deny them access to European service providers, Asian technology, or Latin American grains. Denying China PNTR denies only the United States. If there is one thing we have learned in these early moments of the 21st century, it is this: The new economy allows nothing to remain static, no one to remain unaffected, and no single player to hold all the cards. So before my colleagues waver toward a ``no'' vote today, imagine for a moment the world we create by denying PNTR for China. Do not just imagine the morning after the vote when financial markets register the most immediate and negative response to our action. Imagine further into the future as European and Asian competitors lock out our workers, investors, and farmers from the largest market in the world. Imagine 5 years into the future, then 10, then 20 when the full and awful truth of our action is evident in the remains of a once great world economic power. Make no mistake, denying China PNTR denies our own future. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mrs. BIGGERT

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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 302.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, President Calvin Coolidge once said, ``The nation which forgets its defenders will be itself forgotten.'' President Coolidge's words highlight the reason we must never forget those who have sacrificed everything for the defense of this country. They are also one of the main reasons why I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 302, sponsored by our colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). This bipartisan resolution calls upon the American people this Memorial Day to join together and observe a National Moment of Remembrance to honor the men and women who died in the pursuit of freedom and peace. The resolution also asks the President to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe at 3 p.m. local time a National Moment of Remembrance for all those who fought for our country. To put it succinctly, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution is to put the ``memorial'' back in ``Memorial Day.'' It is intended to serve as a reminder that a day has been set aside for us to formally recognize and give thanks for the efforts of those who have served in uniform. Unfortunately, the meaning of this special day is slowly fading from our national conscience. In May 1996, children touring Lafayette Park here in our Nation's capital were asked about the meaning of Memorial Day. Their answer was ``That's the day the pools open.'' That exchange, which occurred right across the street from the White House, sparked the idea of a Moment of Remembrance to remind us all why we celebrate Memorial Day. This movement has been led by one of America's premier humanitarian organizations, No Greater Love. Thanks to the efforts of this dedicated organization, 1997 was the first day in our history that ``Taps'' was played at 3 p.m. on Memorial Day in locations throughout the country. This simple but meaningful remembrance continued in 1998 and 1999. And how appropriate that dignified ceremony is. No one can hear that solitary bugle's music without reflecting on the many fallen heroes at whose funerals it has been played over the years. These heroes were men and women who, in this century alone, saw us through two world wars, conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, and more, recently, the victory in the Persian Gulf. Their strength also led us through a Cold War and laid the groundwork for democracy and freedom to flourish worldwide. Mr. Speaker, in an article entitled ``Freedom's Worth,'' Marine Lt. Col. Jeff Douglass described an incident that he experienced while waiting for a flight in Sarajevo while serving on assignment with NATO forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I want to quote from this article to give us all a better understanding of what is behind this resolution. While waiting for the flight from Sarajevo to Vienna, I found myself in a conversation with a gentleman named Peter. Peter was departing Sarajevo after gathering research for a book he was writing. As we stood waiting for the flight, Peter pointed to my passport and said, ``Do you know what that is worth?'' I looked at him, then at my passport. ``I'm afraid I don't understand,'' I replied. He glanced at me with a puzzled look, then laughed. ``Of course,'' he said. ``Forgive me, I forgot. You Americans do not realize the blessings you have. So many in this world envy you, and you do not know what you have.'' Peter pointed to the people who filled the terminal and waited for the same flight. There in the fog of tobacco smoke and the physical evidence of damage caused by the recent war, many travelers looked sad, saying good-bye to loved ones and friends. As we watched, Peter continued his comments. ``You see, freedom is what these people cherish. It is such a dream for many. Here, as in the case for many countries, families are willing to send their young away to freedom, in spite of the pain. You Americans are a lighthouse beacon for freedom and I wonder if you realize this.'' Mr. Speaker, this resolution invites all Americans to keep in mind how blessed we are to live in this land of the free. But more important, by encouraging all of us to take one minute this Memorial Day to remember the thousands of young men and women who have given their lives to defend this Nation, it will give us a better understanding of the high price of the liberties we enjoy. And our children will learn that there is much more, much more to Memorial Day than a day at the beach or the pool. They will also better understand the meaning of these words President Lincoln penned to Mrs. Bixby upon learning of the death of her five sons who died on Civil War battlefields. I feel how weak and fruitless must be my word of mine which should attempt to beguile from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to serve. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to offer this legislation for consideration, and I encourage all my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for introducing this resolution. And I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform; the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman); and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking members, respectively, of the Government Reform Committee and the Subcommittee on Civil Service, for expediting passage of this resolution. I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for bringing this to the floor as well and for her strong support of it. To close, Mr. Speaker, let me quote from a poem that captures perhaps more than any other, those emotions and realities that are symbolized by Memorial Day. This poem entitled ``In Flanders Fields'' serves as a lasting legacy to the terrible battles of World War I and to all the servicemen and women who have dedicated themselves to defending the freedoms we enjoy today. ``In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie, In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.

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

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 302) calling on the people of the United States to observe a National Moment of Remembrance to honor the men and women of the United States who died in the pursuit of freedom and peace.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment. Congress must act as soon as possible to provide compensation and health care for the forgotten soldiers of the Cold War--those who constructed America's nuclear weapons. More than 50 years ago, hundreds of Manhattan Project staff inhaled tiny particles of beryllium while helping develop the atomic bomb at a University of Chicago lab. That lab later became Argonne National Laboratory, a national energy laboratory operated for the Department of Energy by the University of Chicago, and located in the district I represent. The Department of Energy estimates that as many as 2,300 people in Illinois were exposed to beryllium during the two decades ending in 1963 when the toxic metal was used in the atomic program at Argonne. Inhalation of beryllium dust causes Chronic Beryllium Disease (CBD)--a chronic, often disabling and sometimes fatal lung condition. It also causes beryllium sensitization, wherein a worker's immune system becomes allergic to the presence of beryllium in the body. People who work at Argonne and other national labs are technically employed by the contractors hired to run the labs, so they don't qualify for federal employee health benefits. Meanwhile, state workers compensation laws often fail to provide benefits for occupational illnesses, which--in the case of nuclear weapons workers--can develop years after exposure to beryllium, radiation, or hazardous chemicals and long after a worker's eligibility for compensation has lapsed. Beryllium dust, for example, can cause Chronic Beryllium Disease up to forty years after exposure. Mr. Chairman, compensating these workers for the suffering endured in service to our country is the right thing to do. This issue deserves our attention, which is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.