Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, May is Older Americans Month, a time for Americans to celebrate the many contributions our seniors have made to this country. It is also a time to reflect upon the changing look of our society and to advance policies that meet the needs of this and future generations of older Americans. By the year 2030, the number of older Americans is expected to be more than double, to 70 million, representing one-fifth of our total population. As the number of elderly Americans increases, the need for long-term home or institutional care will become even more pressing. Are we now prepared to meet this future need? The sad fact is that neither the public nor the private sectors have adequately planned to meet this demand. In most cases, they are not aware that Medicaid requires divesting of assets and they do not understand that Medicare provides only minimal long-term care coverage. As for private insurance, it currently finances only an estimated 7 percent of long- term care expenditures. Given America's ticking demographic time bomb, it is imperative that Congress address this issue now. That is why I rise today to introduce the Live Long and Prosper Act, which directly addresses what we must do now to help meet the needs of older Americans of the future. This comprehensive legislation builds upon the long-term care financing provisions created by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. To better prepare the public for long-term care expenses, first the bill provides for an above-the-line income tax deduction for the cost of long-term care insurance premiums for the taxpayer, his or her spouse and dependents. It also allows employers to provide long-term care insurance coverage as part of a cafeteria plan. Surprisingly, long-term care insurance currently is not allowed under these types of employer-employee arrangements. Third, the bill would provide a personal exemption to the more than 7 million Americans who provide long-term custodial care for a relative in their home. Together, these provisions represent a market-based solution to the ever-growing demand for long-term care services and financing. But financial incentives alone will not advance the public's understanding of the need to plan for long-term care nor will they spur public debate on what more must be done. The Live Long and Prosper Act calls for a biannual national White House summit on long-term care. The summit will bring together experts in the fields of long-term care insurance, retirement savings, care givers and others and will be cohosted by the President and congressional leaders. Its goal is to design and develop recommendations for additional research, reforms in public policy and improvements required in the field of long-term care insurance. The bill also directs the Department of Labor to create and maintain an outreach program, to include public service announcements, forums, educational materials, and long-term care Internet sites. The Department of Health and Human Services will conduct studies focusing on the future demand for long-term care services and public and private options to finance them. Finally, the bill contains several other provisions designed to improve awareness of and to strengthen the process for long-term care information delivery. Mr. Speaker, in closing, the Center for Long-term Care and Financing describes long-term care as the sleeping giant of all U.S. social problems. Demographic changes, quality of care concerns, the rising cost of nursing home care and limited public finances all cry out for action in this area and call on this body to make long-term care a top policy priority. I believe that the Live Long and Prosper Act is a comprehensive first step in what should be a bipartisan effort to address this vital issue. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the bill and join me in this effort.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Older Americans Month. For more than 35 years, the President of the United States has designated May as Older Americans Month--the month when we honor our 34 million older Americans whose contributions helped to make the 20th century the American century. This year's theme--``In the New Century . . . The Future is Aging''-- highlights the impact that those extraordinary contributions had on nearly every aspect of society for future generations of Americans. It also gives us a chance to draw attention to aging issues that policy makers will face as the ranks of older Americans swell in the coming decades. The next century is expected to be a golden age for seniors, with life expectancy increasing and predictions that older people will outnumber children for the first time in history. The least we can do is assist those who have given all they can and want to continue to live healthy, active lives. We started on the right path when we repealed the Social Security Earnings Limit. No longer will the tax code penalize those seniors who choose to stay in the workforce during their golden years. But there is more to do. For one, we can renew the Older Americans Act, which has not been reauthorized since 1995. Since that time, our nation's seniors and the programs established to serve them have faced an uncertain future. The Older Americans Act has been a special program for over 34 years. Using a small slice of the federal budget, the Act has provided hot meals, legal assistance, employment for seniors, and services for the homebound. Because these programs help our seniors to remain active, healthy, and a part of their communities, we must make the Act's reauthorization a priority. And there are other challenges to face--ensuring that Social Security will be viable for this generation and others, finding a way to furnish long-term care security, and providing a Medicare prescription drug benefit. But let's not get lost in the minutiae of policy--May is about honoring our seniors, not advancing an agenda. So, on Friday, I will travel to Darien, Illinois, in my congressional district to celebrate their Older Americans Day. We will honor those who contribute to our communities as grandparents, parents, workers, volunteers, and role models. We will honor those who are the keepers of our traditions and teachers of our values. I urge all my colleagues to follow Darien's led and to use the month of May to celebrate the great gifts older Americans bring to our lives. And let's help our older friends, parents and grandparents make their lives and our lives more rich and rewarding for many years to come.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Megan Doherty of Lemont, Illinois, for being named one of America's top ten youth volunteers by the Prudential Spirit of Community Awards. As my colleagues are no doubt aware, the Prudential Spirit of Community Awards honor outstanding volunteer community service. The award was created five years ago by Prudential to encourage youth volunteerism and to identify and reward young role models. And what a role model Megan is. Though just a junior at Mt. Assisi Academy in Lemont, she has proven that one person can make a difference. Over the past two years, Megan raised more than $56,000 to bring 29 young cancer victims of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine to Illinois for life-saving medical treatment and dental care that were not available to them in their own country. Inspired by a speech by the executive director of ``Camps for Children of Chernobyl,'' Megan first asked her parents only to be a host family for one of the sick children. However, upon learning that the children had to travel in groups of 10 or more to hold down costs, she set out to find enough host families and raise enough money to bring an entire group to Lemont. She was more than successful. In the summer of 1998, 13 cancer-stricken children traveled to Lemont, and 16 more came in 1999. Two of the children underwent major surgery and another is now in the process of being adopted by an American family. Megan isn't finished either. She plans to bring another 16 Ukrainian children to Lemont this summer. Being named as one of the top ten youth volunteers in the nation--out of more than 20,000 nominees--is a true achievement. More importantly, though, at a time when we all too often hear only of the senseless or negative acts of our nation's youth, Megan proves again the enormous capacity for goodness that our children and youth possess. It is an honor to represent this outstanding young woman in Congress and a privilege to recognize her achievements here today.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize and congratulate a true leader in fire safety and emergency preparedness with whom the people of the 13th District of Illinois have the distinct pleasure of living. Tonight, that leadership will be honored at the National Fire and Emergency Services Dinner held by the Congressional Fire Services Institute. There, Paul Boecker, Fire Chief Emeritus of the Lisle- Woodridge Fire District, will receive the Mason Lankford Fire Service Leadership Award. As my colleagues are no doubt aware, this award was established in 1998 in honor of the late Mason Lankford, who was a strong advocate of all first responders. Lankford was also instrumental in the formation of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus and the Congressional Fire Services Institutes. Paul Boecker is a worthy successor to this legacy. It's hard to know where to begin to list Paul's accomplishments. Perhaps it is simplest to say that, when he retired on July 2, 1994, he had made the Lisle-Woodridge Fire District one of the finest in the world. But that might not fully capture what he did. During his 23 years as fire chief, he took a volunteer fire department of part-time firefighters and two stations that responded to 454 calls to one that now responds annually to more than 4,800 calls with 100 full-time firefighters at five stations. In 1993, the district became the first fire protection district and one of only 15 fire departments in the nation to achieve the ISO Class 1 rating. Paul's accomplishments aren't limited to the local level. For 14 years, he served as chairman of the Emergency Management Committee of the International Association of Fire Chiefs. He is the author of the ``Common Sense Disaster Management--Think Big!'' program that is presented at numerous state fire schools. His list of awards is so long as to make a full accounting here impossible. However, anyone who has been named citizen of the year in so many different places has clearly had an impact. Beyond his own personal accomplishments, Paul was instrumental in encouraging his personnel--from firefighters to administrators to fire chaplains--to contribute to the growth of the national fire service. From his staff came ideas, encouraged by Paul, that led to the Federation of Fire Chaplains and the Illinois Fire Chiefs' Secretary Association. Paul is a man devoted to his profession, his family, and his friends. He exemplifies the spirit and dedication of the men and women in the fire service. I congratulate Paul Boecker for winning the Mason Lankford Fire Service Leadership Award. It is an honor to represent him in Congress and an honor to recognize his achievements here today.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, today I support H. Con. Res. 300, a resolution recognizing and commending our Nation's workforce for successfully preparing for the Year 2000 date change. Contrary to what some felt might happen when the clock struck midnight on January 1, 2000, planes didn't fall from the sky. Telephones retained their dial tone; water still ran from the faucets; and America's New Year celebrations were not left in the dark. The smooth turnover from 1999 into 2000 is directly related to the hundreds, even thousands, of man-hours directed by our federal agencies toward preventing and correcting potential Y2K problems. Given the disruptions that did not occur, I would say these efforts paid off handsomely. Y2K preparations paid off in other ways as well. As a result of Y2K concerns, there are now thousands more American families that own equipment needed to be adequately prepared for other types of emergencies, namely snow storms, floods and hurricanes. Government leaders on every level now have a better understanding of technology management issues, and are more aware of the importance of cooperation between local, state and federal officials. What's more, the millennium bug provided a reason to upgrade government technology systems and to inventory resources. Just being able to say some five months after Year 2000 rollover that it turned out to be a positive experience is a testament to the hard work of the federal workforce. It is also a reflection of the extensive efforts of the House Y2K Task Force and to the leadership of the sponsors of this legislation, Representatives Morella and Horn. It is a tribute to the efforts of the President's Council on the Year 2000 Conversion, and to U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) as well. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this resolution recognizing the good work of our Nation's Federal Workforce and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, for those who believe that one person cannot make a difference, I offer you the story of Trudi Temple and Market Day, the nation's first and only fundraising food cooperative, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. I am sure that many of my colleagues know about, and have even participated in, Market Day. Market Day donates a minimum of 10 percent of the purchase price of restaurant-quality food products to the school or community organization from which they were purchased. Proceeds from Market Day sales are used by schools and community organizations to fund a variety of expenditures, including computers, fine arts programs, playground equipment, assemblies, books, and field trips. How important has this been to our nation's schools? Well, in the last 25 years, Market Day has raised $250 million, benefiting more than two million school children nationwide. But before all these schools could reap the benefits of Market Day, someone first had to come up with this great idea. And what makes this so near and dear to my heart is that the story of Market Day begins in 1973 at Walker Elementary School in Clarendon Hills, Illinois--in the heart of my 13th Congressional District. Trudi Temple was asked by her daughter to bake a cake for the school's annual fundraiser. Instead of a cake, Trudi brought cases of fresh produce to school. The produce was a hit with the kids, faculty, and parents--such a hit, in fact, that it led to the school's first ``Produce Day'' the following week. Before long, ``Produce Day'' evolved into Market Day and other Chicago area schools selected the program as their primary fundraiser. Now it serves more than 6,000 schools and other community groups in 20 metropolitan areas across the United States. We all know the challenges that our schools face in educating our children--and often additional funding is needed to overcome these challenges. In these days of tight budgets and property tax caps, schools must turn to nontraditional funding sources. Thanks to Trudi Temple and Market Day, schools have at least one more way to help improve our children's educational experience. So I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Market Day on its 25th anniversary and extending a word of thanks on behalf of the millions of students Market Day has helped.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO] released reports in 1995 and 1996 outlining the deplorable conditions in many of our Nation's elementary and secondary schools. A sample GAO survey showed that America's schools are in need of an estimated $112 billion in repairs and that $11 billion alone is needed to get schools in compliance with Federal mandates requiring the elimination of hazards such as asbestos, lead in water and radon, and to improve accessibility for the disabled. The decline in the condition of our Nation's schools is not limited to a particular region. Every State has schools that are in need of repair and modernization, and my home State of Illinois is no exception. Last August, the Illinois State Board of Education released the results of its own survey, which showed that over the next 5 years, Illinois' school districts will need more than $7 billion in infrastructure work. Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of local 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 $1.1 billion in school construction bonds over a 5-year period. Just last year, Illinois Governor George H. Ryan's Illinois FIRST program increased funding for the school construction grant program by $1 billion, adding another $290 million for fiscal year 2000. 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. And in this era of budget surpluses, it would not be right for Congress to sit idly by and let schools 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 exploding need for elementary and secondary education school repair. This legislation is a slightly modified companion bill to S. 1992, which was introduced in the other chamber by my friend and colleague, Senator 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 will be used to pay the interest owed by States and localities to bondholders on new school construction bonds that are issued through the year 2003. These loans will be interest-free for the first 5 years, with low interest rates to follow. Second, 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 not 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. 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 set at the average prime lending rate for the year in which the bond is issued, but it cannot exceed 4.5 percent. Again, no payment will be owed, and no interest will accrue for 5 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 am more 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. What's more, they tell 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. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Boehlert amendment, and in opposition to H.R. 2372. I am a strong supporter of private property rights, but I believe local land-use decisions are exactly that--local. In disputes regarding local zoning rules, the Federal court should not be the court of first resort, but rather the court of last resort. Local zoning boards and planning commissions are rightfully responsible for regulating local land use, and have been for centuries. They balance the interests of property owners with community values, local circumstances, and the interests of neighboring property owners. As a former local plan commission chairman, I know that negotiation is key to finding just the right balance. But this bill eliminates any incentive for negotiation at the local level, tipping the scale against budget-strapped localities. It also removes accountability. Local zoning boards and planning commissions are accountable to locally elected officials and, ultimately, local residents. Can a Federal judge make the same claim? I don't believe so. Federal land use decisions that involve the taking of private property appropriately fall under the purview of the Federal Government and the Federal courts. In disputes regarding the Federal taking of private property, the Federal court should be the court of first resort. The Boehlert amendment recognizes this principle, and preserves bill language giving property owners expedited access to federal courts. In its current form, this bill usurps state and local authority, and threatens our system of federalism. The Boehlert amendment corrects this situation and strengthens private property rights, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, food is one of life's greatest pleasures. Food is also one of life's greatest necessities. Yet, for many, food is the enemy, and the act of eating is torture. Today it is estimated that 5 to 10 million Americans suffer from eating related diseases, including anorexia, bulimia, and binge eating disorder. As many as 50,000 of these individuals will die as a direct result of eating-related illnesses. High school girls are the most common victims of these deadly diseases, but a significant number of males also experience eating related problems. We are all aware of the medical complications that result from anorexia or bulimia: malnutrition, liver damage, gum erosion, and, as I mentioned previously, even death. However, an often-overlooked consequence of eating disorders is the negative impact they have on a child's educational advancement. Due to lapses in concentration, loss of self-esteem, depression, and engaging in self-destructive behaviors, students with eating disorders often see their school performances decline. Listen to how one young woman in my district described the destruction wreaked on her life by an eating disorder. I quote, ``I am a 16-year-old girl with anorexia. Having this disease has been the most horrible experience of my life. It completely takes control of your life. It breaks up your family, friends, and your actual thinking decisions. I have had this disorder for over a year and a half. Over that year and a half, I have slowly been killing myself.'' Despite the social and physical devastation these diseases inflict on young people, such as the girl I just mentioned, very few States or school districts have adequate programs or services to help children suffering from weight-related disorders. It is for this reason that I rise today to introduce the Eating Disorders Awareness Prevention and Education Act of 2000. This legislation is made up of three separate but interrelated sections. Together these provisions are designed to raise national awareness of the problems caused by eating disorders and to expand opportunities for parents and educators to address them at the school level. This last goal is particularly crucial, as 86 percent of all eating disorder problems start by the age of 20. It is even more important when one considers that 10 percent of all victims report the onset of their illness by the age of 10. Here is a quick summary of what the Eating Disorders Awareness Prevention and Education Act will do to combat this growing problem. First, the legislation provides States and local school districts with the option of using title VI funds, also known as the Innovative Strategies State Grant Program, to set up eating disorder prevention, awareness, and education programs. This provision is consistent with congressional efforts over the past decade to raise educational achievement and increase student performance across the board. Let us face it, a student suffering from an eating disorder is not going to perform at the highest achievement levels. This was confirmed during conversations with educators in my home State of Illinois. Over and over again, they told me about students whose grades dropped substantially or in some cases had to withdraw from school because of an eating disorder. The second major provision of this bill is to conduct a joint study by the Department of Education and the National Center for Health to report to Congress on the impact eating disorders have on educational advancement and achievement. The study will evaluate the extent to which students with eating disorders are more likely to miss school, have delayed rates of development or reduced cognitive skills. The study will also inventory the best practices of current State and local programs to educate youth about the dangers of eating disorders as well as assess the values of such programs. The third and final section of this legislation calls for the Department of Education and Health and Human Services to carry out a national eating disorder public awareness campaign. This campaign will be similar to the anti-drug campaign now run by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Mr. Speaker, eating disorders present a serious threat to health and educational advancement of our Nation's children. They must be addressed. The Eating Disorders Awareness Prevention and Education Act gives States, local school districts, and parents the tools to address this problem at its root, in schools and classrooms across the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I thank those of my colleagues who have joined me in introducing this bipartisan legislation.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Ed Tomei, the 2000 Citizen of the Year for Darien, Illinois. The city of Darien is at the heart of Illinois' 13th Congressional District. It is a central crossroads for a growing region. Incorporated in 1969, it is still a young community in comparison to many of its surrounding neighbors. Over the last 31 years a great deal of hard work and dedication has been invested to make this community what it is today. The people of Darien continue to work hard to live up to the city's understated motto--``a nice place to live.'' Well, I am happy to confirm that it is a nice place to live, and much of the credit for that goes to Darien's Citizen of the Year, Ed Tomei. Ed and his family moved to Darien in 1970 shortly after the city's incorporation. Ed soon threw himself into the work of improving and representing the community he called home. He served eight years as an alderman and four years as the Fire and Police Commissioner. He became a member of the Hinsdale South High School Booster Club as well as the Hinsdale Jaycees. Ed also took part in the West Suburban Ducks Unlimited Group, a wildlife preservation organization. Ed invested countless hours to help make the creation of the Indian Prairie Library a reality, and he has shown time and again his commitment to his community. Despite his heavy schedule, Ed continues to find the time to play Santa Claus at Christmas. Ed Tomei put his heart and soul into Darien--and his neighbors noticed. As impressive as his civic accomplishments are, it is the words that his neighbors wrote about that show the true mark of this man. One wrote, ``he has always exhibited generosity, enthusiasm, diligence and integrity of the highest order. . . After thirty years of progress it's easy to forget how much of the smooth running of the City in the early days was due to efforts `above and beyond' the call of duty such as Ed provided.'' Another said, ''[i]ntegrity, commitment and leadership are the three traits that comprise the heart of Ed Tomei's character and what make him an outstanding citizen.'' That is high praise indeed, but praise that is well deserved. It is outstanding citizens like Ed that have built the great nation that we live in today. Congratulations to Ed Tomei, Darien's 2000 Citizen of the Year. He has made Darien much more than ``a nice place to live.''

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw) and in support of the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. The Members of this body have different philosophies about the role of government. Some want an expansive, activist government. Others, like myself, believe that government should have a much more limited role. But I think everyone agrees that the Government should not discourage hard work and self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, we do just that. And nowhere is this more evident than with the so-called Social Security earnings limit. Incredibly, more than 800,000 working seniors between the ages of 65 and 69 lose part or all of their Social Security benefits simply because they choose to work in their golden years. This is wrong. No matter what the rationale for the earnings limit was during the Great Depression, this is the year 2000. We should not stand for a Tax Code that penalizes hard work and responsibility. I urge all my colleagues to support the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2366, and I commend my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), for his sponsorship of this legislation. The Small Business Liability Reform Act will help alleviate the abusive and frivolous lawsuits filed against the smallest of America's smallest businesses. I have long been a supporter, a strong supporter, of tort reform. As a State representative, I sponsored legal reforms to ensure that businesses in Illinois could operate and compete on a fair, flexible, and equal opportunity in the marketplace. I am proud to continue these efforts here in Congress. Small businesses create the bulk of our Nation's jobs. Yet a recent survey of more than 1200 small businesses found that one in three have been sued, and more than half have been threatened with a lawsuit in the last 5 years. Our small businesses are being victimized by the litigiousness of our society and they desperately need relief. Small business owners face rising costs for liability insurance, not to mention the crippling cost of defending themselves should they be named in a lawsuit. Innocent or not, defending oneself is costly. The estimated cost of a business owner's defense in the average lawsuit is $100,000. Considering that the actual salary of a typical small business owner is between $40,000 and $50,000, it is easy to see that just one frivolous lawsuit can easily put a small firm out of business. H.R. 2366 provides crucial limits on the lawsuits by capping punitive damages at $250,000, or three times noneconomic damages, for businesses only with fewer than 25 employees. I would like to see how many small mom and pop stores would ever dream of having revenues of $100,000, $200,000, $300,000 and the riches that the Members across the aisle seem to imply. It also abolishes joint liability for noneconomic damages, ensuring that small business owners are only liable for damages in proportion to their fault. H.R. 2366 embodies key legal reforms that this House has overwhelmingly supported in the past. This bill is good business and good law. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2366 to enact small business legal reform that is long overdue.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment that was just offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) concerning the Department of Energy and National Science Foundation. There is no doubt that the National Science Foundation should be commended for their fine work in making research funds, including those for information technology research. Their record of accomplishment is impressive, and certainly qualifies them for increased responsibilities. That is why I was a cosponsor of this bill that we are going to be considering later on, or voting on. While I support the bill and the increased NSF funding, I nonetheless strongly oppose that amendment because, while very generous to NSF, much of the more than $3 billion provided by this bill is newly authorized funding, yet this provides no new funding for the Department of Energy's programs, and the amendment that was considered would further erode, if not eliminate, such programs. Would we cut off funds for such research by the Department of Energy and the laboratories strictly by virtue of the agency that oversees it? It is unfortunate that neither I nor other Members of the Committee on Science were given the opportunity to discuss the IT research successes of the Department of Energy when the bill was marked up by the committee in September, but the sponsor of this amendment, my colleague on the Committee on Science, did not offer the amendment at that time. This amendment seriously jeopardizes many of the basic research collaborations, and will ensure that DOE has no role in the future of information technology research. I do not believe that this is a prudent course for us to take today, and I am sorry that I was not here to speak against that amendment. I do want to voice my displeasure with that. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Massachusetts. There is no doubt that the National Science Foundation should be commended for their fine work in managing research funds, including those for information technology research. Their record of accomplishment is impressive, and certainly qualifies them for increased responsibilities. That's why I am a cosponsor of the legislation that would give the National Science Foundation the lead in this federal I.T. research initiative, and provide almost $3 billion for the NSF's information technology research activities. While I support the bill and increased NSF funding, I nonetheless strongly oppose this amendment. The NSF's fine record of accomplishment is no excuse to cut in half the Department of Energy's information technology research programs. The two are not mutually exclusive; they are, in fact, complementary. This bill is very generous to the NSF; much of the more than $3 billion provided by this bill is newly authorized funding. Yet this bill provides no new funding for the Department of Energy's programs, and the amendment we are considering right now would further erode--if not eliminate--such programs. The DOE is engaged in significant computing research and development. DOE's research has led to important advances in the field of information technology, especially in the area of parallel computing. The DOE is also involved in the development of highly advanced computer ``technology tools'' which allow scientists to model and analyze complex scientific problems and collaborate with other researchers to meet national needs. DOE-supported computational research provides many benefits to the broader research community. In my own district, computer scientists at Argonne National Laboratory developed an extremely high performance ``computational kernel'' for use in a wide range of simulations, from petroleum reservoir modeling to understanding air flow over the surface of a wing. Two of the four 1999 Gordon Bell Awards were given to Argonne researchers for applications using this computational kernel. The Gordon Bell Award is the most prestigious award in the application of parallel processing of scientific and engineering problems. Would we cut off funding for such research strictly by virtue of the agency that oversees it? Software developed by Argonne for the reconstruction of metabolic pathways is being provided on a Website available to the community of biological researchers. The software is widely used in such applications as establishing the function of proteins, and for simulating the functional behavior of higher organisms. In awarding the developers, Genetic Engineering News called the Website one of the most useful in biological science. Again, should such work be ended strictly because another parent agency is the target of our funding largesse? It is unfortunate that neither I nor other Members of the Science Committee were given the opportunity to discuss the IT research successes of the Department of Energy when this bill was marked up by the Committee in September. But the sponsor of this amendment, my colleague on the Science Committee, did not offer his amendment at that time. This amendment seriously jeopardizes many of these basic research collaborations, and will ensure that DOE has no role in the future of information technology research. I do not believe this is the prudent course for us to take today, and I would have strongly urged my colleagues to oppose the amendment if I had been here prior to its acceptance.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will now put the question on each motion to suspend the rules on which further proceedings were postponed earlier today in the order in which the motion was entertained. Votes will be taken in the following order: House Concurrent Resolution 247, by the yeas and nays; and House Concurrent Resolution 76, by the yeas and nays. The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the electronic vote after the first such vote in this series.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government taxes work, savings, investment, risk taking, creativity, ingenuity, entrepreneurship--even death. You name it, Washington taxes it, and sometimes Washington taxes it twice or three times. So it is not all that surprising that the Federal Government taxes marriage. And today we have an opportunity to right that wrong. But let's not forget what we are and what we aren't talking about. We aren't talking about tax cuts for the rich. We are talking about tax cuts for women. The simple truth is that the marriage tax disproportionately affects women. Marriage taxes can impose a nearly 50 percent marginal tax rate on second earners, most of whom are wives and mothers. And the hardest hit by the marriage penalty are those couples who each earn between $20,000 and $30,000 a year. Ask those couples if they are rich, as they try to provide for their children's education, pay off the mortgage on their house, and juggle all of life's challenges. Despite what the other side may say, H.R. 6 gives the most benefits to these middle class families. That should be enough to get the support of all my colleagues. But the President says that his plan is the right way to give marriage penalty relief. Well, let's talk about what his plan does--it creates another inequity. His plan increases the standard deduction for two-income married couples to double that of single filers only if both couples work. If a woman decides to stay home to start a family, this deduction does not apply and her taxes are higher. This is wrong. How can we penalize anyone for staying at home to raise their children? We can't. The Republican plan ensures that all married filers receive marriage penalty relief, whether one parent stays at home with the children or if both parents go to work. H.R. 6 is the right way to give millions of Americans, including more than 69,000 in my own district, real marriage penalty relief. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6, and to support all American families.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me close by reading to my colleagues a portion of the sermon given by Phineas D. Gurley at President Lincoln's funeral at the White House. The sermon and its message are powerful. They express the essence of Abraham Lincoln's character and why we seek to honor him today with this legislation. I quote Dr. Gurley. ``Probably no man since the days of Washington was ever so deeply and firmly embedded and enshrined in the very hearts of the people as Abraham Lincoln. Nor was it a mistaken confidence and love. He deserved it well, deserved it all. He merited it by his character, by his acts, and by the whole tenor and tone and spirit of his life. He was simple and sincere, plain and honest, truthful and just, benevolent and kind. His perceptions were quick and clear, his judgments were calm and accurate, and his purposes were good and pure beyond a question. Always and everywhere he aimed and endeavored to be right and to do right.'' Let us do right by our 16th president by passing this legislation today. Again, Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for introducing the bill. I also thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, for expediting its consideration, as well as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for their strong support. I urge all Members to support H.R. 1451.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1451, the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission Act, as amended by the Senate. As my colleagues will recall, this is the second time the House has considered H.R. 1451, which creates a commission to honor the life of Abraham Lincoln. Last October, this body overwhelmingly passed this legislation by a vote of 411 to 2 and sent it to the Senate for consideration. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to manage H.R. 1451 for the second time. I congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), my good friend and colleague, for authoring this fine bill. Mr. Speaker, in 2009, America will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the birth of our 16th and perhaps greatest President, Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809, in Hardin County, Kentucky. He was the son of a Kentucky frontiersman and struggled throughout most of his younger years in both Kentucky and Illinois to earn a living and to learn. Abraham Lincoln once claimed he had been educated by ``littles,'' a little now and a little then. Yet for a man without what we would call a formal education, Abraham Lincoln embodied every character trait that we aspire to attain. It is because Abraham Lincoln possessed these traits that his name is synonymous with all that is great and good in America. His name has come to symbolize commitment, freedom, honesty, bravery and vision: freedom because it was Abraham Lincoln who led the successful effort to free all slaves in the United States; honesty because of his untarnished character and impeccable integrity, which earned him the nickname ``Honest Abe''; bravery because he fought for and eventually gave his life to advance the principles that guided our Founding Fathers, including that ``all men are created equal''; and he had the vision to preserve a ``more perfect union'' by guiding this country through its most divisive period, the Civil War. When that war was drawing to a conclusion, Lincoln sought to bind up the Nation's wounds rather than punish those who had seceded from the union. Tragically, an assassin's bullet not only took Lincoln's life, but with it killed any chance for a magnanimous peace. Let me take a moment to inform my colleagues of the changes the Senate has made to H.R. 1451. Under both the House- and Senate-passed bills, the commission will consist of 15 members, individuals who possess a substantial appreciation of Abraham Lincoln's life. However, as amended by the Senate, the individual who chairs the commission will be appointed by the members of the commission, not by the President. In addition, the Senate amendments reduce the number of commissioners appointed by the President from nine to five. The number of commission members appointed by congressional leaders is increased from six to 10, and the leaders are provided more flexibility in making those appointments. Finally, the Senate amendments provide that three, rather than six, of the President's appointments will be individuals recommended by the governors of Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky, States in which Lincoln spent most of his life. I believe these are appropriate changes and urge all Members to concur with their adoption. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to offer this legislation. I am also proud to be a cosponsor of the bill, and I encourage the support of all Members. 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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 1451.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHOOD), the author of this bill. (Mr. LaHood asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1451) to establish the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. I would like to commend my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for his dedication and commitment to the issue of the marriage tax penalty that we are discussing here tonight. Mr. Speaker, certainly the Federal Government taxes work, savings, investment, entrepreneurship, risk taking, creativity, ingenuity, even death. And you name it, Washington taxes it; and sometimes Washington taxes it twice or three times. So it should come as no surprise that the Federal Government taxes marriage. That is right: 28 million working American couples pay higher taxes simply because they are married. The Tax Code punishes working couples by pushing them into a higher tax bracket, effectively taxing the income of the second wage earner at a much higher rate than if he or she were taxed only as an individual. We are not talking about pennies, either. These families pay an average of $1,400 more in taxes. This is money that could be used to buy a family computer, improve their homes, or save for their children's education. For years, Republicans, led by my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Weller), have led the fight to eliminate the marriage penalty. A bipartisan majority of the House supports his legislation to do away with the marriage penalty. We included it in our tax relief bill last year. Unfortunately, the President vetoed that bill and the significant marriage penalty relief it provided. Now we hear from the President that he wants to provide marriage penalty relief. I think that is great, and I think we would welcome his support. So next month, when the House passes the significant marriage penalty relief for the second time in the 106th Congress, and I think it is a great idea to have that on February 14, Valentine's Day, when we pass that in the House, the President will have the opportunity to prove that his support is more than the State of the Union talk. There is no way around it. The Tax Code attacks one of society's most basic institutions, marriage. So with the President and the Congress in agreement on the need to provide marriage penalty relief, now is the time to back up our words with action and bring tax equity for working families. So, again, I commend my colleague from the district right next to mine for the work that he has done. I think it is important to note that the bill that will be before the House Committee on Ways and Means will provide even more benefits and actually improves the bill that has been before us before in that it will provide relief in a shorter time and more relief. This is an area that we have been working on for so long.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1999. The vast majority of health care providers in this country are honest. Yet all large health care programs are vulnerable to exploitation, and Medicare is no exception. Over the past few years, Medicare fraud has skyrocketed, depriving millions of seniors quality care and bilking taxpayers out of literally billions of dollars. According to the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General, in fiscal year 1998 alone, waste, fraud, abuse and other improper payments drained as much as $13 billion from the Medicare Trust Fund. How is this happening? Well, according to a June 1999 General Accounting Office examination of three states--North Carolina, Florida and my home state of Illinois--as many as 160 sham clinics, labs or medical-equipment companies have submitted fraudulent claims. For example, two doctors who submitted in excess of $690,000 in fraudulent Medicare claims listed nothing more than a Brooklyn, New York laundromat as their office location. In Florida, over $6 million in Medicare funds were sent to medical equipment companies that provided no services whatsoever; one of these companies even listed a fictitious address that turned out to be located in the middle of a runway at the Miami International Airport. Phony addresses and bogus providers add up to Medicare fraud and taxpayers being swindled out of billions of dollars. In an attempt to change this equation, I am introducing the Medicare Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1999. This legislation is designed to prevent waste, fraud and abuse by strengthening the Medicare enrollment process, expanding certain standards of participation, and reducing erroneous payments. Among other things, my bill gives additional tools to the federal law enforcement agencies that are pursuing health care swindlers. This bill is by no means a solution to Medicare fraud. But the Medicare Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1999 will make it more difficult for unscrupulous individuals to enter and take advantage of the Medicare system. It is my hope that, come the next legislative session, my colleagues will join me in making a commitment to preventing and detecting fraud and abuse.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 370 provides a fitting memorial to the career and life of Walter Payton. We remember him as an intense competitor on the field and a superb human being and citizen. He dedicated himself fully to his chosen work, and he set an example of humor and grace that we can all admire. I am proud to speak in his memory, and I join my colleagues in urging swift passage of this resolution honoring a man whose generous life among us was far too brief. I want to thank again the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) for introducing this resolution and all the gentlemen from Mississippi and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) who have spoken so eloquently about the life of Walter Payton.