Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest challenges working men and women face today is balancing the needs of family with demands of work schedules. This conflict may weigh most heavily on women; but all workers, regardless of gender, experience conflict between work and family, watching their child's soccer game or going through the stack of papers on their desk.

To address this problem, I introduced the Family Time Flexibility Act, legislation that would provide hourly workers the option of taking paid time and a half off in lieu of time and a half pay for hours worked overtime. This concept is a very simple one. If workers have to work overtime, they should be allowed to choose how they are compensated, with more money or paid time off.

The editorial page of the Detroit News recently weighed in on this important topic by saying: ``Having more flexible hours is among the top wishes of working parents in this country. But an archaic Federal law has become a big impediment to parents and other workers in getting their wish.''

Mr. Speaker, this ``archaic'' law, the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, has been frozen for more than 60 years, locked in a time when women worked in the home, most families had only one wage earner, and nobody went to their kids' soccer games. Times have changed. Families have changed, and the workforce has changed. Yet the law has not changed. We know that workers in Federal, State, and local governments are permitted to choose time and a half off for working overtime hours and thus enjoy a great deal more flexibility than their private sector counterparts. Federal workers use it and like it. Police officers use it and like it. Park district workers use it and like it. In fact, one employee back in my district in suburban Chicago told me that he banks plenty of overtime hours plowing the snow during the long winter months and that allows him to take a longer vacation or spend more time with his family later during the few months when the weather is actually nice in Chicago.

For some employees, time can be more valuable than money, particularly if they have been putting in a lot of overtime hours. Their spouses begin to wonder if they are married to their job. Their children begin to forget what they look like. Their paychecks are growing, but they really would rather have just a little more time and a little more money. Most workers just want the freedom to make that choice for themselves, and many employers would like to offer them that choice. That is what this bill does. It gives employees choice and flexibility, and it gives employers another option to offer those employees who want it.

That is what the bill does. Here is what the bill does not do: this bill in no way affects the sanctity, the primacy, or the inviolability of the 40-hour work week. Let me repeat. The 40-hour work week is the law. Under this bill, an employee would earn overtime in the very same way that he or she currently does, by working more than 40 hours in a 7-day period. The bill does not alter the way that overtime is calculated. What this bill does not do is require employees to take compensatory time or require employers to offer it. In fact, this bill contains numerous safeguards to protect the employee and to ensure that the choice and selection of compensatory time is truly voluntary on the part of the employee.

This bill does not give employers all the choices. Where necessary, there are effective sanctions under the bill and the Fair Labor Standards Act for employers who violate the employee protections and other provisions of this

legislation. For example, the bill expressly prohibits an employer from directly or indirectly intimidating; threatening; coercing, or attempting to coerce, any employee for the purposes of interfering with an employee's right to take or not to take comp time or to use accrued comp time. The bill creates a new remedy under the Fair Labor Standards Act for employers who violate the anticoercion language just described.

Let me note that this bill is not mandatory for anyone. The employer need not opt to offer family time, and the employee need not opt to take family time. It is all about choices. The employer chooses whether to offer the option, and the employee chooses whether to use the option; and if an employee changes his or her mind, he or she can at any time choose to cash out, and the employer must make the payout within 30 days.

H.R. 1119 is a comprehensive, balanced bill that gives more choices for employees and more opportunities for employers to keep their employees happy. This bill is not a mandate on employers or employees. It simply gives both parties the opportunity to agree to these arrangements, an opportunity which is now denied to them by law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Family Time Flexibility Act.

Mr. Speaker, Hollywood may have the script for its next sports movie classic. Think Hoosiers, the true story of how a small town high school basketball team became Indiana State Champions. Think David slays Goliath with little more than a wicked set, spike and serve. Think NCAA history. Just think about it.

No Division II team in NCAA collegiate history has ever won a team championship. In a sport dominated by California and other sun-soaked States, no men's volleyball team from a Midwest university has ever won a national title in the sport. No Chicago area university has won an NCAA national title in 40 years. That is, until now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Lewis University Flyers, 2003 NCAA Men's Volleyball Champions, from Romeoville, Illinois, in my congressional district. Under the leadership of head coach David Deuser and assistant coach Ryan McNeil, Lewis University defeated second- ranked Brigham Young University in five breathtaking sets, in front of a national television audience and a sellout crowd.

Brigham Young has almost eight times the student body population of Lewis, not that they needed the extra motivation. Almost as impressive, the Flyers upset top-ranked and perennial powerhouse Pepperdine University in the semifinals to reach the title game.

Who are the Flyers? They are Enrique Escalante, Jose Castellano, Alex Karjavine, Weyni Johnson, Jeff Soler, Matt Miller, Ryan Stuntz, Fabiano Barreto, Gustavo Meyer, Kevin Miller, Brandon Sisk, Marco Quintana, Greg Pochopien, James Elsea and Jose Martins and student manager John Sullivan.

Mr. Speaker, all of Illinois, and especially the city of Romeoville, is proud of the team's accomplishments. In fact, alumni, educators and friends from across the country have called to personally congratulate the team and the university. These are exciting times in Romeoville.

There are two other things about these athletes that are not making the headlines and should. One, the team is a diverse group of student athletes. Four of them have received awards this year for outstanding academic achievement. Mr. Speaker, no matter the age, we all know how important it is for our student athletes to balance the books with time spent on the court.

Second, the Flyers have played the David versus Goliath role twice before. They reached the national semifinals twice in 1996 and 1998, losing both times to UCLA.

What, my colleagues might ask, was the big difference this year? As my friend and president of Lewis University, Brother James Gaffney, said recently, ``This year, David was well-armed.'' Even Brigham Young coach Tom Peterson graciously said, ``Give Lewis all of the credit. They are a great team.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, as on original cosponsor of H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, I rise today to express my strong support for this bill. I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the Committee on Science; and my committee colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), for developing such a comprehensive and forward-looking piece of legislation.

Unlike so many other complex scientific concepts, nanotechnology is actually something we all should be able to grasp. Most Americans learn in grade school and high school that atoms are the building blocks of nature. In the years since I was in school, incredible machines have allowed us even to see every one of those items. The challenge now is to develop the tools, the equipment and expertise to manipulate those atoms and build new materials and new machines one molecule at a time.

This bill takes up that challenge, ensuring coordination and collaboration among the many Federal agencies engaged in nanotech research. Unlike other research efforts, some of which are undertaken for the sake of science and our understanding of it, the broad and practical application of nanotechnology and its benefits can be described in laymen's terms. Here are just a few benefits:

Sensing the presence of unwanted pathogens in blood; improving the efficiency of electricity distribution; dispensing medication; cleaning polluted soil and water; or building the next

generation of spacecraft one molecule at a time.

I do not think I am being overly optimistic. Just consider how far we have come since the creation of the first microchip. Sixty percent of Americans now own a personal computer or a laptop, and 90 percent of them use the Internet. The public, private and nonprofit sectors invested in research that reduces the size of the microchip while increasing its speed exponentially. This investment was made because the applications were many and the possibilities endless. After all, microchips are now found in cars, pacemakers, watches, sewing machines, and just about every household appliance.

With all its potential applications, nanotechnology could have an equal, if not greater, impact than the microchip on our lives, our wealth, our health and safety, our environment and our security at home and abroad. All levels of government, academia, and industry recognize the potential of nanotechnology, as well as the benefits of collaborating to realize that potential. Nanotechnology could very well be the catalyst for national competitiveness for the next 50 years. In countless ways, our lives will be better as a result of coordinated investment in nanoscience research and development.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 766, the Nano- technology Research and Development Act.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Bell amendment to H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science and someone who is very passionate about energy research, I certainly am one who would be inclined to elevate energy applications above all other applications in just about any research area, including nanotechnology research.

However, the purpose of this bill is to ensure coordination and collaboration of nanotechnology research by all Federal science agencies, including the Department of Energy. I believe that this bill in its current form already includes the kind of research the Bell amendment is attempting to advocate or emphasize. It does so by authorizing a significant amount of funding for research at the Department of Energy, the Federal agency with the central mission and responsibility to encourage the development of clean, inexpensive energy.

As a result, the bill will revolutionize energy production and use. Key enabling technologies such as catalysts, membranes, and filters all operate at the nanoscale. A better understanding of the nanoscale and the development of nanotechnologies will enable dramatic cost reductions in hydrogen production, carbon sequestration, and a host of other energy applications.

I do not think that specifying research development in the statute adds anything new and will only tie the administration's hands and the Federal agencies' hands. I urge my colleagues to support the bill as reported by the committee and oppose the Bell amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for all of his work on this necessary initiative. I also applaud the bipartisan manner in which he and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), have completed this difficult task.

In addition, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) should be commended for the groundwork that they laid with their previous efforts in creating a World Bank/AIDS Trust Fund.

This amendment does two things: First, it states that the World Bank, or the IBID, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, is the trustee for contributions made by sovereign nations. This makes the underlying bill consistent with both the charter of the Global Fund and with legislation previously passed and signed into law concerning the global fight against HIV/AIDS. This amendment in no way restricts the movement of the trustee role to any other financial institution if the board of the Global Fund deems it necessary some time down the road.

Second, it expresses the sense of Congress that we wish to encourage individuals and private entities to make contributions to the Global Fund. The President, in his State of the Union address, specifically requested that $1 billion of emergency relief for AIDS go towards the Global AIDS Fund over a 5-year period. The Hyde bill has authorized $1 billion in the first year alone and more money to be authorized in subsequent years, if necessary.

While we all agree that government contributions on a multilateral level should be the main source of funding for the Global Fund, we also must agree that individual and private entity donations should not be discounted, discouraged, or dismissed. They should be encouraged. Governments alone cannot concur this enemy. There is so much more that individual citizens and charitable foundations can and will do if we give them the avenue, the information and the opportunity.

To illustrate my point, we are all aware of the $100 million contribution made by two very well known and generous Americans from the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation. This single contribution from an American-based foundation is roughly half the amount that was pledged by the governments of Italy and Japan combined to this Global Fund.

The amendment seeks to encourage and enable other foundations and generous individuals, even those who might be thinking more in the neighborhood of a $10 or $100 contribution to contribute to the Global AIDS Fund to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic. These funds promote expansion of public-private partnerships.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support of this amendment. I urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of both this amendment and the underlying bill.

We all agree that we need to fully fund IDEA. This legislation will get us there sooner than ever before. We will be at 21 percent, over half of our promise, by 2004. We will reach full funding in 7 years.

But this bill contains more than financial matters. It makes it easier for parents and schools to meet to discuss the needs of a student. It frees teachers and administrators from a mountain of required paperwork that takes time away from their students.

Some parents have expressed concern over the 3-year Individualized Education Plan, or IEP. They are afraid that it may undermine their children's rights. I want to reassure them that this is simply an option. The parents must agree to a 3-year plan. Just like under current law, they can request a new IEP at any time.

Every single one of the due process rights parents have is continued under H.R. 1350. This bill will make special education work for all students.

Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy of the House Committee on Science, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003 and, in particular, those provisions that originated in the Committee on Science.

I want to start by commending the chairman of the Committee on Science, my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall); and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), as well as the members of the Committee on Science from both sides of the aisle for all of their hard work on this bill.

I would also like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for his efforts to resolve a number of overlapping jurisdictional issues in a way that confirms our two committees' responsibilities and advances important energy issues in the bill.

The resolution of these issues is reflected in an exchange of letters between the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), and I ask that these letters be inserted in the Record at this time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Science,

Washington, DC, April 7, 2003.

Hon. William J. Tauzin,

Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter is intended to put in

writing the understandings about jurisdiction that informed

our negotiations over the structure and content of H.R. 6,

the Energy Policy Act of 2003.

It was agreed that the structure of H.R. 6 has no bearing

on future decisions on jurisdiction and that neither our

Committee nor yours waived any jurisdictional claim as part

of the drafting of H.R. 6. No agreements concerning either

the language of H.R. 6 or the placement of any language

should be construed as a waiver of either Committee's

jurisdictional claims under Rule X or the precedents of the

House.

Moreover, our two Committees agreed that both Committees

have jurisdiction over the Division of H.R. 6 pertaining to

the Hydrogen Initiative and FreedomCAR.

I look forward to continuing to work with you as H.R. 6

moves through the legislative process.

Sincerely,

Sherwood L. Boehlert,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a distinguished member of the Committee on Science.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), a member of the Committee on Science.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 127, recognizing April as ``Financial Literacy for Youth Month''. I am pleased to join my friend and colleague from California, Mr. Dreier, in raising awareness of the need for our youth to learn financial management skills at an early age. If our schools don't teach the ABC's of financial literacy, it doesn't take an accountant to understand that our children are more likely to fall into debt and behind in life.

The financial world has dramatically changed over the last 20 years. The passage of complex laws, like Gramm-Leach-Bliley, has created a whole new world of integrated financial service products and possibilities. While we certainly don't expect children to understand the ins-and-outs of deregulation, some of the effects of this new and modern system are slowly starting to surface and will impact them later on in life.

Mr. Speaker, with all these new choices there is a new responsibility on our part to educate our youth. Why? Because teaching them about personal finance is the best way to prepare them for a financially rewarding adulthood as contributing members of society.

They need to know how to manage money, credit, and debt, and become responsible workers, heads of households, investors, entrepreneurs, business leaders, and citizens. It is through financial education that these young consumers will learn to capitalize on the choices and flexibility that this new world has created.

The most effective time to impact basic financial and economic knowledge is during students' formative years, through the K-12 education system. In passing H. Res. 127 it is my hope that public officials and educators will focus on this critical learning area. While the landmark ``No Child Left Behind Act'' focused on mathematics and reading education, policymakers and local educators can use this as an opportunity to integrate economics and personal finance into these and other subject matters.

A survey that will be released later this month by the National Council on Economic Education (NCEE) illustrates accomplishments and challenges in the areas of economics and personal finance education. NCEE's ``Survey of the States'' found that 48 states in 2002 and the District of Columbia had economic education standards in place, up from 38 states in NCEE's first ``Survey'' in 1998. Testing for economics increased from 25 states in 1998 to 27 states in 2002.

However, in the area of personal finance, less progress has been evident. While 40 states had set standards for personal finance education in 2000, only 31 states renewed such standards in 2002. Of those 31 states, only 14 require the standards to be implemented.

Make no mistake--personal finance is the key to helping our youth avoid the pitfalls of foreclosure, predatory lending and credit counseling as adults.

Mr. Speaker, the President's sweeping education reform bill that we passed in the last Congress addresses many of the academic skills that our youth need to succeed. We cannot forget about the need to teach our youth more than purely academic skills. We mustn't forget life skills. We must help them learn to manage their personal finances.

It is our duty to help them succeed in today's increasingly sophisticated world of finance.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that amends our Nation's security laws in order to end discrimination against church pension programs.

One thing most Americans understand is the importance of saving money to ensure financial security after they retire. Just as important, they understand that investing in an employer-sponsored pension plan is a great way to help achieve this goal. America's clergy are no less interested in their retirement. In fact, for thousands of dedicated men and women of our clergy, pension plans are just as important, if not more so, as they are to members of the laity.

Yet for far too long, Congress has unintentionally failed to update church pension laws making it more difficult for clergy and other church employees to maximize their retirement savings.

Madam Speaker, one arcane, yet important, provision of our security laws allows corporate and other secular pension plans to band together into what are called collective trusts. These trusts allow pension plans to pool their assets for investment purposes in various stock and nonstock interests. For example, some collective trusts invest in real estate or private investment opportunities. They represent a way for pension plans to diversify their investments and to share the risks and transaction costs with other pension plans.

Collective trusts are not the problem. The problem is current law prohibits the Christian Brothers Church in Romeoville, Illinois, along with thousands of other church pension plans across the country, from participating in collective trusts. As a result, church pension plans cannot pool their assets and reap the benefits of collecting buying power. My bill is intended to correct this inequity.

There are three other points that are important for me to make: first, the SEC requires that collective trusts have sole management and control over the assets that are invested; second, nothing in this legislation is intended to alter the traditional SEC interpretation that the financial institution is responsible for exercising hands-on control over the collective trust; and, third, this measure does not in any way effect Tax Code provisions governing the treatment of pension plans, including the requirement that a church plan must be maintained by a church or eligible church-affiliated organization.

My bill allows church plan assets to be included in collective trust funds that also include assets of private employee and governmental plans.

Madam Speaker, there is no sound policy reason for our security laws to exclude church plan participation in specifically tailored pension plan investments. The Church Pension Plan Fairness Act is a reasonable, measured, and fair response to many of the concerns raised by clergy and other church employees around the country.

I want to thank my distinguished colleague and friend from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for his strong support in co-sponsorship of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill. Our clergy deserves no less than the millions of other working men and women of America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) in strong support of a resolution recognizing the goals and ideals of Runaway Youth Prevention Month, which is being sponsored by the National Network For Youth and the National Runaway Switchboard.

Within the last year, a number of highly publicized child abductions focused the attention of Americans on the plight of exploited and abducted children and the pain and agony suffered by the families left behind. Recognizing the serious threat that faces our children every day as they travel to and from school and play with friends in parks and neighborhoods, President Bush, in October of last year, convened a conference on missing, exploited, and runaway children. Again, the main focus was on abducted and exploited children, and rightly so. One child abduction is one too many.

But let us put the problem of child abductions into perspective. Five times as many children run away as are abducted in this country, and one runaway child is also one too many. There are approximately 1.3 million young Americans on the street every day as a result of running away and/or homelessness. One in seven children between the ages of 10 and 18 will run away. Some will return within a few days, while others will remain on the streets and never return. And each year, assault, illness, or suicide will take the lives of 5,000 runaway youth. That is 5,000 too many.

There are many reasons why children run away from home. Some are expelled from their homes by their families or separated from their parents because of death or divorce. As much as violence is involved in the abduction of a child, so too does physical, sexual, and emotional abuse at home often cause a child to run away. Having run away, these youth are now homeless, too poor to secure their own basic needs and often ineligible or unable to access medical or mental health resources.

Many runaway youth also have difficulty obtaining an education because they are homeless. Being a runaway or being without a home should not mean being without an education. Yet that is what homelessness means for far too many of our poor and runaway children and youth today.

Congress recognized the importance of educating homeless and runaway youth when it enacted in 1987 the McKinney Education program. But despite the progress made over the past decade, we know that homeless children continue to miss out on what is often the only source of stability and promise in their lives: school attendance.

That is why in the 107th Congress I introduced the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Act, which was included in the No Child Left Behind Act that became law at the beginning of 2002.

By incorporating the innovative provisions contained in the legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act strengthened the McKinney program, ensuring that homeless or runaway children are immediately enrolled in school when they desire an education. That means no red tape, no waiting for paperwork, and no bureaucratic delays. A school liaison helps runaway or homeless youth make certain decisions about their education and, upon enrollment, ensures that they have access to the special assistance and services available to runaway and homeless youth.

This is only one small way in which more is being done to help children who are runaways or who are homeless. There are many others, individuals and organizations, who are doing whatever they can to assist America's runaway youth by providing food, shelter, clothing, and counseling. Others are working with families to prevent a child from running away in the first place, and still others are intervening and advocating on behalf of children and giving them options other than running away.

One such organization is the National Runaway Switchboard, which provides crisis intervention and referrals to reconnect runaway youth with their families and to link young people to local resources that provide positive alternatives to running. I am compelled to call to the attention of my colleagues, just as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) did, this important resource because it originated in Chicago.

Founded by a group of Chicago agencies, the National Runaway Switchboard was established in 1971 to provide comprehensive crisis intervention services for young people in the Chicago area. It was conceived as a centralized organization with free, 24-hour services, expertise in all youth-related issues, and as an information clearinghouse.

In 1974, it became a national resource and now is the federally designated national communication system for runaway and homeless youth. The Switchboard is still available 24 hours a day and fields more than 100,000 calls each year from the Nation's runaway and homeless youth; and through a partnership with Greyhound, the National Runaway Switchboard reunited approximately 1,000 families each year.

The National Runaway Switchboard, the National Network for Youth, an organization that my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), will highlight, I am sure, have designated November as National Runaway Prevention Month. The purpose of this month is to call attention to the problem, its causes and impacts, and all of those organizations and services that exist to help both runaways and their families.

I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) for introducing this resolution. It has been an honor and a privilege to work with him in the last Congress, and now in this Congress, to bring this issue to the forefront. It is fitting for Congress to endorse the goals and ideals of National Runaway Prevention Month and to highlight those organizations that work so hard to help the youth of America who have left or who are seriously considering leaving their homes for a dangerous and uncertain life on the street.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act.

Frivolous malpractice lawsuits are spiraling out of control. Too many doctors are settling cases even though they have not committed a medical error. And good doctors are ordering excessive tests, procedures and treatments out of fear.

Those were the primary issues a panel of experts highlighted at a medical malpractice forum I hosted last summer in my congressional district.

At this forum, the doctors, hospital administrators, and other medical personnel that deal with these issues on a daily basis said these cracks in our medical system are driving physicians and hospitals out of business. They simply cannot afford the exorbitant malpractice insurance rates that result from these frivolous lawsuits. As a result, they are forced to close their doors, limiting patients' access to care.

Even if doctors can afford to stay in business, they cannot make decisions based solely on their patient's best interest. With the threat of malpractice suits constantly hanging over their heads, they must act in ways to protect themselves from being sued.

Take for example, the case of a five-year-old boy in my district who was hit by a car and sustained a broken leg, along with a minor skull fracture. Usually, in these sorts of cases, a neurosurgeon would monitor the patient, to make sure his brain injury remained stable. Because of malpractice concerns and excessive insurance premiums, no neurosurgeons at that hospital or in the area could afford to treat patients under the age of 18. In Illinois, a staggering 85 percent of neurosurgeons are sued for malpractice at least once in their careers.

Without a neurosurgeon to follow the patient, the child had to be transferred to another hospital and undergo an ambulance ride with a broken leg. Once he reached the other hospital, there was no pediatric neurosurgeon available, so the orthodpedic trauma surgeon had the child placed in traction. This involved inserting a pin into the patient's leg just above his knee to hang the weights that pulled on the leg, and keeping him in traction for a few weeks.

After two days, his parents wanted their child to be transferred back to the original hospital closer to home. This meant that the child had to endure another ambulance ride in vulnerable condition.

My point here is not that frivolous lawsuits hurt doctors; it's that they end up hurting patients--in this case, a five-year-old.

Are some malpractice lawsuits necessary? Absolutely. Patients must have access to justice and restitution. But it is wrong when trial lawyers can exploit the system through frivolous or unlimited suits. And it is wrong to jeopardize patients' access to healthcare.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has twice before had the opportunity to fix the malpractice system and I have supported these attempts. The good news is that we have another chance today to take a big step toward preserving the long-term viability of the medical system in Illinois and around the country.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5. It is time for Congress to enact common sense liability reforms that safeguard patients' access to care.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Redhawks, the Naperville Central High School women's basketball team, who this weekend brought home the Illinois Class AA State championship.

Under the leadership of Head Coach Andy Nussbaum, the Redhawks on Saturday tipped Chicago Fenwick in overtime, 63-59, to capture the school's first State title and the number seven ranking in the latest national rankings as compiled by USA Today.

Who are the Redhawks? They are Rachel Crissy, Seanna O'Malley, Lauren Grochowski, Megan McNaughton, Brittany Utrata, Liz Lawdensky, Tiffany Hudson, Courtney Peters, Erica Carter,

Denise Hill, Candace Parker, Megan Martin, Meredith Daniels, Christina Sahly, Molly Glanz, and Tara Hester.

Mr. Speaker, all of Illinois, and especially the city of Naperville, are proud of the girls' accomplishments, none of which is more impressive than posting an unblemished 35-0 record. This was the first perfect season for a Class AA women's championship team since 1998.

As many people in Illinois and across the Nation know, not so long ago the women Redhawks would not have had the chance to even lace up their sneakers. Thanks to the passage of title IX in 1972, young women and girls throughout America have come to benefit from the opportunities enjoyed for so long by young men and boys in America. It 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.

Congratulations, Redhawks; and let me say, look out Redhawks opponents in 2004. Coach Nussbaum returns four starters, including the top junior player in the Nation, Candace Parker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Father Gavin Quinn, the 2003 Citizen of the Year for Darien, Illinois.

The City of Darien lies within Illinois' 13th Congressional District. Because of residents like Father Quinn, Darien easily lives up to its motto--``a nice place to live.''

If you happen to find yourself in Darien, there is a good chance that you will hear Father Quinn's name mentioned, not only by members of his church community, but also among the many other residents of Darien. He seeks out anyone who can use a helping hand or a friend. He is especially valued for his work with teenagers, single parents and the sick and dying. Regularly visiting hospitals, he works to lift the human spirit or offer a willing ear.

Father Gavin is best described by one of his fellow citizens, who said: ``He is an extraordinary man who knows how to identify people in need and find a way of ministering to them. Father Gavin is a very compassionate man who reaches out to people of all faiths and in all walks of life. In short, I can think of no one who has made Darien a better place to live than Father Gavin Quinn.''

I could not agree more. Father Quinn is the kind of person who transforms a city into a community. Congratulations to Father Gavin Quinn, Darien's 2003 Citizen of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce The Family Time Flexibility Act, which allows employers to offer American workers the option of voluntarily taking compensatory time off in lieu of receiving overtime pay. I am pleased that 67 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, enacted during the depression, was designed for a very different workforce with very different needs.

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 weighs most heavily on women, all workers--regardless of gender--experience conflict between work and family, between watching their child's baseball game or going through that stack of papers on their desk.

The Family Time 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 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 compensatory time or overtime. This bill does not relieve employers of any obligation to pay overtime.

As a matter of fact, my bill contains explicit penalties if an employer ``directly or indirectly intimidates, threatens or coerces'' an employee into taking comp time in lieu of overtime, and the penalties are more severe than under current law. Employers who engage in such behavior will be liable for double damages plus attorney's fees and costs. In addition, the other remedies included under the FLSA-- including civil and criminal penalties and injunctive relief--still will apply. The employee may respond through a private right of action, or the Labor Department may sue on behalf of the employee. I also want to stress that this bill in no way affects or changes the standard 40- hour workweek.

Here's how the bill works. If the employer and the employee agree--or in union shops, the union and the employer agree through their collective bargaining agreement--to allow the employee to start accruing overtime hours as compensatory or family time, the employee may bank overtime hours and use them at a later time as 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 protect employees. Let me reiterate that employers are explicitly prohibited, under threat of civil and criminal penalties, from attempting to directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce any employee to take comp- time instead of cash pay as pay for overtime.

In addition, employers must obtain prior written approval from each employee who chooses comp-time in lieu of cash pay for overtime. And employees can withdraw their request to receive comp-time and go back to receiving cash pay at any time.

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. 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 any time, 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--it makes 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 Family Time 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 ``family time'' bill that will be good for workers, businesses, the economy, and America's families.

In closing, 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.

I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Family Time Flexibility Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 254) to authorize the President of the United States to agree to certain amendments to the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States concerning the establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 254, a bill that makes critical changes to the operation of the North American Development Bank. I would like to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his hard work on this piece of legislation and for building broad bipartisan support for the bill.

H.R. 254 was approved by voice vote in the Committee on Financial Services and is identical to legislation approved by the body in the 107th Congress. This bill is supported by the administration and is part of the President's priorities to improve conditions along our border with Mexico.

The NADBank was created through the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA Accord, of 1994 and was funded equally by the United States and Mexico. The purpose of the NADBank is to respond to concerns that the increase in commerce along the border region would result in a rise in pollution.

This is a commendable goal and the NADBank is well funded to reach this goal. It has over $450 million in paid-in capital and a total lending capacity of $2.7 billion; yet over the past several years, the NADBank has only approved the disbursement of $59 million in funds.

The changes we make today in the NADBank will allow this institution to fulfill its mission of financing environmental infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border without resulting in any additional cost to the American taxpayer.

H.R. 254 will allow the NADBank to make below-market-rate loans for qualified projects. This is an important change and will permit this institution to truly assist this region by offering its products to the largest number of qualified environmental infrastructure projects.

In addition, H.R. 254 extends the area of operation to 300 kilometers from the border into Mexico. This expansion of the operating area will allow the NADBank to approve more worthy projects.

This bill also contains several important senses of the Congress which were crafted with the input of Members from several border States affected by the NADBank. This section calls for the NADBank to play close attention to water conservation, coastal pollution and air pollution projects. Finally, H.R. 254 will require the Treasury Department to report to Congress annually on the operations of the bank.

This bill will go a long way to help build upon the close relationship between the U.S. and Mexico and will improve the environmental conditions along the border.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, February 26, 2003.

Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 254--North American

Development Bank and Border Environment Cooperation Commission

Authorization

The Administration strongly supports passage of H.R. 254,

which authorizes key reforms of the North American

Development Bank (NADB) and the Border Environment

Cooperation Commission (BECC). Since taking office, President

Bush has worked closely with Mexico's President Fox to make

these institutions more effective in addressing the critical

environmental needs of the communities of the U.S.-Mexico

border region and, thus, improve the quality of life for the

region's 12 million residents. To achieve these goals, the

two Presidents agreed on a package of NADB/BECC reforms in

March 2002.

H.R. 254 will enable the United States to move forward to

implement two of the most important NADB/BECC reforms. The

bill would allow the NADB to make its financing more

affordable by allowing it to make grants and non-market rate

loans out if its paid-in capital. H.R. 254 also would

authorize the geographic expansion of NADB/BECC activity in

Mexico, which would allow the institutions to address

important environmental issues that may affect communities on

both sides of the border, but whose origin may lie outside

their currently defined region of operation.

Passage of H.R. 254 will demonstrate the United States'

strong bilateral cooperation with Mexico and commitment to

environmental protection, and would strengthen the ability of

the NADB and the BECC to perform their important

environmental mission. The Administration urges its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the sponsor of this legislation.

(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains for the majority and the party in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), another member of the Committee on Financial Services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today of H.R. 258.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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