Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, food is one of life's greatest pleasures. Food is also one of life's greatest necessities. Yet, for many, food is an enemy and the act of eating is torture.

An estimated 5 million to 10 million Americans suffer from eating- related diseases, including anorexia, bulimia, and binge-eating disorders. As many as 50,000 of those affected will die as a direct result of these disorders.

Young women are the most common victims of these deadly diseases, but a significant number of males also experience eating-related disorders. We are all aware of the medical complications that result from anorexia and bulimia: malnutrition, liver damage, gum erosion, and even death. However, an often-overlooked consequence of eating disorders is the negative impact they have on a child's educational achievement. Students with eating disorders often see their school performance decline due to lapses in concentration, loss of self-esteem, depression, and engaging in self-destructive behaviors.

Listen to how one young woman in our district describes the destruction done to her life by an eating disorder: ``I am a 16-year- old 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 been slowly killing myself.''

Despite the social and physical devastation that these diseases inflict on young people such as this girl, very few States or school districts have adequate programs or services to help children suffering from weight-related disorders. It is not that educators or parents do not realize the problems caused by bulimia or binge-eating or are unable to identify affected students; in many cases, they either do not know how to respond to the problem or are without the resources to help educate our youth about the dangers of eating disorders.

It is for this reason that I am introducing the Eating Disorders Awareness, Prevention and Education Act of 2003. This legislation has three parts which together are designed to raise awareness nationally 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 important as 86 percent of the affected individuals develop their eating disorders before the age 20.

Here is a quick summary of what the Eating Disorders Awareness, Prevention and Education Act will do:

First, the legislation provides States and local school districts with the option of using title V funds to set up eating disorder prevention, awareness and education programs. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, title V funds can be used for nine specific activities to improve the academic outcome of students. This legislation would make eating disorders awareness, education and prevention the tenth allowable use.

Because this legislation expands what States and school districts can do with funds they already receive, it allows us to help vulnerable students without increasing the Federal Government's involvement in local education matters or creating a new Federal program.

The second major provision of this bill ties in with the first. It requires the National Center for Education Statistics at the Department of Education and the National Center for Health Statistics at the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a joint study and 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 reduce cognitive skills. The study will also outline current State and local programs to educate youth about the dangers of eating disorders, as well as evaluate the value of such programs.

The third and final piece of this legislation calls for the Department of Education and Health and Human Services to carry out a national eating disorders public awareness campaign. This campaign will be similar to the antidrug campaign now being run by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Mr. Speaker, there is no easy solution to the problem of eating disorders. They present a serious threat to the 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 needed to address this problem at its root: in schools and classrooms across America. At the same time, it continues the principle of local control of education, makes good use of limited Federal resources, and increases educational opportunities for this group of at-risk children.

Let me close by quoting another young woman from my district struggling with an eating disorder. After describing her tragic battle with anorexia, she closed her letter by saying this: ``I really hope that you now realize how important it is to have some awareness and programs in schools about eating disorders.''

I do understand, Mr. Speaker, and hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this much needed legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4. This legislation will continue the remarkable success of welfare reform.

I still cannot get over the statistics. Nationally, welfare caseloads have dropped more than 50 percent from the all-time high of 5.1 million families in March 1994 to 2.1 million in December 2001. Back in my home county of DuPage, there were 2,333 families on assistance in 1996. Today, there are only 419.

Some may argue that caseloads are dropping because individuals have exhausted their eligibility, but the numbers show that this is not true. The most recent census figures show that employment by mothers most likely to go on welfare rose by 40 percent between 1995 and 2000.

This legislation keeps our commitment to America's kids and to America's great promise of welfare reform. And with the addition of $2 billion in extra funding for child care and development block grants, a very good bill is even better. I thank Chairman Thomas of the Committee on Ways and Means for including this funding, as well as my Republican women colleagues who have worked very hard for this.

Why is this funding such good news? More funding means more kids covered, and it means that more parents will be able to afford better quality care. More kids covered means more parents working. That is our ultimate objective, to give every American the opportunity to work and to gain the dignity and self-respect that comes with providing for your own family.

The past 6 years of welfare have shown us what works and what does not. When I meet with former welfare recipients throughout my congressional district, each and every one of them tells me that their success simply would not have been made possible without child care assistance.

This is an outstanding bill that builds upon the welfare successes of the past 6 years. Let us get it to the President's desk and into law as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague, Mrs. Maloney of New York, in introducing The Privacy Protection Clarification Act.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley was landmark legislation that for the first time permitted companies to engage in banking, insurance and securities transactions simultaneously. While considering these new freedoms for entities to operate across business lines, Congress also wanted to ensure that consumer privacy would not be placed at risk.

Title V sought to address this issue by giving regulators latitude to enforce privacy provisions among financial institutions. Unfortunately, in interpreting the language of the law, some confusion has arisen over what, specifically, those ``financial institutions'' might be.

Well, in seeking to clarify the confusion, the Federal Trade Commission concluded that ``financial institutions'' include any business that ``significantly engages in financial activities.'' What's the definition of ``significantly''? Well, it could be as little as once a year. And what's a financial activity? There are four: debt collecting, financial advisory activities, tax planning preparation and advising, and leasing real or personal property.

Okay, that's fair enough. But in writing its regulations in this way, the Federal Trade Commission appears to have unintentionally swept under its umbrella the one group of professionals that already is governed by the strictest possible confidentiality or privacy regulations.

What group is this? It's attorneys.

Attorneys already are bound by a duty of confidentiality, enforceable under the laws of all 50 states, that prevents misuse of client information and provides a higher degree of privacy than Gramm-Leach- Bliley. For example, lawyers in my home state, Illinois, are prohibited from releasing confidential information. Our code reads, ``except in certain specified circumstances, a lawyer shall not, during or after termination of the professional relationship with the client, use or reveal a confidence or secret of the client known to the lawyer unless the client consents after disclosure.''

And Illinois is no exception. All 50 states have equally restrictive language. In all 50 states, lawyers who violate these laws face disbarment and/or other penalties that are much more onerous than those for a violation of Title V under Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

Do attorneys ``significantly engage in financial activities'' as defined by the FTC? Yes, some attorneys do give tax-planning advice. Others may handle debt collection cases.

Still others may take up cases related to the other two named ``financial activities'' providing financial advice or leasing real or personal property.

Yet in order to comply with the privacy provisions under Gramm-Leach- Bliley, these attorneys now run the risk of violating the client- confidentiality restrictions placed on their profession.

Why is that? Well, under the FTC interpretation, every attorney who engages in any of the four defined ``financial activities'' for a non- corporate client must mail to that client a privacy notice--every year, for as long as he or she is in practice. And what does that privacy notice convey? Well, it informs clients that they may direct their attorney not to share their personal information with other entities-- the so-called ``opt-out'' provision of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Yet the attorney-client confidentiality relationship is, by nature, an, opt- in'' protection.

In short, for attorneys, the very act of disclosing a privacy policy can create a confidentiality violation.

This was not the intent of Congress. It was not our intent to regulate attorney-client relations. Our intent was to regulate the growing use and sale of consumers' personal information for marketing, profiling and other commercial purposes by banks, thrifts, securities firms, insurance companies, credit unions, and other bona fide financial institutions.

At the end of the day, our bill will make the intention of the Gramm- Leach-Bliley Act crystal clear. The scope of the law was not intended to include law firms and sole practicing lawyers.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for this legislation to give our Federal judges a cost-of-living adjustment. There is no question that they deserve and need this COLA and more. In 2001, the American Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association released a report detailing a fundamental problem that has escalated over the past decade, the erosion of fair and adequate compensation for the Federal judiciary. These two well-respected groups issued this report because they found that the current salaries of Federal judges have reached such levels of inadequacy that, and I quote, ``they threaten to impair the quality and independence of the third branch.''

Yes, it is true that Federal judges earn a higher salary than many Americans, but it is also true that in many cases a first-year associate at law firm earns considerably more than does a judge. I think that all of us would agree that public service has its own rewards, but those rewards do not pay the bills.

Members may wonder why it is that we must take up this legislation to authorize a COLA for Federal judges. The short answer is that we should not have to do so. But because of a provision enacted back in 1981, every year, year in and year out, Congress must authorize the COLAs of Federal judges even though those COLAs are the very same COLAs that are automatically granted to Members of Congress and senior executive branch employees. It is inefficient and it is unfair to make judges scale this additional hurdle. That is why I soon will introduce legislation that puts judges back on the same track as Congress and senior members of the executive branch, automatic COLAs, unless Congress specifically votes against it.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Let us give our judges the pay they deserve, and let us eliminate the provision that requires us to take this action each year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce three bills that address issues affecting our health care system, our workplace, and the future of science research in the United States.

Topping our agenda as we begin this first day of the 108th Congress are the serious challenges facing our Medicare system: enacting a prescription drug benefit for seniors and providing fair and adequate reimbursement for physicians, hospitals, and care facilities in my home State of Illinois and across the Nation.

So the first bill that I introduce today is one that will make it easier to provide this funding by cracking down on the waste, fraud, and abuse that drain more than $12 billion a year from the Medicare system.

The Medicare Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Act of 2003 will put an end to that theft. It will strengthen the Medicare enrollment process, expand certain standards of participation, and reduce erroneous payments. Perhaps most importantly, it gives criminal investigators at the Department of Health and Human Services the Federal law enforcement tools to help them pursue and prosecute health care swindlers.

The time to modernize Medicare is not next week, not next month or next year; the time is now. But true reform will not be achieved without first protecting Medicare from fraud and scandalous exploitation.

The second bill I introduce today, the Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act of 2003, will make a good act work even better for our Nation's workers and employers. What do I mean by that? Well, since its enactment in 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act, or FMLA, has brought peace of mind and job security during critical times to thousands of workers and their families. That is a good thing. But along with this good thing has come the bad: conflict with existing workplace policies, misinterpretations, and misapplications of the law, intrusions into the privacy of employees, and other consequences that were never anticipated or intended by Congress. While none of us would say that FMLA is broken, all of us, employees and employers alike, must recognize that it should be fixed.

How will my bill fix the unintended and unwanted consequences of