Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this motion to go to conferees and to accept the important Senate provisions which would prevent the administration from once again taking their failed economic policies out on working families. We must block the provision which would deny the overtime that may be the only thing keeping many families going.

But also of great importance to me, and to millions of Americans from our racial and ethnic minority populations are the requests we made as this bill went through the subcommittee.

First, we would ask reconsideration be given to several measures that deal specifically with minority health.

Mr. Speaker, we would ask that in light of the increasing toll of HIV/AIDS on people of color, which cry out for the need for more funding that the Conference reconsider funding the Minority HIV and AIDS Initiative at the full $610 million requested, and that the language submitted also be included. I am deeply concerned by recent CDC reports regarding the instability in its recompetiton process and the strategy to only work with HIV positive populations. I believe that the HIV/AIDS epidemic demands a comprehensive prevention effort that includes primary and secondary approaches.

I would also submit that the escalating disparities in health and death rates for people of

color that they requested for $66 million for the Office of Minority Health (OMH). OMH is the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) lead office for improving the health status of racial and ethnic minorities; $225 million for the National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities to further address minority health and health disparities and to help improve the infrastructure associated with this research; as well as a $120 million for the Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) grants initiative aimed at helping to eliminate disparities in health status experienced by ethnic minority populations in cardiovascular disease, immunizations, breast and cervical cancer screening and management, diabetes, HIV/AIDS and infant mortality also be considered.

Of equal concern and need is the request for full funding $45 million for the Health Careers Opportunity Program, (2) $45 million Minority Centers for Excellence, (3) $55 million for Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students, (4) $4 million for Faculty Loan Repayment and Faculty Fellowships and (5) $160 million for the Public Health Improvement of Centers for Disease Control. Diversity in the health professions, including increasing the proportion of under represented U.S. racial and ethnic minorities among health professionals is a requirement to ensure competent service in our diverse Nation, elimination of health disparities and health for all.

Again, to help close the health disparities in our society, we ask you to urge the conferees to support the request of the Congressional Black Causus. I have attached a copy of my statement made before the Appropriation subcommittee to review the necessary justification. And I urge my colleagues to support this motion to go to conference.

Statement of Hon. Donna M. Christensen Before House Appropriations

Committee, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Health Services and

Education, May 6, 2003

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking member and other members of

the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on

this important panel again this year.

You already have my written testimony which contains the

details of the specific funding and language requests.

Although I will be speaking specifically to issues in the

African American communities, my remarks are generally

applicable to all communities of color and many rural

communities as well.

Let me say at the outset Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues

and I remain grateful to you and your colleagues for the

support you have given us both on the Minority HIV/AIDS

Initiative, as well as on our efforts to end the disparities

in health care.

When I appeared before you last year, I began my remarks by

informing the subcommittee of the fact that this great

country of ours ranks at the bottom of all of the

industrialized countries of the world with regard to the

quality of our health care system, we are not where we should

be given our resources in infant mortality, HIV/AIDS,

immunization, substance abuse and many of the major diseases.

In most cases the reason is because more than one third of

our population remains outside of the healthcare mainstream.

Today almost 43 million Americans are uninsured, of which

50 percent are minorities: 18 percent of the total elderly

population has no coverage at all; 1 out of 6 Americans do

not have health insurance; more than 100,000 people lose

their health insurance every day; and an astounding 23

percent of African Americans have no insurance at all.

Our health care system in this country is currently in

peril. It is falling short on promise and contributing to the

disabling illness and premature death of the people it is

supposed to serve. The picture is the worst for African

Americans who for almost every illness are impacted most

severely and disproportionately--in some cases more than all

other minorities combined. Every day in this country there

are at least 200 African Americans deaths, which could have

been prevented. Today we know that much of it happens because

even when we have access to care, the medical evaluations and

treatments that are made available to everyone else are

denied to us--not only in the private sector but in the

public system as well.

What I am here to try to do today is to leave you with one

indelible message: that there are gross inequities in

healthcare which cause hundreds of preventable deaths in the

African American community everyday and which tear at

families, drain the lifeblood of our communities, and breed

an escalating and reverberating cycle of despair which this

subcommittee has the power to end today if it has the will to

do so.

The choice if it can be considered that, is either to write

off human beings--our brothers and sisters--who make up this

segment of our population, or to make the requisite

investment in fixing an inadequate, discriminating,

dysfunctional health care system.

The current strongly held-to ``cost-containment'' paradigm

while it sounds good on the surface, has obviously not

worked. We now have double digit increases in premiums in an

industry that was to rein in its costs. What it did instead

was create a multi-tiered system of care, both within managed

care and without. Those at the lowest rungs of the system got

sicker, the sicker, ie. more costly, were and still are being

dropped, and those who were the sickest were and remain

locked out entirely. So not only are health care costs

continuing to escalate, the overall health picture in this

country is worse than ever.

What we now have is a system, which continues the failed

paradigm in which African Americans and other people of color

who because they have long been denied access to quality

health care, now experience the very worse health status. Not

doing what is needed to change this is to threaten the health

of not just African Americans and other people of color but

every other person in this country, especially at a time when

we live under the cloud of possible bioterrorism.

Controlling the cost of health care, which can only be done

in the long term, will never be achieved without a major

investment in prevention, and leveling the health care

playing field for all Americans through fully funding a

health care system that provides equal access to quality,

comprehensive health care to everyone legally in this

country, regardless of color, ethnicity or language.

The funding requests I am outlining today are the bare

minimum to ensure that our children have the opportunity for

good health, that there are health care professionals who can

bridge the race, ethnicity and language gaps to bring

wellness within reach of our now sick and dying communities,

that states and communities will receive the help to fill the

gaps and repair the deficiencies of access and services, and

which will enable the affected communities themselves to take

ownership of the problems as well as the solutions to their

increasing healthcare crisis--a crisis that threatens the

health and security of all Americans.

If we have learned nothing in the last 10 years, we should

have learned that cost containment strategies in our unequal

system of care can never bring down healthcare costs. We can

only insure that quality health care will be within the reach

of future generations if we make a major investment in

prevention and increasing access to care now.

On March 20, 2002, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released

a landmark report entitled: Unequal Treatment: Confronting

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care which was

requested by Congressman Jackson. Among other key findings,

the report documented that minorities in the United States

receive fewer life-prolonging cardiac medications and

surgeries, are less likely to receive dialysis and kidney

transplants, and are less likely to receive adequate

treatment for pain. Its first and most telling finding states

that ``racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare exist and,

because they are associated with worse outcomes in many

cases, are unacceptable.''

And so I urge the committee to give serious and favorable

consideration to our funding requests. Because of time

limitations let me focus on just a few areas contained in the

request.

$66 million for the office of minority health, os, dhhs

As the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) lead

office for improving the health status of racial and ethnic

minorities, the Office of Minority Health (OMH) conducts and

supports health promotion and disease prevention programs and

activities designed to help reduce the high rates of death

and disease in communities of color. OMH also serves as one

of the focal points for the Department's initiative to

eliminate health disparities. By increasing funding to $20.9

million, this office will be able to expand OMH's elimination

of health programs in prevention, research, education and

outreach, capacity building, and the development of community

infrastructure. The increased funding is also needed to fund

the State Partnership Initiative Grant Program; Cultural and

Linguistic Best Practices Studies; State Health Data

Management; Community Programs to Improve Minority Health

Grants; Center for Linguistic and Cultural Competence in

Health Care; Eliminating Obstacles to Participating in

Government Programs; Technical Assistance to Community Health

Program; and Community-Based Organization Partnership

Prevention Centers.

$225 million for the national center for minority health and health

disparities (ncmhd), nih

Funding is needed to develop and implement programs

necessary to further address minority health and health

disparities and to help improve the infrastructure associated

with this research and outreach. In addition, the loan

repayment payment must be expanded to include master degree

graduates from schools of public health and public health

programs to ensure that efforts to build and disseminate

research-based health information are intensified. As

required, the Center is currently developing a strategic plan

to guide the Center's efforts. To be effective, the plan must

include and reflect the direct input of the NIH institutes

and centers; consumer advocacy groups; the public;

researchers; professional and scientific organizations;

behavioral and public health organizations; health care

providers; academic institutions; and industry. The

resulting plan is needed to serve as a fundamental

blueprint for the Center's activities, as well as a

vehicle for helping to ensure a coordinated and effective

response to minority health and health disparities.

$120 million for the racial and ethnic approaches to community health

(reach), national center for chronic disease prevention and health

promotion, cdc

The REACH program is a cornerstone CDC initiative aimed at

helping to eliminate disparities in health status experienced

by ethnic minority populations in cardiovascular disease,

immunizations, breast and cervical cancer screening and

management, diabetes, HIV/AIDS and infant mortality. The

increase is needed to fund additional Phase I planning

grants, Phase II implementation and evaluation grants, expand

and enhance technical assistance and training, and apply

lessons learned. REACH received 211 applications in its first

year, but only had enough funding to make 31 awards, leaving

a very large number of meritorious projects unfunded. REACH

must have the resources necessary to capitalize on the

strengths that national/multi-geographical minority

organizations can provide the initiative.

$300 million for the agency for healthcare research and quality (ahrq)

At a hearing before the Criminal Justice Subcommittee of

the Government Reform Committee on May 21, 2002, AHRQ Acting

Director Dr. Carolyn Clancy described the initiatives

undertaken by her agency to attack health disparities. One of

the most important of these is the EXCEED program, which

funds Centers of Excellence to eliminate health disparities

in nine cities around the country. These include efforts to

address diabetes care for Native Americans, health

disparities in cancer among rural African American adults,

and premature birth in ethnically diverse communities in

Harlem, New York. According to Dr. Clancy, ``EXCEED

encouraged the formation of new research relationships as

well as building on existing partnerships between

researchers, professional organizations, and community-based

organizations instrumental in helping to influence change in

local communities.''

The EXCEED program exemplifies the type of initiative

recommended by the IOM report, which urged ``further research

to identify sources of racial and ethnic disparities and

assess promising intervention strategies'' (Recommendation 8-

1). Yet the Administration's 2003 budget would curtail these

efforts. In the budget, total AHRQ funding falls from $300

million in 2002 to $251 million in 2003. About $192 million

of the AHRQ budget is protected from the cutbacks, meaning

that $49 million must be trimmed from the remaining $108

million of spending, a 46 percent cut. The EXCEED program and

other research grants to study and reduce health disparities

fall into this vulnerable $108 million.

Increase of $14 million dollars for the U.S. DHHS Office of Civil

Rights (OCR) and a reworking of authorization language to tie it to disparity work U.S. DHHS Office of Civil Rights to enforce civil rights

laws

Enforcement of regulation and statute is a basic component

of a comprehensive strategy to address racial and ethnic

disparities in healthcare, but it has been relegated to low-

priority status. The U.S. DHHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR)

is charged with enforcing several relevant Federal statutes

and regulations that prohibit discrimination in healthcare

(principally Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act), but the

agency suffers from insufficient resources to investigate

complaints of possible violations, and has long abandoned

proactive, investigative strategies.

Despite an increasing number of complaints in recent

years, funding for OCR remained constant in actual dollars

from fiscal year 1981 to fiscal year 2003, resulting in a 60

percent decline in funding after adjusting for inflation. The

decrease has severely and negatively affected OCR's ability

to conduct civil rights enforcement strategies, such as on-

site complaint investigations, compliance reviews, and local

community outreach and education. Providing a substantial

increase in funding for the Office of Civil Rights is

necessary for OCR to resume the practice of periodic,

proactive investigation, both to collect data on the extent

of civil rights violations and provide a deterrent to would-

be lawbreakers.

Increased funding for Initiatives for Health Professions Training

(1) $40 million for the Health Careers Opportunity Program

($5.2 million increase);

(2) $40 million Minority Centers of Excellence ($7.4

million increase);

(3) $52 million for Scholarships for Disadvantaged

Students ($5.8 million increase); and

(4) $3 million for Faculty Loan Repayment and Faculty

Fellowships ($1.67 million increase)

Diversity in the health professions offers numerous

benefits, including ``increasing the proportion of under

represented U.S. racial and ethnic minorities among health

professionals''. (IOM Report). Such efforts were supported by

HHS in the past, but now are threatened with extinction.

The spring 1999 issue of the HHS Office of Minority

Health's newsletter Closing the Gaps focused on the theme of

``Putting the Right People in the Right Places.'' The

newsletter highlighted the startling under representation of

ethnic and minority groups within the health professions and

stressed the important role of three programs: (1) the Health

Careers Opportunity Program, which trains more than 6,000

high school and undergraduate students each year and is

associated with acceptance rates to health professional

schools that are 20 percent higher than the national average;

(2) the Minority Faculty Fellowships Program, which addresses

the problem that ``just four percent of faculty at U.S.

health profession schools are minorities''; and (3) the

Centers of Excellence Program, which works with

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic

Serving Health Professions Schools to ``recruit and retain

minority faculty and students, carry out research specific

to racial and ethnic minorities, provide culturally

appropriate clinical education, and develop curricula and

information resources that respond to the needs of

minorities.''

Unfortunately, the very same programs highlighted by HHS in

1999 as successful have disappeared from the President's 2004

budget. In fact, all of these programs received zero funding

or are scheduled for elimination.

To insure that no one is denied necessary health care

because of race ethnicity or language, they must have the

tools to do their job. Bringing equity into our healthcare

system demands a funding increase for this office.

$50 million territorial hospitals and health departments

Mr. Chairman, years of Medicaid caps have and continue to

create a crisis in the healthcare systems in the offshore

territories. To address and resolve this, last year I

requested that the sum of $50 million be made available to

the secretary for territorial hospitals and health

departments to close some of their critical health care gaps

and repair infrastructure deficiencies. I repeat this request

again for this year's appropriation.

Because of the Medicaid cap, and a match that is not

indexed for average income level, both which are

Congressionally set, we are unable to cover individuals at

100 percent of poverty--for the Virgin Islands it is closer

to 30 percent below that income level. Under the cap,

spending per recipient is at best one-fifth of the national

average.

Our hospitals are struggling, because the cap prevents them

from collecting full payments for the services they provide,

and they are also unable to collect Disproportionate Share

payments, despite the fact that about 60 percent of their

inpatients are below the poverty level. About one third of

these qualify for Medicaid, which as I indicated before,

never fully reimburses them. The rest of their patients have

no coverage whatsoever.

Long-term care is limited, and thus unavailable to persons

and their families who need it, not because the rooms are not

there, but because we do not have enough Medicaid dollars to

pay for them, even though the federal funds are matched 2 to

1 by local dollars--far above our requirement. While many

states are covering women and their minor children well above

100 percent of poverty, we cannot even come close.

Along with my fellow representatives from Guam American

Samoa and Puerto Rico, I have introduced bills to both remove

the Medicaid Cap as well as, for the first time, provide for

the creation of a Disproportionate Share payment to our

hospitals.

Our final request Mr. Chairman once again deals with the

Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative. We are here today once again to

request funding for the full amount of our request for the

MAHI in the amount of $610 million. While our review of the

current programs demonstrates the need for increased funding,

in light of our other requests which all have the potential

to impact this epidemic to some degree, and the budgetary

constraints of our government we are requesting a need-based

increase over our 2002 request of $70 million. We strongly

believe that the $610 million request is absolutely necessary

if we are to have any success whatsoever in stemming the tide

of this epidemic which continues to ravage our communities.

Once again, the purpose of the special and targeted funding

is to provide technical assistance and to increase the

capacity of our own communities to administer programs aimed

at prevention and treatment, and to bolster or build the

infrastructure needed to make all life saving measures

accessible.

The Minority HIV/AIDS request is not meant to be the total

funding for communities of color but should be utilized in

such a way to better enable our communities, that are hard to

reach and out of the mainstream, to access the $8 billion

plus that is available for HIV and AIDs.

It is also important to point out that as serious an issue

as it is, HIV and AIDS is just one symptom of all that is

wrong in our communities, many of which come under the

purview of this subcommittee. This funding will not only be

successful in the fight against long term HIV & AIDS but also

in all other areas, if in the long term the underpinnings of

our communities are also strengthened.

There is a critical part of the Minority HIV/AIDS

initiative request, which does not involve money. It is one

of language.

Mr. Chairman, the intent of the MAHI is to ensure that its

funds, which are only a small part of overall HIV/AIDS

funding, are used to build capacity within African American

and other communities of color which are the ones now being

disproportionately impacted. The current of the language

initiative has not maintained that focus. We are therefore

requesting that the original FY 1999 language be restored or

be mirrored, in your 2004 bill, with the following change

which I believe meets the concerns of the Department with

regard to discrimination, while

empowering our communities which is the only way we can

effectively control this and the other diseases which create

the disparties.

In summary, I join my colleagues here this morning to call

on this esteemed and distinguished subcommittee to make a

commitment to eliminate the disparities that have existed for

centuries and are increasing today for African Americans, and

to finally ensure equality in health care for us and every

one in this otherwise great country.

The cost in dollars today will be significant, but the cost

in lives and to our economy in the future are risks that we

must not take.

There is no question that health disparities are deeply

rooted in our medical system and in our culture. Eliminating

them is going to take a lot more than one leadership summit

or one media campaign. It will take a long-term commitment.

It will take a long-term investment.

This subcommittee and the larger committee have the power

to eliminate disparities in health care. This is an important

part of the stewardship on which we will all be judged.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, ``Of all the forms

of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking

and inhumane.'' We have a moral obligation to end injustice

in health care and health disparities among Americans. I urge

my colleagues to support this request.

On behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, and

personally, I thank you once again for the opportunity to

testify.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1 offered by my colleague from New York, Mr. Bishop, and I commend him for offering it.

Medicare, which Republicans fought against at its inception and continue to attempt to undermine today, is an entitlement. It is available equally to everyone over the age of 65 who has paid into the system, and provides the security and peace of mind individuals need and deserve when they are disabled, or have reached retirement.

This motion to instruct the Conference committee would strike the new savings accounts portion of the House bill, and use the $174 million instead to close the gaping hole that 48 percent of Medicare beneficiaries would fall through.

In addition to making good common sense, it also makes good on our promise to seniors to give them a prescription drug benefit. We did not say a half a benefit or three quarters of a benefit, or a ring of a benefit, but a comprehensive benefit.

Additionally, I would further instruct the conferees to ensure that no group, regardless of income, should be left out or be made to pay for inclusion in this program. To do otherwise would further undermine Medicare. Low-income patients, who depend on Medicare's assurance of access to healthcare, must not be kicked off the program and on to Medicaid, especially since this benefit is not fully extended to the American citizens living to the terrorities. To do this would renege on the basic promise of Medicare to all of its eligible seniors and disabled.

In reaching an agreement, I would call the attention of the conferees to the fee-for-service chronic care management provisions especially as included in the House provisions. This is a good provision that would do much to cut the skyrocketing cost of health care to those most at risk for either acute or chronic institutionalization.

Finally I would point out to the conferees and all of my colleagues, that this benefit is not scheduled to take effect until January of 2006. Rather than kill or damage an important safety net program in this time of great uncertainty, let's wait and take the time to do it right.

Although, I fundamentally disagree with the premise and direction of both the House and Senate prescription drug bills, it should be noted that the Republican prescription drug plan does nothing to expand prescription drugs to the million of seniors that are in dire need of such help.

Both bills have a gap in coverage for Medicare beneficiaries, but the Senate bill, unlike the House bill, has no gap in coverage for low- income seniors. Under the House bill, low-income individuals receive no assistance in meeting their drug costs over $2,000 until they have spent $3,500 out of their own pockets on prescription drugs; 41 percent of total income for someone at the federal poverty level.

The House bill provides virtually no low-income assistance for those with incomes over 135 percent of poverty ($12,123 for an individual). The Senate provides substantially assistance for individuals with incomes up to 160 percent of poverty.

The House bill includes an assets that will prevent many low-income people from receiving assistance. The Senate bill allows low-income people who do not meet the assets test to qualify for the same assistance available to those with incomes between 135 and 160 percent of poverty.

No prescription drug program that does not provide comprehensive, low-cost prescription drug coverage to low income senior citizens can meet the needs of our constituents. The special benefits provided the low income under the Senate bill effectively addresses our concerns. However, the principle of universality and nondiscrimination that is central to the Medicare program demands that basic drug coverage be provided through Medicare, as specified in the House bill.

The Senate low-income assistance provisions are far superior to the House provisions, and these assistance provisions are of particular importance to the Nation's African American communities. There are 2,853,000 African American Medicare beneficiaries over age 65. Of these, almost 22 percent or 626,000 individuals are below 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level ($8,980 for an individual, $12,120 for a couple). Another twenty percent live on incomes between 100 percent and 150 percent of poverty. This compares to a total of 9 percent of Caucasian senior beneficiaries below 100 percent of poverty and another 14 percent of Whites living on incomes between 100 percent and 150 percent of poverty.

As you can see, nearly twice as many African-American Medicare beneficiaries are living in poverty compared to the total Medicare propulation--and that means the pharmaceutical drug needs of this population are not being met.

For example, low-income Medicare beneficiaries without prescription drug insurance are able to fill only about 20 prescriptions per year, compared to 32 prescriptions per year for those with insurance. By providing better assistance to the low-income, the Senate bill will help fill this `prescription gap.'

The differences in the low-income provisions of the House and Senate are clear:

House provides deductible and co-pay help only up to 135 percent of poverty ($12,123 per year for an individual);

Senate provides meaningful help up to 160 percent ($14,368 for an individual);

House imposes an asset test as a condition of getting low-income assistance. The asset test means that a low-income person is ineligible for assistance if they own any disposable assets (like U.S. savings bonds) of more than $6,000 for an individual or $9,000 for a couple. This test disqualifies several million low-income beneficiaries from getting any special assistance;

The Senate permits even those who do not meet the asset test to get special assistance in meeting the costs of co-pays and deductibles;

The House does not provide any assistance whatsoever to the low- income when they have $2,000 to $4,900 worth of prescription drug expenses (when they are in the so-called donut hole);

The Senate provides substantial help in meeting 80 percent to 95 percent (depending on exactly how low-income an individual is) of the costs of the ``donut.''

When you combine all these provisions, the impact is dramatic. For example, if a Medicare beneficiary is living on $12,123 a year (135 percent of poverty), and his or her doctor has prescribed $3000 worth of medicines, in the House bill, the beneficiary will owe $1,114 out of pocket (assuming they meet the asset test and have almost no liquid assets). Under the Senate bill, the person will only owe $150. Under this example, an individual who obviously had medical problems and has other out-of-pocket expenses for doctors, tests, etc., would have to spend more than one month's income on prescription drug cost sharing.

Furthermore, I believe that in addressing the low-income provisions, conferees must add language that will allow for full participation of the U.S. territories within the Medicaid program. As you know, the U.S. territories' Medicaid programs are capped and any coverage provision extending aspects of these programs do not translate to the U.S. territories.

Again, to help close the disparities in our society, we ask you to urge the House-Senate conferees to support the Senate low-income assistance provisions. Adopting the Senate's subsidy provisions will make a major improvement in the lives of our nation's most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. Speaker, we need to pass a meaningful prescription drug plan that uses Medicare to make drugs affordable and provides a universal, voluntary benefit for all seniors. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.

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

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as stated by my colleague, the previous speaker, this noncontroversial resolution would recognize the importance

and contribution of sportsmen to the American economy and our traditional values.

Mr. Speaker, there is little doubt that hunting and fishing remain popular recreational pastimes for millions of Americans. These activities remain as much a fabric of American culture as the village green in New England or the county fair in Nebraska.

According to the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife- Associated Recreation, expenditures by sportsmen in 2001 totaled $70 billion. By any measure, this is a significant figure. It demonstrates the substantial economic importance of these traditional forms of outdoor recreation to our national economy, but most especially to our rural economy.

I support this resolution and urge other Members to do likewise. However, I also consider it important to note that other types of nonconsumptive wildlife-based recreation, activities such as bird watching and wildlife photography, also provide significant economic benefits that we would be remiss to overlook.

According to National Survey data, these activities contributed an additional $38.4 billion to the economy in the same year. In fact, over 66 million people enjoyed these activities, almost double the number of sportsmen who only hunt or fish.

In passing this resolution, I hope that the economic and social contributions of these other people who enjoy our Nation's abundant wildlife diversity will also not be forgotten.

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

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

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

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult to overstate the historical significance of the Louisiana Purchase. Looking back, it is difficult to imagine a single land purchase which doubled the size of this Nation, and it is equally hard to imagine what America might look like today had that purchase not been made.

We support the findings and sentiments expressed in this concurrent resolution and support its adoption.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1113, which authorizes a land exchange at Fort Frederica National Monument in Georgia, raises a number of issues that were discussed at the hearing on this measure in April before the Committee on Resources. Evidently, appraisals and archeological surveys of the lands proposed to be exchanged have not been completed. So the value and historical significance of the proposed lands have not been established. Furthermore, the National Park Service testified that the noncontiguous parcel that the National Park Service would acquire through the exchange will likely increase the administrative and operational costs of the national monument.

The National Park Service testimony on H.R. 1113 elaborated on these concerns and, while generally supportive of the exchange, provided little guidance on how they should be addressed. We need to be careful about altering the boundaries of national park system units. Former Resources Committee Chairman Hansen spoke many times about the National Park Service acquiring a historic site that did not contain the historic resources that were claimed. We should not make the same mistake here. In that regard I would note that H.R. 1113 authorizes, but does not require, a land exchange at Fort Frederica National Monument. Before any exchange should occur, the National Park Service would be required to complete appraisals and historical surveys as well as comply with the requirements of NEPA.

As such, there are a number of administrative procedures in place to ensure that the exchange, if it goes forward, is in the public interest. Mr. Speaker, that being the case, we will not object to the consideration of H.R. 1113 by the House today.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2059 is the companion measure to the Senate bill, S. 214, introduced by Senator Bingaman, which passed the Senate on March 4, 2003, and has been referred to the Committee on Resources. The legislation provides for the establishment of the Fort Bayard National Historical Landmark in the State of New Mexico. The legislation also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide technical and financial assistance to the site.

The fort has a long history of use as a military post and medical facility. The site is currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

While no hearings have been held on this bill, the Committee on Resources ordered it reported to the House in July. We will not object to the consideration of H.R. 2059 by the House today, but I would note for the record that taking up the House bill, when the companion Senate bill has been pending in the House since March, only serves to needlessly complicate the process of enactment.

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

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

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1409, which would provide for a land exchange for a school for the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Tribe which everyone would otherwise support, however, is in the middle of the most visited National Park and cannot be, by any stretch of the imagination, considered a noncontroversial bill. It, therefore, does not belong on the suspension calendar. In addition to this, its appearance on the floor is premature, given that the National Park Service has not completed its environmental impact statement and that a further study on alternative sites is also not finished.

I do support the need for a school for the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Tribe, but with so many unanswered questions and the importance of the site in question, as well as the bad precedent that I think it sets, I regrettably must ask my colleagues to vote no on this measure on suspension today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a senior member of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson).

(Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, native people, both Native Americans as well as people of different ethnicities, have been displaced during the settlement of most of the U.S. This is a sad, but true, chapter in our history. I would say, though, that if we are serious about returning lands to native people, and we should be, then let us look at developing a nationwide, consistent policy. We cannot start carving up our national parks piece by piece, case by case. This does a disservice to the parks, the tribes, and the American people.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that environmental groups support the exchange. In fact, most, if not all, are against this exchange but are willing to work with the tribe on a suitable alternative site. We recognize that the condition of the school is poor and should be unacceptable; but as I recall from the hearing, there was $8 million there for years that had never been used to repair the schools in all of this time.

Those of us who object do not object on the basis of need. The tribe's children and all of this country's children need, deserve, and should have good, safe, well-equipped and well-staffed schools. We want the Eastern Band of Cherokees to have the educational complex that they should have. The question that remains is where is that facility best placed.

Even, Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of this body, chaired by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), just 2 months ago called for a study before this exchange should be decided on because of the yet-unanswered questions. We should honor this and do the land exchange in the right way.

Therefore, I join the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member, in opposition to the passage of this bill on the suspension calendar.

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

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

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

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, S. 278 would remove from the wilderness designation 31 acres of land in one section and would add 31 acres to another portion of the Mount Naomi Wilderness Act. Last Congress, the House passed identical legislation. S. 278 passed the Senate earlier this year.

We support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

H.R. 1209, introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), our colleague who we will hear from in a short time, is a simple piece of legislation that extends for 3 years the authority for the construction of a memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., here in the District of Columbia.

In 1996, Public Law 104-333 authorized the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, through the Martin Luther King Memorial Project Foundation, to establish a memorial here in our Nation's capital to America's foremost civil rights leader.

Since that time, the sponsors have worked diligently to secure a memorial site and design approvals. In addition, there is a significant fund-raising campaign underway to secure the necessary funds to build and maintain the memorial. However, not all of the necessary funds have been secured, and ground cannot be broken until the funds are in place. That is the reason we are asking for the extension.

Mr. Speaker, it was only a few short weeks ago that a ceremony was held on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to dedicate a plaque marking the spot where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered his famous ``I have a dream'' speech 40 years ago.

The proposed memorial will complement both this site and the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site in Atlanta in providing for present and future generations a greater understanding of the accomplishments of Dr. King in the cause for civil rights.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1209 and urge its adoption by the House today; and at this time I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), who introduced this bill, for her leadership in shepherding this bill through the committee process and to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she might consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and take this opportunity to once again commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), for introducing this legislation giving the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity an opportunity to make this dream a reality.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 111 authorizes a special resource study to determine the national significance of the Miami Circle as well as the feasibility of including the site in the Biscayne National Park. Miami Circle is an archeological site discovered in 1998, located in Miami- Dade County, Florida. The most important features of the site are 24 large basin-holes carved into the limestone bedrock forming a circle approximately 38 feet in diameter. The circle is thought to be the footprint of a structure built by Native Americans and may date back 2,000 years.

Our former colleague, Representative Carrie Meek, worked tirelessly on this legislation, and now her successor in this office, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) has taken up the banner for this important project. We are eager to see this study move forward as a small part of the huge legacy that has remained after Ms. Meek's retirement, and because the historical and culture resources present at this site are potentially invaluable.

Mr. Speaker, this measure passed the Senate by unanimous consent and passed the House during the previous Congress, and so we urge our colleagues to support S. 111 at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) and the Republican members of the committee for their strong support for this bill, which has been a bipartisan effort, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 233 is a Senate companion legislation to a bill, H.R. 437, introduced by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), which would authorize a study of the Coltsville historic district in Connecticut. This district is located in the city of Hartford. The site, which is associated with the historically significant Colt Manufacturing Company, contains a notable number of historic resources that provide an important glimpse into the history of American industry and precision manufacturing.

At the April 8 subcommittee hearing on the House bill, the National Park Service and public witnesses testified in favor of the study. The legislation also has the support of the entire Connecticut delegation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the work of the House sponsor, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), on this measure. He has been a strong and effective advocate of the Coltsville community and the city of Hartford. It is our hope and intention that the study will provide Congress and the community with information on how to appropriately preserve and interpret the historic resources of the Coltsville community.

Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation and urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia and in opposition to the imposition of vouchers on the people of the District of Columbia.

The facts are my colleagues, according to the National Coalition for Public Education, that vouchers are neither needed nor wanted in the District of Columbia. The majority of D.C. elected officials has written to Congress opposing vouchers. It is only that three officials abruptly changed their anti-voucher position without any public debate and now supports vouchers but they clearly don't speak for the majority of District citizens on the issue.

Vouchers as a means of improving public education in fact does the opposite. They send public funds to private schools while doing nothing to improve public schools, where the majority of DC students are enrolled. Additionally, programs to improve student achievement in the District have been implemented and are working and should be expanded. Meanwhile, the academic achievement of African American students who used privately funded vouchers to attend private schools in the District was no different than that of students who remained in public school, according to the GAO.

The amendment of the gentlelady from the District of Columbia would remove the $10 million in funding for D.C. vouchers that would be sought to be to authorized via a separate amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, do we not value all of this country's children and families? This body has shortchanged our children too often this year, and it is adding up to a heavy burden on their families, all to make the wealthiest in this country richer.

Underfunding for Leave No Child Behind, block grants to States with unmeetable requirements for Head Start teachers, and although it is a demonstration program, this is meant to be the first nail in the coffin of Head Start. We barely lost the vote last night, but Democrats will continue to fight for this country's children, all of them, but certainly those from lower-income families.

Today I am here with my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) and other Democratic colleagues to call on this House to instruct the conferees first to act; and, second, to provide what the President promised, tax relief to the 6.5 million families and over 12 million children. These families work hard, but in this economy this President has created, they still need help, and especially for the military families of soldiers who today are fighting for this country and fighting for us.

Democrats meant it when we said we will leave no child behind. Today we call on the leadership of this conference, and specifically the conferees, to expand the child tax credit and put our money where our mouth is and where our heart and our values should be.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 would dismantle Head Start and take dedicated teachers from the children and families who depend on them.

Mr. Chairman, as a representative of another area of this country which has successfully utilized Head Start to improve the readiness of our children for school and help parents improve their own lives and provide a more stable and nurturing family environment for them, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210 and for the Miller substitute.

H.R. 2210 would begin the dismantling of a program that is of vital importance to the welfare of our country. Head Start is not just an early education program, but deals with the whole child and all that is important to his or her optimal development.

One of those areas is health care. I have done health screenings at Head Start, and I can tell you we find many potential disabilities, hearing, sight, speech, lack of immunization and others, which can be corrected if we find them early. We know poor parents often do not have transportation costs to go where referred as H.R. 2210 wants them to do.

This would hurt our children, weaken our families, undermine our communities, and really weaken our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, let us not destroy this program and the hope that it has provided for so many to build their families and lives upon. Oppose H.R. 2210 and support the Miller substitute.