Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was unavoidably detained and missed two recorded votes on the House floor.

I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record that had I not been unavoidably detained earlier this morning, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 672 (Previous Question) and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 673 (Passage of Martial Law Rule).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to tell my colleagues about a proud American and a beloved Dallas resident: Pearl Coleman Kidd. Mrs. Kidd was well known to generations of Dallas Metroplex residents who grew up coming to know and respect her for her remarkable contributions to our community.

Pearl Coleman Kidd was born in 1922 in Pulaski, Tennessee. After marrying Foster Kidd, the couple moved to Dallas in 1953. Two of our nation's core values, family and community, were also central commitments for Pearl Coleman Kidd. She loved Foster Kidd, her husband of 50 years. They rejoiced in their daughters Cheryl Kidd and Dr. Jocelyn Kidd of Dallas. Mrs. Kidd was also an active community volunteer. She was a devoted member of the New Hope Baptist Church.

It was through her endeavors in our community that Mrs. Kidd was able to volunteer in many Dallas Metroplex organizations. She received numerous awards for her contributions.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Kidd was an American treasure. Throughout her long life she gave tirelessly of herself for the advancement of her race and of all persons in need. Mrs. Kidd passed on October 16, 2003. Though our community is diminished by her loss, I ask that my colleagues join me, her family, and friends, in celebrating the remarkable life of this woman who truly symbolized our community and America at its best.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation that strengthens our commitments to the public and their local decision-makers in both urbanized and rural areas of this nation.

The ``Metropolitan Congestion Relief Act'' proposes a number of simple adjustments to the TEA-21 law, which as you know is now under discussion in the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee. Two days ago, the leaders of the Committee introduced legislation setting forth a six-year reauthorization plan for TEA-21, legislation that I am proud to cosponsor.

My legislation compliments the Committee legislation and proposes key adjustments to current congestion-related programs. This legislation would ensure that our national policy more fully engages and supports local elected leaders and the communities they represent. We need to engage the public and local decision-makers to address the nation's many transportation challenges.

The proposals in this legislation include two initiatives that follow the basic thrust of the Committee's TEA-21 renewal package.

First, this legislation invests more in our local decision-makers, those who now lead our nation's very important metropolitan economies and those in non-urbanized areas. Secondly, it further strengthens the partnership set forth in the 1991 ISTEA law that began devolving resources and decision-making to the nation's larger metropolitan areas. Finally, this legislation continues to place more responsibility where it belongs, with local community leaders and metropolitan planning organizations. These are the entities most challenged by pressing transportation needs, be it traffic congestion, air quality degradation or the rising demands of global competition.

These selected reforms and adjustments will yield results for all areas of our states. In those provisions targeted to metropolitan areas, all taxpayers and areas will benefit as these additional commitments will improve the performance of our existing assets and help us use available transportation dollars more efficiently.

Mr. Speaker, let me talk for a minute about the key features of this legislation and what it does and does not do.

First, it does not affect the allocation of resources from any of TEA-21's formula highway programs to the states, which is to say that it is policy neutral on the donor/donee issue. For the record, I am one member who has an interest in seeing more equity among the states, and this legislation does not disrupt any of these important efforts.

Second, the law this legislation amends is the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. As we make progress on equity among the states, we should also make some greater strides in providing some modest assurances of equity to local areas and local taxpayers within our states. Here in this chamber and in the Transportation Committee we talk often about ``fair share'' among the states, and yet there is nothing in current law that addresses how equity is assured at the sub- state level.

Let me illustrate this point further from the perspective of my district and the Dallas-Fort Worth region. As each new fiscal year arrived under TEA-21, local decision-makers in my region were certain that they would determine the fate of about 2\1/2\ cents of every highway formula dollar coming to the State of Texas. This is an inadequate commitment to a region that accounts for nearly one out of every five Texans and, in recent years, more than one out of every three new jobs in the State. By the donor/donee yardstick, this amounts to my local decision-makers having the certainty and direct control over about 10-12 cents on every federal highway dollar that is generated from local taxpayers and returned to the state. This is simply inequitable and can no longer be justified.

My legislation proposes to deliver more certainty to all areas of the state, both large and small, helping make some modest gains in ensuring more funding equity for the public in their local areas.

The legislation directs that Surface Transportation Funds provided to each of the states,

either through the STP or indirectly through the unprogrammed share of the Minimum Guarantee program, be directed to local areas, following existing law using the fair share distribution to urbanized and non- urbanized areas. All areas within the states will have more funding certainty as a result.

Third, the Metropolitan Congestion Relief Act enhances our federal surface transportation policies by enlisting local decision-makers and their substantial transportation assets under their control more fully into the TEA-21 partnership.

In addition to directing more STP and Minimum Guarantee resources to metropolitan planning organizations and other local areas under ongoing state-directed programs, the legislation specifically directs states to work more directly with local decision-makers, particularly in the larger urban areas, in deciding on investments in the National Highway System. This is a critical asset for all of us and one where local governments either own a share of these facilities or where locally- owned facilities are substantially affected by NHS facility investments.

Let me provide some additional background on this and related points. One of the weaknesses of the current Federal policy is that it relies too heavily on overburdened State transportation agencies. Overall, States own the smallest share of the Nation's transportation facilities relative to local governments and yet are given direct control over an overwhelming share of Federal transportation dollars. On average, for each highway dollar that a State receives, only six percent is guaranteed to reach local decision-makers, those in metropolitan areas of 200,000 or more where more than one out of every two Americans live.

Let me explain further. Presently, local governments--cities, towns and counties--directly or indirectly through regional agencies own and/ or operate more than three-quarters of the Nation's roads and streets, about one-half of the Nation's bridges, more than ninety percent of all transit systems and about the same share of the Nation's airports, most of the train stations, port facilities, traffic signals, public parking structures, sidewalks and trails, and so on. Let us not forget that 63 percent of urban area highways in the Federal Aid System, which includes those facilities generally eligible under Federal TEA-21 programs, are owned by local governments. Yet, existing policy directs virtually all of the resources to State highway and transportation departments.

In aviation, Congress rightly directs resources to the agencies, be it the State, region or local government who own and operate airports. In transit, Congress rightly directs resources to the level of government who delivers these services. In flood control, the State, region, or local agency responsible for the improvements receives the funding. And so on.

As this Congress seeks to address the burdens of congestion the need for smarter and more balanced transportation investments to give taxpayers more for their dollars, we must recognize that we have reached the point where it is impossible to achieve these outcomes without more fully involving our local transportation partners. This means bringing local elected officials--mayors, city council members, county executives and commissions, and others--more fully into this partnership. This legislation makes some modest adjustments and empowers these critical officials in the transportation partnership.

Finally, this legislation specifically addresses the needs of local areas with the most air quality and congestion problems. It does so by directing States to allocate Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program (CMAQ funds to local areas that are in non- attainment or maintenance of applicable national ambient air quality standards. Specifically, it requires States to pass these funds to local areas on a fair share basis where metropolitan planning organizations are in place. Simply put, States earn CMAQ funds based on local air problems and the legislation makes sure that funds are passed through to these areas. Recently, this chamber debated the extension of the compliance deadlines in some Texas cities and other places, all the while my own State of Texas had piled up more than $270 million in unspent CMAQ funds that could have helped improve air quality in my area and others in the State. This provision will make sure that the local areas that carry these-requirements under Federal law are certain to receive their fair share of the resources that are provided.

There are also two new initiatives in the legislation that address congestion. One is a new $2 billion annual formula program aimed at the Nation's most congested metropolitan markets, as analyzed by the Texas Transportation Institute. This program will target resources to areas of the Nation with clear congestion needs. The other program will provide modest resources of $500 million annually to local governments to support incident management programs.

Let me speak to the need for these targeted programs. Every taxpayer and every community in our States benefits if we make some selected investments that improve the performance of our Nation's most productive economic centers. All of our economic data shows that our metropolitan areas are truly the economic engines of our State economies and help drive overall U.S. economic growth. They now account for the overwhelming and disproportionate share of the Nation's new jobs, personal income and total economic output. This legislation speaks directly to the pressing needs of these city and county metropolitan areas by investing immediately in congestion relief strategies and programs that will pay substantial dividends to the economic bottom lines of our State and the Federal Government. These initiatives, coupled with other provisions in this legislation, will help us extract more economic output from these areas.

This investment in our regional economic engines will also position our Nation more favorably in the global competition of world trade. For instance, consider my own district, the Dallas Metro area, not including the adjoining Fort Worth Metro area. The Dallas Metro area produced more goods and services--about $170 billion in 2001--than 29 States. This output exceeded that of many countries, such as Denmark or Hong Kong. This legislation is about recognizing the importance of the role local decision-makers play in steering these vital economic units and the value of tapping the vast range of our Nation's broadest asset base. In the end, our Federal policy needs to go beyond the Federal/ State partnership of the 1950s that was built around the Interstate era. The 1991 ISTEA made some strides to update our institutional arrangements, and this legislation builds on those improvements.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is nonpartisan. It represents an effort to establish a fair and equitable distribution of our Federal transportation dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute today to one of Texas' truly outstanding citizens, Mattie Marie Franklin Marshall. As we recognize her 70 years of service to our State's education and her multitude of contributions to our community, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the remarkable achievements of this great woman.

Mattie Marie Franklin Marshall has devoted her entire life to the great State of Texas. Her life has been spent serving her fellow man-- teaching, counseling, leading, advising, guiding, and nurturing.

She was born in Washington, Texas. Her father passed away when she was only two, but her mother watched her work her way upward despite many difficult obstacles.

Mattie continued the legacy of her sisters Ellie O. Laster, Anna M. Taylor, and Susie L. Jingles by becoming an educator. She began her adult life by working hard and knew success meant accepting life's challenges. She remained an educator for 35 years until she retired from the school system in 1977.

Following her retirement, Mattie broadened her public service from the school system to the greater community.

She was actively involved in the Girl Scouts of America, Young Women's Christian Association, the Friendly Neighborhood Club, Philodendron Garden Club, the Chanelle Club, and a Life Member of the Erma D. Leroy Club.

One of the highlights of her life was the organization of Fifth Ward Baptist Church. She was a founding member of the committee that organized the church and served as its first recording secretary. She has served her church with dedication for the last 59 years. In honor of her tireless efforts on behalf of the Fifth Ward Baptist Church, its library was renamed the Mattie M.F. Marshall Library in June 2003.

Just as significant as all of Mattie's achievements is the spirit of community service she represents. Her willingness to help individual community members of our society as a whole is what makes her especially deserving of our recognition and praise.

The spirit of service she actively portrays is something we see far too little of in this society. And we all would do well to follow the shining example that Mattie Marshall has given us.

I know that Mattie will continue to play an important role in our community for years to come, and that America will continue to benefit from her dedication and service.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you and my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in saluting Mattie M.F. Marshall and in applauding this remarkable citizen for all she has done, and for all she has meant to those of us whose lives she has touched.

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

Madam Speaker, let me apologize for being late. I was told to be here by 12, and I was in a briefing, so I came running.

Let me thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Research of the Committee on Science, the staff and the other leadership of the committee for working on this bill. I rise in support of Senate bill 1152, the United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of 2003.

This legislation is closely related to H.R. 2692, which I joined Research Subcommittee Chairman Smith in introducing and which was ordered reported by the Committee on Science on July 22. I would like to thank Chairman Smith for working with me in a collegial way in the development of the fire authorization bill. The version of the authorization bill before the House preserves the key features of H.R. 2692.

The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, which created the U.S. Fire Administration, was intended to address a serious problem affecting the safety of all Americans. Much progress has been made as a result of this legislation to advance public education about fire safety, to improve the effectiveness of the fire services throughout the Nation, and to foster the wider use of home fire safety devices.

Nevertheless, the United States still has one of the highest fire death rates among advanced nations, and fire deaths exceed the loss of life from all natural disasters combined. Clearly, much work remains to be done in order to make needed improvements in the Nation's fire safety record. I believe that S. 1152 will ensure that the U.S. Fire Administration has the resources and policies in place to help achieve this goal.

One matter of concern is that the effectiveness of the U.S. fire administration could suffer due to its submersion in the new Department of Homeland Security, which understandably must concentrate its efforts on combating threats from terrorism. The legislation seeks to preserve the status and visibility of the fire administration and its vital programs to advance fire safety within the Department of Homeland Security.

To achieve this result, the bill reestablishes the position of fire administrator as a Presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed post. This is appropriate given the role of the Fire Administrator as the lead advocate for fire services within the Federal Government.

Another important function of the U.S. Fire Administration is to support research and development and testing of new firefighting technologies. This bill reemphasizes this role and authorizes new funding to help carry it out, including support for the process for developing consensus standards for the performance of new fire protection and control technologies.

Consistent with supporting the development of appropriate voluntary consensus standards for new firefighting equipment, the bill requires that equipment provided under the fire grants program conform to such standards where they exist. Fire grants provide fire departments across the Nation with the equipment and training they need to meet their important responsibilities in protecting the public from fire hazards. The Fire Administrator is given flexibility in applying the standards requirement for these grants so that the fire departments may propose solutions that make the most sense for their particular circumstances. Provision for this flexibility in the bill is in accordance with the recommendations received during the Committee on Science hearing on the legislation. The bill makes an additional modification to the statute creating the Fire Grants Program by specifying that awards to support training may include training firefighting personnel and maritime firefighting. The need for such training was ably advocated by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), championed this provision.

Madam Speaker, this bill is a bipartisan piece of legislation that authorizes the activities of a small, but extremely valuable, Federal agency that contributes to the safety of all Americans. I am pleased to commend the measure to my colleagues and ask for their support in the passage of this bill in the House.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise against this so-called Medicare proposal devised by former Speaker Gingrich and the pharmaceutical industry that will increase out-of-pocket expenses for the poorest and sickest women.

Mr. Speaker, the sham Republican prescription drug bill will harm, not help, elderly women.

I oppose the Republican Medicare bill because it does not ensure that our seniors, especially our most venerably elderly women, get the long overdue Medicare prescription drug benefit that is available and affordable to all.

How will this Medicare Reform proposal hurt women? First you must realize that women account for the majority of people who are on both Medicare and Medicaid. To make matters worst, the proposal is harmful to the poorest and sickest women because their out of pocket cost would increase above what Medicaid currently allows.

I believe we must carefully draft legislation to protect the health and well-being of our citizens. It is shameful that many American seniors must regularly make the heartbreaking choice between paying for food and paying for prescription medicine. As a former nurse, I have spend much of my career working to ensure that our nation's health care system provides a wide range of affordable services.

But unfortunately, drug prices are going up over 3 times the rate of inflation giving the drug industry more profits than all others--the result: seniors can't afford the medicine they need.

Yet this proposal would actually prohibit Medicare from getting the best price for seniors. This bill states, and I quote, ``[Medicare] may not . . . interfere in any way with negotiations between . . . Medicare Advantage organizations . . . and drug manufacturers . . .'' In laymen's term that means Medicare must pay whatever the drug companies want to charge. This makes the new law a multi-billion dollar subsidy to the drug industry and a rip-off for America's senior citizens.

This is especially hurtful to women because nearly eight in ten women on Medicare use prescription drugs regularly. Because the bill doesn't allow for the government to negotiate price controls on drugs, our women will have to face higher drug cost, as well as the American Treasury.

Democrats have led the fight to add a drug benefit to Medicare. But what started as a fight to add a drug benefit has become a fight to save Medicare as we know it. Over and over again we have demonstrated our willingness to compromise and accept a less-than-perfect drug benefit when they approved a bipartisan Senate bill this summer. But instead of seeking bipartisanship, Republicans have insisted on including provisions that would turn Medicare into a voucher program and could cap government spending on Medicare. These provisions have nothing to do with providing beneficiaries affordable prescription drugs. They are intended to undermine Medicare.

Medicare was created because the private health care system would not provide affordable health insurance coverage for seniors. We shouldn't be turning back the clock to those times. But that's exactly what the Republican bill--as written--will do.

The American public should be outraged that the Republican leadership is playing politics with the health and well-being of millions of our citizens, and I hope the voters will remember this shameful abuse of power when they go the polls at election time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the steady meteoric rise of the deadly epidemic of HIV/AIDS in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The HIV/AIDS epidemic is proving to be one of the most devastating social conditions of our time.

In my home state of Texas, the numbers have been steadily rising since 1998 at a rate of about 7 percent per year. In fact, according to the Texas Department of Health, Dallas County reported the highest number of new HIV positive individuals in Texas, that's just ahead of Harris County (which includes Houston) which reported 1,212 new HIV cases.

So far in 2003, Dallas County has reported 609 new HIV cases and 355 new AIDS cases. Moreover, so much work needs to be done to inform the public about this disease's disproportionate impact on African Americans.

Dallas County Health and Human Services chief epidemiologist announced that there were 1,271 new HIV cases and 548 new AIDS cases reported in 2002. African Americans, comprise 20 percent of the Dallas County population, but 41 percent of the new HIV cases and 46 percent of the new AIDS cases in 2003.

As reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), although African Americans make up only about 12 percent on the U.S. population, cumulatively they have accounted for half of the new HIV infections reported in the United States in 2001.

African Americans have accounted for more than 320,000, or 38 percent, of the more than 833,000 estimated AIDS cases diagnosed since the beginning of the epidemic. In addition to experiencing historically higher rates of HIV infection, African Americans continue to face challenges in accessing health care, prevention services, and treatment. Race and ethnicity are not, themselves, risk factors for HIV infection. However, African Americans are more likely to face challenges associated with risk for HIV infection, including poverty, denial and discrimination, partners at risk, substance abuse, and sexually transmitted disease connection.

Globally more than 16 million people have died of AIDS and more than 16,000 people become newly infected each day.

It is imperative for us to take immediate steps to address these alarming statistics. As a former nurse and Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I supported funding increases for the Minority AIDS Initiative and the Housing Opportunities for Persons, which is the only federal housing program that provides comprehensive, community-based HIV-specific housing programs.

I have always supported the four main lines of action created by an International Partnership against AIDS: encouraging visible and sustained political support; helping to develop nationally negotiated joint plans of action; increasing financial resources; and strengthening national and regional technical capacity.

We must make an ongoing commitment toward working diligently to find a cure for this very fatal epidemic. We must strongly encourage more widespread support for those who are living with this horrifying disease.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leadership of the committee and the subcommittee. I want to express my appreciation for the camaraderie of which we work together on the committee. I rise together in support of S. 189, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act.

The emerging fields of nanoscale science, engineering and technology are leading to unprecedented understanding and control over the basic building blocks of properties of all natural and man-made things.

Nanotechnology has the potential for enormous consequences, both technological and societal. This technology could result in new materials with prescribed properties not otherwise possible, information processing that far exceeds our current capabilities, and medical devices that could provide revolutionary advances in health care and dramatically increase our lifespan.

Nanotechnology has a great potential for America's leadership around the world. As America enters the 21st century, it is important that we lead the world in developing and commercializing new technologies and perhaps restore many of the jobs that we have lost.

I am very pleased that this bill includes an amendment that I introduced when we voted on H.R. 766 back in May. This amendment, under program ``activities on societal and ethical concerns,'' requires public input and outreach to the public to be integrated into the program through regular and ongoing public discussions, including citizens panels, consensus conferences, and educational events.

The views of the general public, who will bear the brunt of the consequences, both good and bad, should have input in the planning and execution of the research program. Taxpayers are paying for development of this technology. They have a right to have a voice in the research agenda.

I agree with that assessment that nanotechnology is one of the most promising and exciting fields of science today.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation and proud to say that I believe that the area which I represent will have some leading research in this area, with Nobel laureates. As I vote for its approval, I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to make a statement on this group because the program of Seeds of

Peace since 1993 has really made a difference in communication, most especially with young people. They have brought together people like Indians and Pakistanis and Israelis and Arabs, as well as teenagers from Cyprus, Afghanistan and the U.S. to understand that peace really is possible. They have helped young people from all conflict areas see each other as human beings, not as the enemy. They have helped them to break down the barriers of hatred and distrust.

In March of 2003, two Seeds of Peace students joined me in a peace dialogue that I had here at the Capitol. The Israeli student said when she joined Seeds of Peace, she felt she was doing something significant. The change was not aimed to change the world right away. It started out small, giving her an opportunity to change her own personal world. It gave her the opportunity to talk about the other side in terms of friends instead of saying ``those Palestinians.''

The Palestinian student said she first participated in a Seeds of Peace camp in 1999. She said 4 years have passed since then and she cannot recognize the person she was before. She also said that at Seeds of Peace, you get to open up, actually listen to each other, listen to different views and points of view and not toward just rebutting their argument, but to understand and eventually find respect for the argument.

We must voice our support for grassroots institutions that are mobilizing for peace. It might start small, but when young people in this number begin to speak about peace and trying to understand each other around the world, we will see the impact in the future. Institutions like Seeds of Peace can be instrumental in changing this world. They have helped the world to remember one thing, that peace begins with each of us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the need for racial equity in health care in our great Nation.

As a former nurse, I have spent much of my public career working to ensure that the nation's health care system is affordable and provides the best services possible to all Americans.

Disparities in the burden of death and illness experienced by African-Americans, as compared with the U.S. population as a whole, have existed since the government began tracking such statistics. These disparities persist, and in some areas continue to grow.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death for all racial and ethnic groups, with a disproportionate burden of death and disability from cardiovascular disease in minority and low-income populations.

The prevalence of diabetes in African Americans is approximately 70 percent higher than whites. Racial and ethnic minorities have higher rates of hypertension, tend to develop hypertension at an earlier age, and are less likely to undergo treatment to control their blood pressure.

Many minority groups suffer disproportionately from cancer and disparities exist in both mortality and incidence rates.

For men and women combined, African-Americans have a cancer death rate about 35 percent higher than that for whites. African-American women develop breast cancer less often than do white women, but have a higher mortality rate (27 per 100,000), due most likely to later diagnosis and late entry into treatment. African-American and Hispanic women have higher cervical cancer death rates.

The incidence rate for lung cancer in African-American men is about 50 percent higher than in white men and the death rate is about 27 percent higher.

The prostate cancer mortality rate for African-American men is more than twice that of white men.

African-American women are less likely to receive care, and when they do receive it, are more likely to have received it late. For example, one out of four African-American mothers did not receive prenatal care during the first trimester during 1999. Other risk factors, such as obesity, contributes to heart disease, diabetes, and stroke. Approximately 69 percent of African-American women between the ages of 20 and 74 were overweight during the period 1988 through 1994.

The prevalence of obesity in minority populations can be as much as three times higher than that of whites, and is higher among women than men. African Americans and Hispanics have a particularly high prevalence rate of obesity as do Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians.

More than 75 percent of AIDS cases reported among women and children occur in minority women and children. While racial and ethnic groups account only for about 25 percent of the total United States population, they account for more than 50 percent of all AIDS cases.

Children from minority communities are disproportionately represented among those with incomplete immunizations. In addition, infant death rates among minority populations are above the national average, with the greatest disparity existing among African Americans. Minority populations are at the greatest risk for SIDS.

The rates for the uninsured minority are quite frightening. Blacks and Latinos are far more likely to be uninsured when compared to their Anglo or white counterparts.

Nationally, 11.6 percent of the Anglo population, 20.1 percent of the African American population and 34.8 percent of the Hispanic population are without health insurance. In Texas, while 12 percent of whites are uninsured, 21.2 percent of African Americans and 36.7 percent of Hispanics do not have medical coverage.

That is why I am an original cosponsor of The Healthcare Equality and Accountability Act of 2003. The Healthcare Equality and Accountability Act of 2003 would reduce health disparities and improve the quality of care for racial and ethnic minorities by:

First, expanding health coverage. To reduce the number of minorities without health insurance, the bill would give states the option to expand eligibility and streamline enrollment in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

This bill also removes language and cultural barriers to good health care that plague many of our minority communities.

Because language and cultural differences create barriers to health care, the bill would help patients from diverse backgrounds, including those with limited English proficiency, with provisions such as codifying existing standards for culturally and linguistically appropriate health care, assisting health care professionals provide cultural and language services, and increasing federal reimbursement for these services.

Instruments in this bill have been put in place to encourage workforce diversity. Increasing the number of minority health care providers will improve access to care because these providers are more likely to serve low-income, uninsured, and minority patients.

Date collection would be improved to better identify sources of health disparities, implement effective solutions, and monitor improvement.

Under this bill, the Office of Civil Rights and the Office of Minority Health and the Department of Health at Human Services (DHHS) would be expanded to promoting accountability and reduce health disparities.

And finally, this bill strengthens health institutions that serve minority populations. By establishing loan and grant programs, health institutions that provide substantial care to minority populations will receive necessary funding to carry our their mandates.

Protecting the health care of citizens, no matter their ethnicity or race, should be the number one priority of any great nation. An investment in our health care system is one of the wisest investments we can make for the future of this country.

Now is the time for all Americans to have equal access to quality health care and meaningful patient protections. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Our citizens deserve and expect nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. As a Republican Member of the other body stated the other day, this bill should be called ``Leave No Lobbyist Behind.'' This bill is an inappropriate vehicle for amending the Clean Air Act. It makes absolutely no sense to protect the MTBE manufacturers from civil liability while opposing a phase out of the dangerous carcinogenic chemical. This has been going on since the court order in 1996 getting one waiver after another.

The provisions in this bill will mean more asthma attacks, hospital visits, and premature deaths for residents of ozone nonattainment areas such as Dallas/Fort Worth.

Mr. Speaker, we have about 88,000 children with asthma in the Dallas/ Fort Worth area. The bill will force my constituents and everyone else's constituents in the Dallas/Fort Worth area to breathe dirty air, unhealthy air until 2012.

In their desire to pass any comprehensive energy bill, some of my colleagues may be willing to overlook the massive damage this bill would do to existing clean air policies, but we must not pass a bill with great shortfalls simply because we need to pass a bill. We need a fair bill that protects us all. We should not, and we must not, endanger ourselves or our children.

I urge my colleagues that want clean air to oppose this rule and this porker of a bill. This bill is a waste of taxpayer's dollars. It is a first-class ticket to fossil fuel dependence. It is an invitation to destroy the lungs of 127 million Americans who already breathe in air that violates Federal standards.

Mr. Speaker, during this season we pause to celebrate Veterans Day.

We pay tribute to the veterans who have honored us with their service, and their sacrifice. Some have even paid the ultimate price for freedom. In dying they renewed and sustained the freedom and the promise to our Nation.

In the last paragraph of his second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln uttered the words that would ultimately comfort untold numbers of veterans and their families for generations to come. Lincoln challenged the divided nation to ``Bind up the Nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.''

This is the test and the measure of our Nation. Is it any wonder that architects emblazoned these words on the walls of the Lincoln Memorial? They are also engraved on a plaque on the headquarters building of the Veterans Affairs Administration in Washington.

As a Nation, we are united in honoring our war dead, we need to be as united in honoring our living veterans.

Because our Armed Forces have borne the battles of freedom, the United States enjoys an unprecedented position of international leadership.

Yet, the promise of lifelong health care that this country made to our men and women in uniform is being threatened, not by the aggression of a foreign power, but by inadequate funding.

Mr. Speaker, as our veterans grow older, they require increased dependence on health care services.

Before I served as the chief psychiatric nurse at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Dallas during the 70's. I was privileged to serve in the day care and rehabilitation center of the facility for 15 years. I know firsthand that caring for America's veterans is the ongoing cost of war.

The Republican budget cuts will adversely affect over 70,000 Texas veterans. This number includes more than 18,000 veterans in the Dallas- Fort Worth area.

Proposed cuts to the budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs will halt enrollment in the VA Health Care System. Texas veterans will be driven from the system. It is estimated that 5,200 active patients in the Dallas-Fort Worth area will drop out of the VA Health Care System.

Thousands of other veterans in my home State face the grim prospect of increasing health care costs in the VA system. The budget will also increase fees for veterans who utilize the VA Health Care System; forcing thousands in and around the Dallas metroplex to drop out.

An estimated 60,000 Texas veterans, including over 20,000 veterans receiving active VA care, are unlikely to be able to afford this increase.

Mr. Speaker, how can Congress and this administration even consider slashing benefits at a time when our young men and women are still in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan and Southwest Asia.

Veterans should not be expected to wait in longer lines, and travel farther for health care services at a diminished level. If we fail our obligation to veterans, how can we justify sending more and more young service members into harm's way?

As we celebrate Veterans Day, it is fitting and proper that we honor an African-American sailor who paid the ultimate price for our freedom.

I am planning to introduce legislation soon that calls for awarding the Congressional Medal of Honor to Dorie Miller posthumously for his heroic actions during World War II. This recognition is long overdue for a man who served his country with distinction and valor during the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Dorie Miller is just one example of African-American war heroes and veterans who have gone beyond and above the call of duty to preserve freedom's full measure, although they themselves were denied it in many quarters at home.

As Americans, we owe a debt of gratitude to our veterans. It is our duty to ensure that they receive the support they need from the country they so diligently served.

As we daily witness the courageous and professional efforts of our Armed Forces engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Southeast Asia, we are all reminded of the tremendous sacrifices our veterans have made on our behalf.

As we celebrate another Veterans Day this November, we must back up our promises with our meaningful action.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Veterans' Day, it is fitting and proper that we honor an African- American sailor who paid the ultimate price for our freedom.

I am planning to introduce legislation soon that calls for awarding the Congressional Medal of Honor to Dorie Miller posthumously for his heroic actions during World War Two.

This recognition is long overdue for a man who served his country with distinction and valor during the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Dorie Miller is just one example of African-American war heroes and veterans who have gone beyond and above the call of duty to perserve freedom's full measure, although they themselves were denied it in many quarters at home.

As Americans, we owe a debt of gratitude to our veterans. It is our duty to ensure that they receive the support they need from the country they so diligently served.

As we daily witness the courageous and professional efforts of our armed forces engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Southeast Asia, we are all reminded of the tremendous sacrifices our veterans have made on our behalf.

As we celebrate another Veteran's Day this November, we must back up our promises with our meaningful action. We must honor all of our veterans, irrespective of their station in life, their gender, or the color of their skin.

Like Dorie Miller, many have died for the freedom we cherish. Death is not a respecter of persons. Nor should we be.

Mr. Speaker, due to a meeting within the Department of Justice, I unfortunately missed three recorded votes on the House floor earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record that had I not been unavoidably detained at this meeting, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 580 (On Motion to Adjourn); ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 581 (On Approving the Journal); and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 582 (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Con. Res. 291, expressing deep gratitude for the valor and commitment of the members of the United States Armed Forces who were deployed in Operation Restore Hope to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Somalia in 1993.

Mr. Speaker, let me express my appreciation for the kind of camaraderie we have on the committee. This is out of character for us to be on the floor discussing something in these tones. However, when we do not follow the rules and do not allow people to participate, this is what we get. That is why other committees are like that. I hope we do not continue this, because we have not had this in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my extreme disappointment that this FAA reauthorization bill does not include language to protect the operations and certification functions performed in our air traffic control system. Recommitting this bill was absolutely necessary to fix a fatally flawed conference report that risked the safety of the flying public. Unfortunately, Republican conferees decided not to listen to the will of Congress and excluded language that would protect our Nation's air traffic control system from privatization.

There are two critical functions of the air traffic control system that keep the system safe: certification and operations. Much of the debate on this bill has centered on prohibiting privatization of the operation functions performed by air traffic controllers and employees of 69 VFR towers. Operation of the air traffic control system, however, is only one part of the air traffic control system. In order for our system to remain safe and efficient in this area where we still have a great deal of fear, there must be language included in the bill to protect the certification functions performed by FAA systems specialists.

There are approximately 6,100 FAA systems specialists and technicians who install, repair, maintain, and certify over 50,000 systems and equipment that make up the air traffic control system. The certification functions performed by the systems specialists are critical to the safety and efficiency of the air traffic control system and, therefore, must be protected from privatization.

Certification is the process that systems specialists and technicians use to ensure that the systems used to separate and control aircraft are working properly and interface correctly with the other 50,000 systems and equipment in the NAS, Only the U.S. government, through its employees, is empowered to certify the air traffic control system. As a result, only FAA personnel with sufficient knowledge of the entire NAS may perform certification.

An example of the important functions that systems specialist perform is the work they did for the Department of Defense after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the months after September 11th, the DoD realized that they did not have radar capabilities to see or hear air traffic activity within the U.S. borders. FAA systems specialists worked with the DoD to provide additional radar surveillance as well as data and voice communication capability to the military. What's really remarkable about this is that the bulk of the work was completed in only four months. The flexibility of the systems specialist workforce, their extensive knowledge of how the entire air traffic control system works as well as their ability to respond quickly to a problem would be lost if the work is contracted out.

Safety should be the FAA's number one priority. The only way to ensure that this happens is to enact legislation that protects the most safety critical functions from privatization. This means that we must protect all of the functions relating to the control and separation of air traffic--functions performed by systems specialists and air traffic controllers.