Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman and Members, I'd like to thank my colleague, Mr. Obey for offering this amendment.

The Department of Labor has implemented new overtime regulations that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim will bring 1.3 million new people into overtime eligibility. However, other independent studies such as

the one by The Economic Policy Institute report that at least 6 million will lose their overtime rights under this rule. Also, this analysis projects that only 400,000 low-income workers will now qualify for overtime pay. Not the 1.3 million claimed by the Administration.

Yesterday, leadership refused to debate this amendment because several of their colleagues would have voted for this amendment. This only indicates that both Republicans and Democrats know that passing this amendment is the right thing to do.

My home state of Texas has an unemployment rate higher than the national average and that's true for the City of Houston as well. Many of my constituents rely on what they make in overtime pay to keep the lights on in their homes. I think it's time we start thinking about our most important resource in this country: the American Worker, and vote ``yes'' to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Brown, my good friend and the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee.

Last week the Bush administration announced a 17-percent increase in premiums for Medicare Part B benefits. This is the highest increase in Medicare's long history.

In fact, since the Bush administration came to town, Medicare premiums have increased twice as much as they did during all 8 years of the Clinton administration combined.

On every account, it is wrong for our seniors on fixed incomes to face double digit increases in their Medicare premiums.

But to make matters worse, our seniors are left footing the bill as a result of this administration's failed health care policies.

If this administration wants to increase access to health care, it should ensure that Medicare--as a safety net program--is truly affordable to America's senior citizens.

Instead, this administration is charging our seniors an extra $5.5 billion next year, all the while diverting $12 billion from the Medicare Trust Fund to help HMOs lure Medicare beneficiaries away from traditional Medicare.

Instead of siphoning money from the Medicare Trust Fund to the HMOs' pockets, the administration should focus on the fiscal realities facing the Medicare program.

By stopping the Medicare Part B premium increase, the Brown amendment will force them to do just that.

I urge my colleagues to do right by America's seniors and support this amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my ranking member, also the chairman of the committee, for bringing this bill up today.

I rise to highlight an important program that this bill fails to fund. The Congress has supported and funded the Community Access Program since its inception in 2000. The CAP program, the Community Access Program, has provided communities with much-needed grant funding to provide both preventive and primary care to their uninsured populations.

In communities like mine in Houston, and literally hundreds across the country, we utilize this funding to put together the necessary consortium or groups to help solve our health care access problems. For-profit, nonprofit and public health agencies coordinate services using CAP funds.

Unfortunately, this bill completely eliminates the CAP program at a time when the level of uninsured individuals in this country has reached 44 million and is growing. Now is not the time to cut off access to this important primary and preventive health care service in our communities.

Without this health care access, our uninsured constituents tend to seek health care from our hospital emergency rooms, where costs are skyrocketing and beds are scarce.

This is truly a case where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I thank the committee for its work to increase funding for community health centers, which received $218 million over the President's request, and that is great.

While the Community Health Center and Community Access Programs share similar missions, the Community Access Program really helps coordinate the services, whereas community healthcare centers are really important to a growing number in our community and even need more.

I urge our colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations to restore funding for the CAP program.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would restore the much-needed funding for the Community Access Program, and, believe me, I appreciate what the chairman and the ranking member on the subcommittee and the full committee did with the resources that we have. I know there are more demand resources, but to actually zero out the Community Access Program I think is something that this House and this Congress should not do.

With more than 44 million Americans currently living without health insurance, there is no doubt that too many Americans are going without necessary preventative health care. This lack of access to care comes at an extremely high cost both in human and budgetary terms. Nearly 40 percent of uninsured adults skip a recommended medical test or treatment. And 20 percent indicate that they have needed but have not received care for a serious health problem in the past year.

Without access to primary health care, the uninsured end up in our emergency rooms where treatment is extremely expensive and taxpayers are footing the bill; either that or the shareholders in our for-profit corporations.

This is where the Community Access Program, or the CAP program, comes in. This successful program was created 4 years ago to help local agencies coordinate preventative and primary health care for uninsured individuals in their communities. CAP allows coordinating efforts between the for-profit hospitals, the nonprofit, and the public health providers and literally everyone in the community to serve the people more efficiently. The program facilitates a community-based approach to preventative health care and allows the community to tailor its program specifically to the needs of its uninsured population.

The CAP program has been instrumental in providing health care to the uninsured in my hometown in Houston. Gateway to Care, the community access collaborative in Harris County, Texas, has used CAP funding to expand primary health care services by steering uninsured individuals to the county's existing services, which the uninsured rarely take advantage of. From CAP funds, Gateway has developed a nurse triage service that individuals can utilize 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. So instead of someone showing up in the emergency room, they actually have a phone number to call, and maybe it is just a sinus infection and they can direct them to the closest clinic in their area instead of showing up at whether it is our for-profit or our public hospitals or our nonprofits. Instead of calling 911 and having an ambulance come to get them, these individuals can speak with a qualified nurse who can help them determine the type of care they require.

Gateway has utilized this funding to increase the enrollment in the State's CHIP program and to develop a streamlined eligibility system among the four major safety net providers in our county. Gateway's achievements have helped thousands of Houstonians access necessary health care services.

And yet Gateway is not alone in its successful use of this CAP funding. The program has funded more than 150 health care collaboratives in 42 States; so it is clear that CAP has touched most of us in this Chamber. CAP collaboratives are serving the uninsured across America from Jacksonville, Florida, to Portland, Maine, from Anchorage, Alaska, to Los Angeles, California. They serve small areas like Concord, North Carolina, and urban areas like Houston.

Mr. Chairman, I will include for the Record a list of the American cities that have benefited from this successful program.

Birmingham, AL, Montgomery, AL, Sylacauga, AL, Anchorage,

AK, Sitka, AK, Augusta, AR, Helena, AR, Ratcliff, AR, Bisbee,

AZ, Navajo, AZ, Prescott, AZ, Tuscon, AZ, Bakersfield, CA, El

Centro, CA, Eureka, CA, Lompoc, CA, Los Angeles, CA,

Martinez, CA, Orange, CA, Salinas, CA, San Francisco, CA, San

Leandro, CA, San Mateo, CA, Stockton, CA, Vallejo, CA,

Colorado Springs, CO, Denver, CO, Greeley, CO, Derby, CO, New

Haven, CT, Middletown, CT, Dover, DE, Ft. Lauderdale, FL,

Jacksonville, FL, Kissimmee, FL, Miami, FL, Orlando, FL, St.

Augustine, FL, Tallahassee, FL, Tampa, FL, Atlanta, GA,

Augusta, GA, Macon, GA, Des Moines, IA, Couer D'Alene, ID,

Carlinville, IL, Chicago, IL, Rockford, IL, Springfield, IL.

Indianapolis, IN, South Bend, IN, Tribune, KS, Wichita, KS,

Ashland, KY, Louisville, KY, Lexington, KY, Franklin, LA, New

Orleans, LA, Boston, MA, Cambridge, MA, Springfield, MA,

Yarmouthport, MA, Lavale, MD, Rockville, MD, Portland, ME,

Detroit, MI, Grand Blanc, MI, Kalamazoo, MI, Lansing, MI,

Marquette, MI, Muskegon, MI, Saginaw, MI, Ypsilanti, MI,

Alexandria, MN, Mankato, MN, Minneapolis, MN, St. Cloud, MN,

Kansas City, MO, Kirksville, MO, Jackson, MS, Clarksdale, MS,

Billings, MT, Asheville, NC, Concord, NC, Durham, NC,

Greensboro, NC, Pinehurst, NC, Raleigh, NC, Washington, NC,

Bismarck, ND, Chadron, NE, Columbus, NE, Omaha, NE, Concord,

NH, Albuquerque, NM, El Rito, NM, Santa Fe, NM, Amherst, NY.

Binghamton, NY, Brooklyn, NY, New York, NY, Queens, NY,

Tarrytown, NY, Warrensburg, NY, Cincinnati, OH, Columbus, OH,

Dayton, OH, Tulsa, OK, Cave Junction, OR, Portland, OR,

Blossburg, PA, Norristown, PA, Philadelphia, PA, Pittsburgh,

PA, Scranton, PA, Cranston, RI, Columbia, SC, Greenville, SC,

Orangeburg, SC, Chattanooga, TN, Memphis, TN, Talbott, TN,

Nashville, TN, Austin, TX, Corpus Cristi, TX, Dallas, TX, El

Paso, TX, Galveston, TX, Houston, TX, Uvalde, TX, Salt Lake

City, UT, Arrington, VA, Danville, VA, Falls Church, VA,

Richmond, VA, Winchester, VA, Olympia, WA, Seattle, WA,

Spokane, WA, Wenatchee, WA, Milwaukee, WI, Huntington, WV,

Martinsburg, WV, Charleston, WV, Hinton, WV.

As much success as these communities have achieved with CAP funding, the bill unfortunately eliminates that program. Last year the program received $104 million appropriation; yet the administration transferred $20 million of that, or roughly 20 percent of the total funding, to a pediatric AIDS initiative. No one wants to deny the pediatric AIDS patients the care they need, but this situation demonstrates the problem we have with this bill. We are forced to rob one very worthy program to pay for another necessary program, and in the end the health of our community suffers.

My amendment would restore the $104 million for CAP, restoring funding for the program to the fiscal year 2004 enacted levels.

Because of the host of worthy health care programs in this bill, we do not have an offset, and I would like to withdraw the amendment.

I appreciate the chairman's courtesy in allowing me to talk about the amendment, but I want my colleagues to understand the tremendous strides this program has made in providing primary health care to those 44 million Americans currently living without insurance. The program is worthy of our support, and it is my hope that funding will be restored in conference.

Again, to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I appreciate their allowing me the time, and I thank them for the funds for the community health centers, but we still need the dollars to coordinate these community health centers.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his comments.

Offered By: Mr. Green of Texas

Amendment No. 8: In title II, in the item relating to

``Health Resources and Services Administration--Health

Resources and Services'', insert after the first undesignated

paragraph the following undesignated paragraph:

In addition, for carrying out section 340 of the Public

Health Service Act (relating to the healthy communities

access program), $104,000,000.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3313.

While I believe the institution of marriage should consist of one man and one woman, and I voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, I cannot support this bill. The Defense of Marriage Act has to my knowledge not been challenged in the Federal court, and it seems like we are putting the cart before the horse. We should allow our system of checks and balances to work like our Founding Fathers designed it.

Whatever Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii does regarding their marriage license does not change how Texas law does marriages.

In Texas we already have a law that states the institution of marriage is one man, one woman. We also have a law that states that Texas does not have to recognize marriages that are performed outside the State of Texas. The Defense of Marriage Act supports our State law. Marriage is a State issue and not a Federal issue. We do not seek marriage licenses in the Federal courthouses.

What this bill is about is continued efforts of this administration and Republicans in Congress to divide our country when we really need unity.

Just today we heard that while our troops are fighting for our country, they are short $12 billion in funding, even with all the supplementals we voted for. Maybe this administration, the Republicans, need to spend more time explaining why our troops waited months for body armor and armor for their Humvees and we are still $12 billion short.

Let us spend time protecting our country and not worry about ``my'' 34 years of marriage. And once again, this administration has the wrong priorities.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill to provide for military construction in Fiscal Year 2005.

At a time when our Armed Forces are attempting to streamline and transform their operations, this bill provides crucial funding to

upgrade, maintain and construct the facilities necessary for this process.

One project of particular interest to me, and which I requested funds for, is a Houston Armed Forces Reserve Center, however, this project was not earmarked in the House bill.

The proposed facility will be designed for both Texas Army National Guard units and Marine Corps Reserve units.

Several existing National Guard facilities will either be vacated by this relocation, or remaining units will be closer to their required space authorizations.

The vacated facilities will reduce the average age of existing facilities and lessen maintenance backlogs.

This facility will have a direct impact on soldier readiness by providing proper authorized space to conduct indoor training, reduce driving distances for a majority of the soldiers residing in Houston, and provide modern facilities support for soldiers.

Additionally, this facility is in line with the military's goal of creating joint-use bases.

While the House bill did not provide an earmark for funding this project, I am hopeful that our appropriators will see fit to include this request in the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, on June 12 our office hosted our 10th annual Citizenship Day event. This is a one-stop application processing opportunity for residents who wish to become U.S. citizens. With the help of local volunteers, elected officials and community- based organizations, we were able to help over 150 residents take their first step to becoming a U.S. citizen. Over 10 years we have assisted thousands of people to become citizens of this great Nation.

The Citizenship Day process involves completing United States Customs and Immigration Service forms, taking photographs, and having volunteer attorneys and U.S. Customs and Immigration Service representatives review the application and actually mailing it that day.

Every year this event can bring tears to your eyes at the number of people who want to become citizens of our great country. While some of us tend to take for granted that we live in a great country, others wait in line all night long simply to submit an application to become a U.S. citizen.

Although an event like this takes many months of coordinating, the rewards are remarkable. Not only does it provide a service to our community, but it increases awareness among legal residents about how important it is to become a citizen.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to list in the Record all the volunteers and groups that helped us on this event, as follows:

Houston Community College--Northeast Campus, Harris County

Constable Victor Trevino, U.S. Customs and Immigration

Service, United States Postal Service, JP Morgan Chase, Alma

Latina Taqueria, League of United Latin American Citizens

LULAC, National Association of Latino Elected Officials,

Hispanic Organization of Postal Employees HOPE, Telemundo,

Univision, Quan, Burdette & Perez, Attorneys at Law, Hipolito

Acosta-Houston District Director of USCIS, Rose Aguilar, Mary

Almendarez, Norma Ambriz, Carmen Bermudez, Graciela

Caballero, Rob Caballero, John Cedillo, Mary Closner, Tolanda

Crombie, Anselmo Davila, Zonia Davila, Elias De La Garza,

Cesar De Paz, Hector DeLeon, Olivia Del Bosque, Raul Diaz,

Debbie Dimas, Jaime Elizondo, Armando Entenza, Linda

Escamilla, Fernando Espadin, Pedro Espadin, Silvia Espadin,

Charles Flores, Tim Floyd, Carmen Galle, Jaime Garcia, Juan

Garcia, Rose Garcia, Martina Garcia, Sophie Ha, Krystal

Hernandez, Ernest Hill, Amalia Huerta, Natasha Jabbar, Andres

Lara, Dorothy Ledezma, Teresa Longoria, John Martinez,

Leticia Martinez, Frances Munoz, Valerie Noyoda, Anna Nunez,

Isela Obregon, Rafael Palafox, Clauia Pulido, Isabel Ramirez,

Sylvia Ramirez-Martinez, Mary Ramos, Christina Ramos Avila,

Francisco Rodriguez III, Margaret Rodriguez, Catalina Rosas,

Patrese Ruffin-Bush, David Ruiz, Rosalinda Salazar, Noe

Sanchez, Cathy Shuler, Teri Smith, Christie Nga, Glida

Treadway, Theresa Turnini, Frank Urteaga, Moses Villapando,

Juana Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.- Australia Free Trade Agreement and this bill we are considering today to implement it.

With few exceptions, I have historically opposed our free trade agreements because most of them have been negotiated with developing countries with insufficient labor and environmental standards.

Now, following my colleague from Texas, obviously, we have different views on this free trade agreement. One of the things I am proud of is that not only do most of these earlier trade agreements have inadequate labor and environmental regulations and lower the standard of living for people residing in those countries, which inhibits the ability for U.S. companies to compete, when I opposed previous trade agreements it has always been on the basis that we are putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage against countries that have significantly lower standards of living.

However, this agreement with Australia is different. It puts the U.S. on a level playing field with a country that has comparable labor and environmental standards and a minimum wage that exceeds our own. I wish that were true with CAFTA and NAFTA and a whole bunch of other of our agreements.

This is fair trade, and this is the kind of agreement I can support. This agreement will immediately eliminate 99 percent of all tariffs currently imposed on U.S. exporters. With 93 percent of all exports to Australia coming from the U.S. manufacturing sector, this agreement is estimated to boost our manufacturing exports to the tune of $2 billion.

Without a doubt, there are parts of this agreement that I feel are less perfect. The agreement contains language allowing Australian pharmaceutical patent holders to prevent the export of their products to the U.S. market. In considering, though, that 90 percent of Australian drugs are currently prohibited from being exported by their law, I do not believe this agreement, in a practical sense, would hurt our current reimportation effort. However, I do make clear my opposition to the use of this provision as a precedent for future agreements.

I would also like to note labor's concerns with the agreement. While not out-and-out opposing the agreement, the AFL-CIO has stated that the agreement is ineffective in protecting core worker rights in either the U.S. or Australia. As a former union printer, I take pride in working to strengthen labor rights in our own country; and I certainly agree that improvements can be made in our own country.

Yet, on the whole, both the U.S. and Australia have exemplary labor laws that, given our constitutional democracies, are not likely to reach levels that impose significant threats to the health and safety of our workers.

On balance, it is a fair agreement between two countries that value democracy, worker rights, and fair competition. It is not free trade. It is fair trade.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 615.

This resolution expresses this House's support for full membership for Israel in Western European and Other Groups at the United Nations.

Full membership for Israel is long overdue.

Without full membership in a regional group, Israel cannot sit on the Security Council or other key U.N. bodies, and the Arab states have barred its membership in the group it geographically belongs in, the Asian Group.

On May 30, 2000, Israel accepted an invitation to become a temporary member of Western European and Others, WEOG, regional group.

This historic step helped end at least some of the United Nations' discriminatory actions against Israel; however, without full membership, Israel is excluded from much of the U.N's general business that occurs outside of the General Assembly and Israel is not eligible to sit on the Security Council.

As a sovereign, democratic state--the only democratic state in the Middle East--Israel's full participation in the United Nations is an essential right.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House's full support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to the International Court of Justice's July 9, 2004, advisory opinion condemning Israel's security fence.

Israel's security fence is an important tool necessitated by continued Palestinian terrorism. Israel has the same obligation to protect its citizens as any other nation, including the United States.

The ruling by the ICJ is not only the latest in the United Nations long line of anti-Israel actions, but also sets several dangerous precedents in international law that hinder and impede United States antiterrorism efforts.

Having been to Israel on several occasions, I can personally attest to Israel's need for this security fence. Many measures have been taken to make its presence less intrusive on the Palestinian people, while still providing necessary protection for Israeli citizens.

Further proof of this is the June 30, 2004, ruling by the Israeli Supreme Court, which ruled that a contentious section of the barrier being built by Israel in the West Bank violates the rights of thousands of Palestinian residents by separating them from their farmland. This ruling led to a shift in the path of an 18-mile section to meet the court's demands. This fence is a necessary means of protection for a people that have suffered numerous terrorist attacks, not on their government or military, but on innocent civilians.

Israel has not claimed that this fence is a permanent barrier; it is a temporary solution to protect its citizens who have been plagued by violence.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the International Court of Justice's decision, and I fully support Israel's right to protect its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, it's official. The July 12 issue of U.S. News and World Report has named Houston's MD Anderson Cancer Center as the number one cancer treatment facility in the nation. Since 1941, MD Anderson has consistently delivered on its mission to provide innovative and compassionate treatment, cutting-edge research and educational outreach with regard to both common and rare cancers.

MD Anderson's clinical research program is the largest in the nation, allowing more than 11,000 patients access to promising and innovative therapies and diagnostic tests in 2003. This stellar reputation has attracted more than 600,000 cancer patients from all corners of the U.S. to Houston for the multidisciplinary approach to cancer treatment pioneered by MD Anderson, which has since become the established method of cancer treatment in all hospitals today.

MD Anderson is part of Houston's Texas Medical Center, which is comprised of more than thirty academic, research and patient care institutions delivering top-notch medical care to Texans and the thousands of Americans who flock to Houston each year to be treated by the best. And the recent rankings by U.S. News and World Report prove that the Texas Medical Center continues to offer some of the best medical care in the country.

In gynecology, both MD Anderson and Methodist Hospital rank within the top twenty-five health centers for women's health. Ranking fourth in the nation, the Texas Children's Hospital continues to lead the way in pediatric care. Both the Texas Heart Institute at St. Luke's and Methodist Hospital rank in the top twenty for the treatment of heart disease and heart surgery. Methodist also ranks number ten in neurology and neurosurgery, and in the top forty for orthopedics.

Two hospitals in the Texas Medical Center rank within the top fifteen in urology, with MD Anderson holding the number ten spot and Methodist ranking number thirteen. Methodist shares top billing with Memorial Hermann in the treatment of kidney diseases, with both hospitals ranking in the top fifty for this speciality. Both kidney diseases and hormonal disorders are complications of the rising diabetes epidemic, and the rankings also recognized Memorial Hermann as a top hospital for endocrinology.

These rankings prove what Houstonians have known all along--the Texas Medical Center is armed with the research, treatment and patient care options to help Americans tackle whatever health condition ails them. I am extremely proud to have the Texas Medical Center in Houston and congratulate all of its hospitals on this national recognition and on all of their many accomplishments in health care.

Mr. Speaker, on July 9, 2004, I was unable to be present for the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

On rollcall 348, to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair, I would have voted nay;

On rollcall 349, on the motion to adjourn, I would have voted nay;

On rollcall 350, on ordering the previous question, I would have voted nay;

On rollcall 351, on agreeing to House Resolution 711, I would have voted yea;

On rollcall 352, on tabling the motion to reconsider, I would have voted nay;

On rollcall 353, on the motion to adjourn, I would have voted nay;

On rollcall 354, on the motion to recommit with instructions, I would have voted nay;

On rollcall 355, on agreeing to the Gordon amendment, I would have voted yea;

On rollcall 356, on agreeing to the Jackson-Lee amendment, I would have voted yea;

On rollcall 357, on agreeing to the Larson amendment, I would have voted yea;

On rollcall 358, on the motion to recommit with instructions, I would have voted yea.

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

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I will not take my 5 minutes; I just want to put a statement in the Record.

I rise in support of this bill for the Subcommittee on Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies and to say congratulations to both the chairman and ranking member for their efforts. I know there are particular projects, and I would like to put a special word in for NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Program.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill to fund the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary.

In crafting this legislation, our appropriators faced the difficult task of adequately funding many national priorities. On balance, they did a remarkable job and have produced a bill worthy of our support.

For sure, there are programs that we would all like to see funded at higher levels. One of particular interest to me and my constituents in Houston is NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Program. This program exists to protect important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, or historical values and are threatened by development or conversion.

In Houston, we are involved in an effort to preserve the Buffalo Bayou, which is the historic waterway on which the Allen Brothers founded Houston in 1836.

NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Program has allowed us to partner with the Trust for Public Land to conserve critical tracts of land along the Buffalo Bayou in order to further our conservation efforts.

Ultimately, we seek to revitalize the Buffalo Bayou in a manner that balances the need to conserve the Bayou's wetlands and waterways with the recreational and business development needed to transform the Buffalo Bayou into an active and vibrant urban waterfront center.

While the House bill provides only $3 million for the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Program, I am hopeful that our appropriators will see it fit to raise that funding level during conference.

An increased funding level would allow the federal government to continue its investment in areas like the Buffalo Bayou that have been recognized by this Congress and conservation groups alike as nationally and historically significant areas worthy of preservation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Lance Corporal Pedro Contreras.

Lance Cpl. Contreras was a constituent of the 29th District of Texas, and a true hero, who died on June 21, 2004 while serving his country in the Al Anbar Province, Iraq.

Pedro Contreras joined the Marine Corps on May 7, 2001, five years after graduating from Galena Park High School.

Lance Cpl. Contreras was a rifleman assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force based in Camp Pendleton, California, where he earned several honors, including the National Defense Service Medal and the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon.

Pedro Contreras leaves behind his two parents, Jose and Angela Contreras, and three brothers.

I know his parents, family and friends are devastated by this loss, but they should be proud of the great man Pedro Contreras had become and that he died a hero while serving his country.

His loss will be felt by all of our community, and I ask that you remember the Contreras family in your thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Geriatric and Chronic Care Management Act, an important piece of legislation that would authorize Medicare coverage of geriatric assessment and care management for eligible Medicare beneficiaries.

Americans are living longer than ever, with the average life expectancy rising to 80 years-old for women and 74 years-old for men. While this is a positive development, there are costs associated with the aging of America. As seniors live longer, they face greater risks of disease and disabilities, such as Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, stroke and heart disease.

Geriatricians are physicians who are uniquely trained to help care for the aging and elderly. By promoting a comprehensive approach to health care, including wellness and preventive care, geriatricians can help seniors live longer and healthier lives.

It is critical that our nation have a sufficient number of geriatricians to help manage the aging of the baby-boom generation. Unfortunately, there are currently only 9,000 certified geriatricians, and that number is expected to decline dramatically in the coming years. Of the approximately 98,000 medical residency and fellowship positions supported by Medicare in 1998, only 324 were in geriatric medicine and geriatric psychiatry. The Alliance for

Aging Research estimates that the U.S. will need approximately 36,000 geriatricians to counter the aging population.

However, significant barriers exist that prevent physicians from entering geriatrics. A MedPac survey found that Medicare's low reimbursement rates serve as a major obstacle to recruiting new geriatricians. Due to their higher level of chronic disease and multiple prescriptions, seniors require additional care to ensure proper diagnosis and treatment. Medicare's reimbursement rates do not factor the complex needs of elderly patients. Because geriatricians treat seniors exclusively, they are especially affected by Medicare's low reimbursement rates.

The legislation I am introducing today would remedy this problem, so that Medicare beneficiaries can more effectively manage their chronic diseases. The Geriatric and Chronic Care Management Act would utilize the existing Medicare fee-for-service system to provide a new, limited assessment and care management benefit to beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions. I urge all of my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this important legislation.