Donna Christensen

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I rise today to congratulate the St. Croix--Governor Juan F. Luis--Hospital administration and staff. On June 30, 2004, the Juan Luis Hospital received accreditation from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. This achievement has brought us a step closer to our goal of providing first-class health care services for the people of the Virgin Islands. The St. Croix Hospital has faced many challenges over the years, but the past one was particularly difficult. When they were without a Chief Executive Officer, two physicians, Dr. Lloyd Henry and Dr. Michael Potts stepped up and stepped in, to lead. The Board provided continuity and gave them their full support. The staff put differences, and any personal concerns aside and pulled together. When a leader was finally selected, in the person of Mr. Gregory Calliste, they all became one team on a mission. There are still challenges to be faced and overcome. But with this achievement, they have proven their mettle to the community, and what working together with a common vision can produce, to themselves. The St. Croix community as well as the entire Virgin Island community--for all of us will benefit--are grateful for the hard work and dedication that went into this successful effort. It is an undeniable testimony to their commitment to providing quality health care to us. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my family, staff, and all Virgin Islanders I once again congratulate the entire Juan Luis Hospital family for their shining accomplishment. Our community looks forward to their continuing superior service and further crowning accomplishments.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by first thanking our Chairman, Mr. Cox from California and Ranking member, from Texas, Mr. Turner, for their leadership on the select committee and for this opportunity to offer my support for S. 15, Project Bioshield, and to draw attention to the critical issues of homeland security. And I also want to take the opportunity to again thank the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Pelosi, for the honor of serving on this important committee. In this post 9/11 world, it has been said that bioterrorism may represent our greatest threat. Project Bioshield is important because it will help to ensure that we can spur the development of vaccines and other countermeasures that will be needed to counteract or treat an infectious, radiological or chemical attack. But it can only go so far, because we have no idea what the agent might be or how a known one might be altered. Not only is it possible that hundreds of millions of dollars could be spent to develop a medicine or vaccine and it be totally useless, but the very best of medicines, vaccines or other agents will be worthless to you, me and the people we serve without an intact public health system. A recent bipartisan commission's report, ``First Responders Underfunded and Unprepared,'' documents the dire need of our public health and other responders in stark and frightening terms. I am still waiting for a formal hearing on their findings, and we should not be afraid to have the report aired. We should really be more afraid not to pay attention to its findings and its recommendations. Particular when we think about the health care disparities in minorities and in our rural areas that I have come to this floor to bring to the attention of our colleagues on many occasions did not just come about by chance. They exist because of the poor public health systems in these communities. The last 3 years of cuts to health budgets have been devastating. The lack of emphasis on minority and rural health and the even bigger cuts that the President is insisting on this year, so that those who already have the best of health care can get a tax cut and other perks, have sent States into a free fall of budget deficits, and local public health safety nets, like those in Los Angeles, and Detroit, to near collapse. Mr. Speaker, we cannot just throw money at the problem of terrorism, as this administration has a tendency to do, without adequate planning. In this case, we must first and foremost insist that our public health system is intact and that it can ensure that people are healthy and our bodies are in a better condition to fight off infections and the other biological assaults that may come from a bioterrorism attack. The anthrax scare taught us that lesson. The breakdowns were fundamental ones. Project Bioshield, the administration's centerpiece for public health preparedness and biological countermeasures, would not have saved the two postal workers just down the street from here who died because the public health system failed to respond. It happened here, but it could happen anywhere. Confronting the danger posed by these advanced biological weapons is a challenge we must begin today. Thus, we must ensure that biotechnology is fundamentally ``dual-use,'' that is it can be used both for peaceful and destructive purposes. Because of its potential for misuse, balanced biodefense policies must be developed and adopted to ensure our safety and security. These should include reasonable steps to prevent the spread of dangerous pathogens and the technology to enhance them. Preparedness of our health infrastructure must also be enhanced and maintained. Finally, protections, including drugs and vaccines, to counter potential weaponized pathogens need to be available during a crisis. It is in the area of protections for tomorrow's biological weapons threat that we are particularly weak. The primary proposal advanced to boost our protection capacities, Project Bioshield, will not address this threat because it is targeted to addressing classical agents. In addition, it relies on the current base of science and technology in drug and vaccine development, which takes an average of 14 years to develop and introduce a new medicine. As a consequence, our protective biodefenses are essentially static and unmoving in the face of a threat that is highly variable and unpredictable. The recent experience with SARS and the danger of a new flu pandemic demonstrate the dangers of a lack of effective countermeasures and a nimble ability to develop and field them. Recently, Ranking member Turner and I introduced H.R. 4258 The RAPID Cures Act. This bill seeks to commission the development of a strategy to achieve a dramatic reduction in the timeframe required today for the delivery of drugs and vaccines to counter pathogen threats for which we have no existing countermeasures. The achievement of reductions and the institution of a national rapid response ``Bug-to-Drug'' capability will be a significant boost to our biodefenses against the emerging and future threat of bioengineered biological weapons, as well as naturally occurring novel threats, such as SARS or pandemic flu. In addition to improving antimicrobial and vaccine development capabilities, an area currently neglected by the private sector, the technical spin-offs of such an endeavor are also likely to benefit the domestic pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries more generally. Broad public health benefits will also be forthcoming. Extensive literature exists to show that the long timeframes (14 years) and high failure rates typical of drug development processes today are a significant cause of high R&D costs, and thus high prescription drug costs. Mr. Speaker, today I know that we will pass this bill, but what I and other health providers, public health experts and officials and the people of this country want to know is that we will always move just as determinedly and expeditiously to fully fund the strengthening of our public health system, the training of our first responders and provide them with the tools and facilities they need to protect us in those first critical hours where lives can and must be saved. I again want to take this opportunity to thank and commend Chairman Cox and Ranking Member Turner for their leadership in moving this bill through Congress.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the 200th anniversary of the death of Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. Although everyone recognizes that he was a great American, it is not widely known that he was from St. Croix, my home. Alexander Hamilton relocated to St. Croix from Nevis at the age of 9. There he developed the exceptional accounting, finance, and writing skills which later propelled his career. Many of Hamilton's later values and ideals were shaped by his experiences in St. Croix. A prime example was his opposition to slavery. Best known as the first Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton was a military man and a true statesman and public servant. Today in St. Croix where we walk where he lived and worked, we are celebrating his life. We celebrate too our invaluable contribution to the birth of this Nation and its early formative years. On this anniversary of Hamilton's unfortunate death, let us remember him for his outstanding public service, his dedication to his country, and his contributions to our great history. However, when reflecting on his illustrious career, let us not forget that he is also a true Virgin Island son.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment to restore funding to the SBA 7(a) program. In its fiscal year 2005 budget, the administration dealt a near- mortal blow to our Nation's small businesses by taking the funding from that program to zero. This amendment breathes new life into it by restoring that funding. It is critical to at least maintain funding for SBA's 7(a) loan program to last year's level of $79 million. Providing just level funding will leverage more than $13 billion in lending opportunities under the 7(a) program. But if this bill passes without the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment, small businesses will be required to pay nearly $80 million currently subsidized by the Federal Government, the equivalent of a new tax on small business. Today, with double-digit rising health care costs, expanding energy costs, and pressure from overseas competitors, this increase is more than our small businesses can bear. The 7(a) loans spur economic development in underserved areas like my district in the Virgin Islands, especially the island of St. Croix. The 7(a) loans are used to purchase land or buildings to expand existing facilities. These loans are used to buy new equipment, machinery, or even furniture. In sum, the 7(a) loan program is SBA's core lending program, as Members have heard, and accounts for roughly 30 percent of all long- term small business borrowing in America. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member, for their leadership and their strong passionate bipartisan effort to salvage this program which is so critical to the small business sector and thus to the economic health of our Nation. I urge my colleagues to walk the talk and support America's small businesses by supporting this amendment. Without this amendment, the 7(a) lending program and many of our small businesses will not survive.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3980 and applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for introducing it and getting it to the floor for passage today. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3980 would establish the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program to achieve major measurable reductions in losses of life and property from windstorms. This is critically important to Members like me whose districts are prone to catastrophic windstorms such as hurricanes. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent one of the most beautiful places under the American Flag, the U.S. Virgin Islands. While we live in an area that sees its share of hurricanes every year, prior to 1989 we were spared for over 60 years of being hit by one of these storms. Since September, 1989, however, when Hurricane Hugo hit with sustained winds in excess of 200 miles per hour, our islands were changed forever. The devastation wrought by this storm was astronomical. However, just as we were beginning to recover from the legacy of Hurricane Hugo, we were hit with a second devastating storm in September of 1995, Hurricane Marilyn. Since then we were hit by at least four other major storms, the last one being Hurricane Lenny in 1999. Mr. Speaker, if having to deal with recovering from a major natural disaster was not enough, Hurricanes Hugo and Marilyn left the Virgin Islands with an even more ominous legacy. It almost wiped out the availability of affordable windstorm insurance in the territory. The lack of available affordable homeowners insurance in the Virgin Islands remains a serious problem for many of my constituents today. With the huge payouts associated with the September 11 attacks and natural disasters of 2 years ago, insurance companies' costs have skyrocketed. To keep from falling into the red, many are passing their costs on to homeowners in the form of higher premiums. For the Virgin Islands, added risk of hurricanes, increased seismic activity, and the lack of competition among insurers make it more difficult for my constituents to find relief from these skyrocketing premiums. While H.R. 3980 does not directly address the problem of the availability of affordable disaster insurance, it has the very real potential of lowering these costs in the long run if it is successful in lowering or reducing the losses to life and property from hurricanes and other windstorm disasters. Mr. Speaker, windstorms and the damage and destruction they bring result in higher and higher costs to our Nation every year. Any effort which will result in the reduction of these costs will yield untold benefits for all of us. For this reason I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3980. And I once again want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for introducing it and bringing it to the floor today.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 410, to recognize the 25th anniversary of the Constitution of the Republic of the Marshall Islands and that the Marshall Islands is a staunch ally of the United States. I want to begin by commending my friend, the Gentleman from Arizona Mr. Flake, for his leadership in introducing this worthwhile resolution of which I am an original cosponsor. The Republic of the Marshall Islands suffered for 400 years under the colonial regimes of Spain and Germany. In the 20th century, under the League of Nations system for governance of territories, Japan governed the Marshall Islands. During World War II, the Marshall Islands were liberated from Japanese rule through the cooperation between the Marshallese people and the Armed Forces of the United States. In a 1947 agreement between Congress and the United Nations Security Council, the United States assumed trusteeship of the Marshall Islands. During the period from 1947 to 1979, the United States promoted democratic self-government and self-determination in the Marshall Islands. In 1979, the Marshall Islands adopted their own constitution and declared themselves the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Since that time, the Republic of the Marshall Islands has proved itself a staunch ally of the United States and a model for transition from a non-self-governing territory ravaged by war to a stable and democratic example of institution building for the Pacific region and the rest of the world. On June 17, 2004, President of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Kessai Note wrote to U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka expressing his continued concern for the people of Ailuk Atoll near which the United States tested the thermonuclear weapon Bravo in 1954. The people of Ailuk and others still suffer from the fallout of those tests. I support President Note in his desire to have the people of Ailuk receive the support and assistance they badly need. Mr. Speaker, this is worthy resolution, which is deserving of all our support and I urge all my colleagues to support its passage. And I look forward to the continued friendship of the United States and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Mr. Burton of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and to pay tribute to a staunch ally of the United States and a people committed to the principles of democracy and freedom for all people of the Pacific region and the world. It is perhaps fitting that on May 29, 2004, America dedicated the National World War II Memorial in recognition of the duty, sacrifices, and valor of the members of the Armed Forces of the United States who served in World War II. The beginnings of our Nation's close relationship with the people of the Marshall Islands are deeply rooted in that titanic struggle. In 1944, risking their lives to aid the Armed Forces of the United States and our Allies, the Marshallese people joined with the U.S. to liberate the Marshall Islands from Japanese military rule. Some of the most horrific battles of World War II occurred on the Marshall Islands before the Japanese military occupation was finally put to an end. The momentous events brought together the people of these two great lands in a common bond that has resulted in more than five decades of friendship and strategic solidarity between the Marshall Islands and the U.S. That relationship is as strong today as it ever was. Comprising 30 atolls and 1,152 islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands represents a total land mass that is almost equivalent in size to Washington, D.C., but covers roughly 770,000 square miles of the western Pacific Ocean. Unfortunately, due to the vastness of the world's largest ocean, and the distance between us, the culture, history, and people of the Marshall Islands are largely unknown to most Americans, except perhaps as the place where the United States tested more than 67 nuclear weapons during the development of our Nation's strategic arsenal. Although that testing left a legacy that we continue to address to this day, it would prove critical to the success of our country during the Cold War. The United States nuclear testing program put the people of these remote islands on the front line in the Cold War struggle to preserve international peace, promote nuclear disarmament, support nuclear nonproliferation, and provide facilities critical to the development of a deployable missile defense system. The hardships and suffering endured by Marshall Island citizens during the testing program directly contributed to the positive and peaceful end to the Cold War. Their importance to the emergence of democracy across the globe cannot be understated. The people of the United States, and indeed the entire Free World, owe the people of the Marshall Islands an enormous debt of gratitude for their sacrifices. The Republic of the Marshall Islands has an unmatched record of working in conjunction with the United States in the pursuit of international peace and security, the rights and well-being of the peoples of the world, and in the War on Terror. I have been fortunate to have many great friends who hail from the Marshall Islands, and I will never forget the openness and kindness with which I was received. I congratulate the people of the Marshall Islands on the 25th Anniversary of their Constitution; and I commend them for the undying commitment to democracy and freedom. The United States is fortunate to have such a loyal friend and ally in the Pacific region. I look forward to a long and mutually beneficial relationship between our two great Nations for many more years to come.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my deep disappointment about the revised Conference Report regarding this year's Health and Human Service budget proposal and how it impacts change for minority health and the health of America's most vulnerable populations. The House conference report can only be viewed as a slap in the face and an insincere gesture to address systemic health problems faced by minorities and women. With few exceptions, the conference report includes policy-based numbers only for 2005 and provides but meaningless placeholder numbers for 2006 through 2009. The Budget Act requires that the budget resolution cover five years: this conference report clearly violates the spirit of that requirement by providing in essence only a shell of a five-year budget resolution. It has been a quarter of a century since a budget resolution conference report covered only one year. Mr. Speaker, this budget mainly benefits the healthy and the wealthy, because the conference agreement provides only $864.3 billion for 2005 discretionary funding, including the $50 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Excluding funding for these operations, the total is $8.6 billion less than the President's already dismal budget sent to Congress back in February. The conference agreement increases funding for both national defense and homeland security, and cuts 2005 funding for domestic programs by $7.6 billion--below a freeze at the 2004 enacted level and by $18.3 billion below the level needed to maintain services at the 2004 level. Excluding the increases for homeland security, the conference agreement cuts the remaining domestic programs even more. The conference agreement contained deep and arbitrary cuts to healthcare programs that are critical to serving minority populations. Over five years, the budget cuts spending for mandatory health programs by $905 million. Medicaid constitutes over 90 percent of the dollars for these programs, so it is likely that Medicaid will bear the brunt of these spending cuts, if they are enacted. But this is just the beginning Mr. Speaker. The budget cuts funding for the uninsured by slashing HCAP, the Healthy Community access program, from $120 million to $10 million. The House's conference report slashes Health Professions funding by 70 percent, from $409 million to $126 million, eliminating funding for important programs to address the nursing shortage and to train health professionals for cultural competence. New York alone will receive a cut of $22 million. The House's conference report cuts the Public Health Improvement accounts in half. Reductions to this account not only jeopardize the electronic information infrastructure, and other activities needed to monitor and respond to bioterrorism, but also affect programs to eliminate racial disparities. The House's conference report slashes rural health activities by $91 million below this year's enacted level--or by 64 percent. This cut includes eliminating the $39 million rural health flexibility grant program and drastically cutting back rural health outreach grants, used to expand clinical services in rural areas. The House's conference report provides an inadequate increase of only 2.6 percent for NIH. According to patient and research advocates, NIH must receive budget increases of 8 to 10 percent to capitalize on the progress being made in biomedical research. The Bush budget will not even allow NIH to continue existing grants. The House's conference report cuts funding far the Office of Minority Health by 15 percent from this year's enacted level. This office supports disease prevention, health promotion, service demonstration, and educational efforts that focus on health concerns that cause the high rate of disease in racial and ethnic minority communities. In addition, it does not propose to reauthorize the Office, whose authorization expires in 3 years. This is a very bad omen, in the face of the large and growing healthcare disparities in minority communities. The House's conference report cuts bioterrorism hospital preparedness grants by $39 million. This will leave a host of unfunded Federal mandates and will further burden already strained resources at hospitals that serve minority and rural communities. The House's conference report zeroes outs the healthcare facilities improvement projects, halting all healthcare infrastructure projects that are supported through Federal contracts. Many of the projects are in rural and urban communities that serve minority populations. The House's conference report only level-funds grant programs for organ transplantation and bone marrow donor registry, which has helped a number of people in underserved communities to get transplants. The House's conference report also levelfunds the telehealth program, which has been instrumental in providing healthcare in rural and Native American communities that currently lack healthcare infrastructure and service providers. The House's conference report freezes funding for the Indian Health Service's health professions program, diabetes grants program, and medical equipment program. Native Americans have the highest rate of diabetes and the lowest production of health professionals in the Nation. The House's conference report freezes funding for the mentoring of children of prisoners, for programs that address developmental disabilities, violence against women, and runaway and homeless youth programs in the Department's Administration for Children and Families. In addition it cuts $33 million from the Early Learning Fund and $3 million from the Child Abuse Discretionary Activities account. Both programs support a number of organizations in minority communities. Mr. Speaker, our healthcare 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 minority populations, who for almost every illness are impacted most severely and disproportionately. Today we know that much of it happens because, even when minorities have access to care, the medical evaluations and treatments that are made available to everyone else are denied to them--not only in the private sector but in the public system as well. Acknowledging this, we worked with the other minority caucuses and the progressive caucus to close the gaps in funding for programs that would close these gaps in the CBC budget. While our measure garnered a record number of votes, it failed. We also worked with the Senate and got an amendment included in their budget resolution for an additional $400 million to be dedicated for minority health, and it is our sincere hope that the amendment is included in the final budget report and that it will be treated as a clear signal to appropriators on the need to address the health concerns of minority populations.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Waxman/Tierney amendment to establish an independent commission on the politicization of science in the regulatory process. As a family physician and Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Health Braintrust, I have made numerous appearances on this floor to remind my congressional colleagues and this Nation about the gaping deficiencies in our healthcare system. With these deficiencies being most salient in minority communities, members have introduced and passed a number of legislative proposals geared towards eliminating racial and ethnic health disparities. Public Law 106-129 was one of these proposals and required the Agency for Health care Quality and Research to produce annual reports on the existing disparities in this Nation. But the Bush administration, who seeks to evangelize individual responsibility as the sole mechanism for redressing health disparities and improving health care for the underserved, have produced policy directives sought to downgrade proven programmatic efforts to eliminate health disparities, and overtly question the reality of the health care system's failings in the requested report entitled National Health Care Disparities Report (NHDR). The NHDR was published by Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Health Care Quality and Research in December of 2003 and took the position that racial and ethnic minorities are in better health than the general population. After an investigation was launched at the request of Congressman Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) and members of the Congressional Minority Caucuses, it became apparent that there were two starkly different versions of the report. The June version of the report found ``significant inequality'' in health care in the United States, referred to health care disparities as ``national problems,'' emphasized that these disparities are ``pervasive in our health care system,'' and found that the disparities carry a significant ``personal and societal price.'' The December version of the report that was released, however, contains none of these conclusions. Furthermore, the June versions of NHDR defined ``disparity'' as the condition or fact of being unequal, as in age, rank, or degree, and included the term over the 30 times in the ``key findings'' section of the executive summary. By contrast, the December version leaves ``disparity'' undefined and deletes the uses of the ``disparity'' throughout the report. After much political pressure and public embarrassment, the Secretary of Health and Human Services retracted the December report and released the June version. But after three months of aggressively defending and justifying the December report it was clear the Administration's understanding of death from health disparities and unequal treatment of the underserved by the health care system based on ideological perspective rather than science. Perspective-based policy making in health care is problematic because its solutions hinge on its biases. With over a century of science-based evidence available, such policy- making appears not just partisan before activity harmful. Mr. Chairman, we do not have time to allow political ideology to take precedent over science. I urge my colleagues to support the Waxman/ Tierney amendment and put an end to politicization of science.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

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

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 420, a resolution recognizing National Transportation Week and applauding the men and women who keep America moving. Although Congress established National Transportation Week more than 40 years ago, this concurrent resolution provides an opportunity to acknowledge the great contribution of advances in transportation to our Nation's economic success and to salute the men and women who toil on a daily basis to improve America's mobility. Our transportation investments have paid enormous dividends and enabled our Nation to become the premier economic power in the world. For instance, over the last 2 decades, spending for transportation and logistics fell from 16 percent of gross domestic product to less than 9 percent. We are moving more goods and more people far more efficiently than ever before. By reducing the portion of GDP that is dedicated to logistics, this 7 percent efficiency gain in our $10 trillion economy results in a savings of more than $700 billion per year. It is this great American success story that this resolution recognizing National Transportation Week celebrates, and I urge Members to support the resolution. But words without deeds are meaningless. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on a bipartisan basis recognized that the beginning. Under the leadership of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), they worked together to craft a bill that would invest $375 billion over 6 years to improve our highways, transit systems and safety programs, the very level of investment derived from the Department of Transportation's report on our highway and transit needs. Moreover, the investment would create and sustain up to 3.6 million family wage construction jobs, including 1.7 million new jobs. Despite strong bipartisan support for this legislation in the House, the House Republican leadership, at the bidding of the White House, would not allow the committee to bring that bipartisan bill to the floor. Had the Bush administration not erected the roadblocks that prevented our bill from advancing through the legislative process, we could have celebrated National Transportation Week in a more meaningful way, pouring the concrete, laying the rail, and cutting the paychecks envisioned within the enactment of TEA-LU. In an effort to move the bill forward, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reluctantly reported and the House overwhelmingly passed a bill weeks ago with an investment level that is more than $100 billion less than our original bill, $100 billion less than what DOT's analysis shows is required to relieve congestion and improve the surface transportation system in our country. But even the significantly smaller House bill, authorizing $283 billion and guaranteeing $275 billion is too high for the White House. The administration is still insisting that the total investment be no more than $256 billion over 6 years. So, let me be clear on what the administration's bill provides: Not one more dollar for highway and transit infrastructure, not one new job. Compared to where we are today, the administration's bill provides no increase for highway funding and no increase for transit funding for the next 5 years, not a single additional dollar. As a result, not one additional job will be created by this zero-growth investment. The administration's absolute insistence on flat-line investment for highway and transit infrastructure is unprecedented. In contrast, under TEA21, highway investment jumped from $21.5 billion in fiscal year 1998 to $31.6 billion in fiscal year 2003, a 47 percent increase. Transit investment grew even faster, from $4.6 billion in 1998 to $7.3 billion in fiscal year 2003, a 56 percent increase. Even under very difficult budget conditions in the early 1990s, under ISTEA, highway investment still managed to increase from $16.8 billion in 1992 to $18.3 billion in 1997, a 9 percent increase. Under the President's bill, highway investment will have zero percent growth, from $33.6 billion in 2004 to $33.6 billion in 2009. Similarly, transit investment will have zero percent growth, from $7.2 billion in 2004 to $7.2 billion in fiscal year 2009. Moreover, the President's proposal will cut the guaranteed transit investment to $5.9 billion, an 18 percent cut from fiscal year 2003. Mr. Speaker, this country has worked too hard to put the current transportation system in place to allow the administration and this Congress to squander previous investments made over generations and allow that system to deteriorate. As we celebrate National Transportation Week, let us move beyond the rhetoric of congressional resolutions to a bill that honors the work of generations of transportation workers and a system that must remain the envy of the world. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 420.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

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

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2201 is a bipartisan measure introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), that will help further the commemoration of the service rendered in military conflicts throughout American history. There are thousands of public memorials that commemorate military conflicts of the United States and the service of individuals of the U.S. Armed Forces. On November 13, 2000, Congress agreed to a resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the need for cataloging and maintaining public memorials. As I said, there are many thousands of public memorials and permanent tributes throughout the United States, including in my district, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and abroad, that commemorate military conflicts of the United States and the service of individuals in the Armed Forces. Many of these memorials suffer from neglect and disrepair and many have been relocated or stored in facilities where the memorials are unavailable to the public and subject to further neglect and damage. There also exists a need to collect and centralize information regarding the identification, location and description of these memorials, as no such catalog is available to the public from either the Federal Government or any nongovernmental agency. By directing the establishment of a centralized database of these public memorials, H.R. 2201 will contribute to the increased recognition and understanding of the events and people involved in the defense of our country. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for his initiative on this important matter. I wholeheartedly support this bipartisan measure and urge its adoption by the House today.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

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

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3768, as amended, is a small, noncontroversial measure. The legislation involves the inclusion of 8.5 acres of land within the Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve in northern Florida. This parcel of land, known as American Beach, has historical ties to the African American community, largely represented by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), which used the area for many years for recreational purposes. It is our understanding that this noncontroversial measure has the support of the local community and there are no objections from the National Park Service to the inclusion of this recreational and historical land within the preserve. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, we support the passage of the legislation today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

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

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague has already explained the amendment. The legislation would benefit the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District, which has had a difficult time in purchasing excess Forest Service property in Bend, Oregon. The legislation includes provisions to ensure that the property to be conveyed will only be used for recreational purposes. The legislation also would provide property to the Administrative School District No. 1 in Deschutes County, Oregon. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is also to be commended for his role in securing the passage of this legislation. We have no objection.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 622, supporting the goals and ideals of Peace Officers Memorial Day and urge my colleagues to support its adoption. Pursuant to a joint resolution approved October 1, 1962, Congress authorized and requested the President to designate May 15 of each year as ``Peace Officers Memorial Day'' and the week in which it falls as ``Police Week.'' In this regard, I applaud my colleagues Joel Hefley, Tom Davis, Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak, a former Peace Officer himself, for sponsoring H. Res. 622 to further encourage the observance of a day of remembrance for the more than, 1600 Federal, State, and local peace officers who were killed or disabled in the line of duty in past 10 years. Mr. Speaker, Police Memorial Day 2004 will be a particularly sad one for my constituents in the Virgin Islands and me because of the passing of Virgin Police Officer Cuthbert Chapman who was shot several times on April 17 as he tried to stop a robbery. Officer Chapman, also known as ``Chappy,'' ``Kimba'' and ``Cutty,'' was remembered as a soft-spoken and kind-hearted friend who was always willing to give a helping hand. He was a 12-year veteran on the force. He joined the police department on June 15, 1992, and was assigned to the Bicycle Patrol Unit at Wilbur Francis Command in Frederiksted. Chapman also served in various units and bureaus in the department. As we remember and pay tribute to Officer Chapman, I must also mention and recognize some of the other Peace Officers, including Randy Stevens, Steven Hodge, Richard Callwood, Dexter Mardenborough, Wilbur Francis, Allen William, and Patrick Sweeney, who lost their lives striving to keep the streets and communities of the Virgin Islands safe. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we acknowledge and commend the courage and dedication shown by all Peace Officers who have given their lives for their fellow citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is Insure the Uninsured Week, and for me as a physician and Chair of the Health Brain Trust of the Congressional Black Caucus, ensuring health coverage to everyone is a priority every day. And so I want to be very clear that I rise in strong support of providing small businesses and their employees access to high-quality health insurance that is truly affordable. That is why I oppose H.R. 4281, the Association Health Plan bill, and support the Kind-Andrews substitute. We in the minority caucuses have spent a great deal of time looking at the issue of insurance, of how we can allow small business associations to come together to pool their purchasing power to buy quality health coverage at the lowest possible cost. We examined the AHPs. I did not originally sign on to the bill, but after a closer look at what it would do and as a physician who understands how important it is to do no harm, I removed my name from what I consider a harmful bill. In H.R. 4281, the base bill, AHPs would be exempt from State insurance regulations and consumer protections. They would increase health care costs for most small business employees, cause premiums to rise for those outside of the AHP market, and eventually not lower, but increase, the number of uninsured in small business firms. While AHP supporters will insist that this will not happen, by removing these important protections, the major harm this bill can do is too great a risk to take. We are talking about workers' health; we are talking about their lives. There is a better way to provide this insurance which will not harm, and that is the Kind-Andrews substitute. It would establish an employer health benefit plan similar to the Federal employees' health benefits, which would contract with state- licensed health insurers to offer an insurance package for employees of businesses of fewer than 100 employees. Unlike the underlying bill, this better Democratic substitute will keep these small employer plans subject to State health insurance and consumer regulations and protections. It would provide small businesses and their employees access to high-quality health coverage; and by ensuring that the risk is spread, that everyone is included, not keeping sicker employees out, it keeps it truly affordable. As a member of the Committee on Small Business since coming to this Congress, I am for helping small businesses. This substitute does that. H.R. 4281 will not. I urge my colleagues to join the more than 150 organizations, including all of the prominent civil rights organizations, in opposing H.R. 4281. Instead, I urge them to vote for the Kind-Andrews substitute. Let us make sure we cover this important group who are over 60 percent of all the uninsured; and above all, let us do no harm.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, the House today considered a rule providing for the consideration of three bills that are intended to solve our nation's insurance crisis which has reached epidemic proportions. Today, an estimated 43 million in the United States have no health insurance. About 60 percent of those, approximately 24 million, are employed by a small business or are a member of a family whose income derives in some way from a small business. The skyrocketing prices of malpractice liability is driving insurance premiums up and making it impossible for employers of 500 or less individuals to afford the high cost of health care. The bills being debated today while seeking to address these issues does so unfortunately, by providing the wrong solutions. Today, the House will once again bring up a bill to create Associated Health Plans (AHP). Providing a permanent solution to the uninsured is critical to our nation's economy because Small Businesses, the engine of our nation's economic growth because they create about 75 percent of new jobs in America, deserve a sound and permanent solution to the affordable health care. Mr. Speaker I oppose the rule that will control the disposition of these bills primarily because it does not provide for Democrats to include their measures in solving the issue of the uninsured. The proposed rule only makes in order a substitute amendment and not an amendment to the underlying bill. Stacking the deck against the Democratic efforts to ensure that the legislation has a sense of balance and accurate in addressing the need of the American people. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I must also express my displeasure with the majority's efforts to address the current malpractice crisis. As a former family doctor I am fully aware of the feeling many doctors have about being forced out of practice by very high insurance premiums. The Republican bill, H.R. 4280 does not address the problem, however. According to the Institute of Medicine, ``At least 44,000 and perhaps as many as 98,000 Americans die in hospitals each year as a result of medical errors. Deaths due to preventable adverse events exceed the deaths attributable to motor vehicle accidents (43,458), breast cancer (42,297) or AIDS (16,516).'' The IOM estimates annual costs to the economy of medical errors between $17 billion and $29 billion. Congress would better serve the public with legislation that promotes patient safety, rather than overriding state-law deterrents that help prevent patient deaths and injuries. Instead of reducing the costs of medical malpractice and defective products, the majority's approach would shift costs onto injured individuals, their families, voluntary organizations and taxpayers. Not only are the provisions unfair to victims, they also sacrifice the principles of market economics and private property long professed by the bill's conservative advocates. Furthermore, punitive damages are rarely awarded in medical malpractices cases, but the threat of punitive damages is important to deterring reckless disregard for patient safety by HMOs, nursing homes, and drug and medical device manufacturers. The $250,000 cap on non- economic damages awards are for non-economic loss (pain and suffering resulting from injuries such as lost child-bearing ability, disfigurement, and paralysis) compensate for the human suffering caused by medical negligence and defective medical products. These damages generally account for 35 to 40 percent of a jury's award. Typically, such damages exceed $250,000 only in cases of NAIC Level 6 injury severity or higher--that is cases involving permanent significant injuries. Thus, the cap will not affect patients with minor injuries; instead, it targets only victims of injuries such as deafness, blindness, loss of limb or organ, paraplegia, or severe brain damage. Since the cap makes no allowance for inflation, its arbitrary limits become more unjust as each day passes. I implore my colleagues to reject this rule and H.R. 4280 and support the Conyers-Dingle substitute. The Democratic substitute does not restrict the rights of injured patients who file meritorious claims. It requires certification, with civil penalties, that a pleading is not frivolous, factually inaccurate or designed to harass. It includes a 3- year statute of limitation; establishes an alternative dispute resolution process; limits suits for punitive damages; and applies 50% of awards from any punitive damages to a patient safety fund at HHS. Finally, it requires insurance companies to develop a plan to give 50% of their savings to reductions in medical malpractice rates for doctors. The Democratic substitute also addresses the causes of rising medical malpractice insurance rates by creating a new commission to evaluate the causes of the malpractice premium crisis and recommend solutions, including a medical reinsurance program, risk distribution among health providers and other changes that might avoid such increases in the future. Because experience has shown that capping damages will not lower malpractice insurance rates for doctors, the Democratic substitute promotes competition in the marketplace so doctors can get lower insurance rates. The five states with the highest malpractice insurance premiums in the country in 2002 already had damage caps. Only insurance reform will help bring down rates. The Democratic substitute specifically requires the newly created commission to study various insurance reform proposals, particularly repealing the medical malpractice insurance exemption under the McCarran-Ferguson Act (which would foster competition). Mr. Speaker, we need a real malpractice relief, I urge my colleagues to put partisan gamesmanship aside and pass health legislation that our nation is so badly in need of.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, in this Cover the Uninsured week, I rise to say that our health care system in this country is falling short on promise and contributing to disabling illness and premature death of the people it is supposed to serve. The picture is worse for African Americans who, for almost every illness, are impacted more severely and disproportionately, in some cases more than all other minorities combined. Every day in this country there are at least 200 African American deaths which could and should have been prevented. 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 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 and continue to get sicker. The sicker, and the more costly, were and are still being dropped, and those who are sickest were and remain locked out entirely. In 2003, health care spending rose to $1.7 trillion, or an average of almost $5,000 per person. As a percentage of the gross domestic product, it grew from 13.1 percent in 1999 to 15.2 percent in 2002. National health care expenditures are expected to reach $2.8 trillion in 2011. These health care costs are driven by, among other things, lack of preventive care, poor disease management, the consequent use of high- cost care, and the cost burden of uncompensated care. A recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the uninsured are 30 to 50 percent more likely to be hospitalized for an avoidable condition, the average cost of which in 2002 was estimated to be about $3,300. Close to 93 percent of the uninsured report having a more difficult time getting access to primary care and, therefore, are coming first to emergency rooms. About 97 percent of them report having medical conditions that have persisted or worsened because of a lack of early intervention or preventive care. To add insult to injury, these uninsured individuals are also often penalized by being charged higher fees for health care services and not given the discounts afforded insured patients. A Health Affairs article published in 2000 entitled ``Gouging the Medically Uninsured'' found that an uninsured patient paid up to twice as much as the insured patient. A New York Times article titled ``Medical Fees Are Often Higher For Patients Without Insurance'' cited examples of uninsured patients being charged up to 7 times more for a gynecological exam. Mr. Speaker, lack of health insurance is a major factor in the escalating costs of health care and it affects minority populations more than others. Over a third of Latinos are uninsured, the highest rate among all groups studied, and 2\1/2\ times higher than the rate for whites. Nearly a quarter of African Americans and about one fifth of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have no health coverage. Uninsured rates are lower among Native Americans only due to their ability to receive services through the Indian Health Service, which represents a set of federally provided health services as opposed to coverage, yet the level of care for them leaves much to be desired as well. It is because of these and many other grave health statistics that we are asking Congress to pass comprehensive health care reform, understanding that none of the diseases causing disparities can be successfully managed without sustained universal access to health care. This week, the Democrats will introduce three bills to do just that: the Family Care Act, the Medicare Early Access Act, and the Small Business Health Insurance Promotion Act. There are also other bills that have already been introduced, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor, by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). This week we will take up H.R. 660, the Association Health Plan proposal, which poses, in my opinion, a serious threat to our existing employer-based health insurance system. It would exempt small employer plans from important State regulatory protections, and there is no reason to believe that eliminating these protections will help small employers expand coverage. Instead, AHPs will be able to design services to cover industries and sectors with the healthiest employees and leave out small businesses with older or sicker workers, those who most need coverage. This ability to cherry-pick would drive up the cost of coverage for small businesses with less healthy profiles of workers who will then be left in the insurance pool by themselves. AHPs would be able to offer less generous benefit packages in order to bring down the costs of coverage. The CBO has already estimated that 80 percent of workers would be worse off under AHPs. In closing, I urge my colleagues to put politics aside in addressing the issue of coverage as well as in malpractice reform, and the other health care bills we will be considering this week. Let us not opt for the short-term fix that is really no fix at all. Let us not support proposals that do not provide substantive remedies for these problems which affect the life and death of those we represent. And, above all, let us commit ourselves, this week and always, to do no harm.