Donna Christensen

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

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

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, as stated by the previous speaker, my colleague, the overall purpose of the bill before the House is to resolve a long-standing error that included a concession known as Walter's Camp as part of the original land withdrawal which established the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge. In the course of the Committee on Resources' investigation into this matter, we have come to understand that the inclusion of Walter's Camp was a genuine error in the original 1964 withdrawal. We have also been careful to ensure that nothing in H.R. 3937 will affect public ownership of the lands revoked by H.R. 3937. All title interests will remain with the Federal Government. As a result, I support this legislation to correct the mistake which under law cannot be resolved administratively by the Secretary of the Interior. Some concerns were raised, however, concerning the potential for encroachment onto the Cibola Refuge, intentional or accidental, by recreational off-road vehicle enthusiasts who might visit Walter's Camp in the future. Clearly, off-road vehicle use is not compatible with the purposes of the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge. Moreover, this issue could become a significant management headache for both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management, the agency that oversees the concession permit for Walter's Camp. In this respect, I commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, and the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, for amending the bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to, within 6 months after the date of enactment, to re-survey and conspicuously mark the new adjusted boundaries. I also note for the record that H.R. 3937, as amended in committee, would not affect in any way concession operations at Walter's Camp, nor would this legislation impose any new regulations on the different recreational activities, including ORV use, that occur on nearby Bureau of Land Management lands or lands within the refuge. H.R. 3937 is thoughtful, common-sense legislation that will correct an administrative error, protect the fragile wildlife habitat of the Cibola Refuge and ensure the future operation of a much-needed recreational facility in a remote area. I urge Members to support H.R. 3937. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

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. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3786 would authorize the exchange of land within the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area for a private parcel adjacent to the park. Mr. Speaker, a land exchange issue is very complex, and I want to take this opportunity to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), for his work in ushering this bill to the subcommittee and committee and getting it to the floor today. As all of my colleagues are aware, there continues to be great concern regarding exchanges in general. In many instances, it is not at all clear that the taxpayers are receiving full value for the lands being traded away in their names. In fact, in many instances, it is clear they are not. We remain committed to developing a comprehensive approach that might address the failures in the current exchange process. In the meantime, it is our hope that we would only approve specific exchanges that truly serve the best interests of the taxpayers, and it appears we have such an exchange in this instance. The basic concept of the exchange contained in H.R. 3786 appears to serve both the interests of the private landowner as well as the park. In addition, once authorized, this exchange will go through a full NEPA process, including appraisals, which should identify and address any remaining issues. We support passage of H.R. 3786. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3858, introduced by my colleague and the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), would modify the boundary of the New River Gorge National River in West Virginia to add approximately 1,962 acres to the park and correct a minor boundary encroachment. The proposed boundary modifications would enhance the management and use of the resource values of the New River. These additions consist of six tracts of land held by five owners, all of whom are willing sellers. The legislation would also correct the very minor boundary encroachment with a private landowner who has inadvertently constructed a portion of a home on Federal land. The Committee on Resources held a hearing on H.R. 3858, and the bill was favorably reported by the committee last month. I would note that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) worked closely with the National Park Service on the development of this legislation, and I want to commend him for his long-standing efforts to provide for the protection and the use of the New River Gorge National River. Mr. Speaker, I urge the favorable consideration of H.R. 3858 by the House today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3994, the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002. The people of Afghanistan have not known freedom or peace for quiet some time. They are not our enemies, and I commend the sponsors of this bill for reaching across the oceans to them with a hand of assistance in rebuilding not only the physical but also the educational, social and economic fabric of their nation. Madam Chairman, I want to call particular attention to the portions of the Act that promote the inclusion of women in the decisionmaking and nation building processes. I want to add the voice of the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands as expressed in the attached resolution introduced by Senator Lorraine Berry, and passed by the 24th Legislature of the U.S. Virgin Islands, which expresses the sense of the legislature that women be a part of the total resolution in the ongoing process of normalization that the country of Afghanistan will be going through for a very long time. And so on behalf of all of the people of my district, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 3994.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the base bill, and in strong support of the Democratic substitute. In good conscience, I cannot support H.R. 4737. The Republican base bill, which does not allow for amendments, would increase poverty and its sequelae, instead of reducing it as it purports to do. This bill imposes massive new mandates and additional costs on states at a time when they are struggling and cannot absorb not one penny more of new costs. In light of the fact that 39 States and the territories are struggling to meet work requirements in an atmosphere of recession and lack of available jobs, this bill would create the scenario where precious resources are spent on fines and the safety net becomes full of holes. This country's offshore areas, would be particularly negatively impacted, because of even less resources, and poor economic conditions with fewer jobs within geographical limitations. Even worse, Mr. Speaker, this bill tightens the vise on those trying to transition from welfare to work. It eliminates education from the list that count as work related activity and does not provide adequate resources for childcare. On the other hand it doubles the amount of hours that recipients are required to work, creating more hardship for mothers with children under school age. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of conservative ideology represented here. Where is the compassion? The Democratic substitute would give States and territories more flexibility by giving them the option to require 40 hours if childcare and educational resources are available, but would only require 30 hours of work if not. The Democratic substitute would also remove the ban that prohibits states from serving legal immigrants. The Democratic substitute would also give the territories the tools they need to successfully transition people from welfare to work. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4737 is a set back, not forward. If the reactionary political climate of an election year precludes us getting a good bill, lets simply extend the current authorization for one more year, and lets sit down again next year and do it right. Let's this of the people who are most affected by our actions, Let's give our states and territories flexibility and let's give our people hope.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

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

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4044, legislation that would authorize financial assistance to the States of Maryland and Louisiana to support efforts to eradicate nutria and restore marshland ecosystems. There is little doubt that nutria, a large member of the rodent family introduced from South America into the United States in the 1930s, has significantly ruined or destroyed coastal wetland habitats in both Maryland and Louisiana. The range of distribution of this invasive species continues to expand ominously as it searches out new marsh habitat for forage, shelter, and breeding. The need for direct action to address this environmental threat is real and compelling. H.R. 4044 builds upon the measured success of a pilot program authorized in 1998 which helped develop new methods and strategies for the eradication of nutria and the Chesapeake and Delaware Bay watersheds. It is hoped that the management, research, and public outreach activities authorized in this bill will enable wildlife biologists in both Maryland and Louisiana to finally get a handle on controlling the widespread environmental damage caused by this noxious aquatic pest. I urge Members also to support this important invasive-species legislation. 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, the bill that is before the House today is considerably different than the legislation introduced last year. It reflects the hard work of my colleague the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the careful consideration of the Committee on Resources, and as presently amended, H.R. 1370 has the potential to enhance the visiting public's experience at our national wildlife refuges. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. The National Wildlife Refuge System is presently saddled with a significant $1.3 billion operations and maintenance budget backlog. Concessionaires which operate in the refuges and offer a wide variety of services, such as we have heard, are uniquely affected by this backlog. Presently, most concessionaires pay annual franchise fees to the National Wildlife Refuge Fund. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which runs the refuge system and owns the land and facilities, is responsible for maintaining all facilities. However, the Service gives low priority to concessionaire facilities when faced with other competing budget demands within the system. This inferior status leaves concessionaire facilities lacking and discourages concessionaires from using the refuges and providing services to visitors. This legislation would allow the concessionaires to make necessary maintenance repairs or visitor facility improvements in lieu of cash payments for concession fees and would address simultaneously the budget backlog and improve the quality of visitor facilities. The scope of this new permissive authority has been limited to maintenance backlog projects and other types of small scale improvement projects that increase the visitor's experience. Also, repairs or improvements would be required to be made at the refuge or refuge complex where the concession operates. I note that this legislation would not authorize the construction of any new facilities. H.R. 1370 has been further amended to address the presently haphazard administrative process by which the Service permits concessionaires to operate within the refuge system. This legislation would require the Service to develop a new standardized concession contract for all national wildlife refuge concession activities. All concession operations would be required to be enrolled under these new contracts within 3 years. The Service also will be required to award all contracts through competitive bidding, although the bill would exempt small scale retail operations run by nonprofit volunteer organizations, and to ensure accountability the Service will be required to forward to Congress an annual oversight report on all concession contract activities. Perhaps most important, the bill has been amended to specify that all title interests to property and facilities and any interest in repairs or improvements made by concessionaires will remain with the Federal Government. Furthermore, H.R. 1370 states explicitly that concessionaires do not acquire any compensable interest in the property and facilities they operate or in any repair or improvement they might make. In closing, H.R. 1370 will provide additional financial flexibility to address the chronic maintenance backlog hindering visitor services at numerous refuges. This legislation will bring much needed coherence to the administration of concession contracts, enhance the public's enjoyment and appreciation of our National Wildlife Refuge System and prevent the future establishment of concession activities that are incompatible with the refuge system's wildlife first mission. I want to once again commend our colleague the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) on this legislation. I urge Members to support it and to improve our national wildlife refuges. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back 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 have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1925, introduced by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), directs the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Waco Mammoth Site in Waco, Texas, as a unit of the National Park System. The Waco Mammoth Site is believed to contain the remains of the largest concentration of mammoths killed during a single event. The site is located close to the confluence of the Brazos and Bosque Rivers near the city of Waco, Texas. The discovery of these mammoth remains has received international attention and Baylor University in the City of Waco have been working to protect the site. In hearings before the Committee on Resources, we received testimony on the unique paleontological resources found on this site. The study called for by H.R. 1925 will examine what role, if any, that the National Park Service can play in the protection and interpretation of these unique resources. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). I support the bill, as amended, and look forward to its passage by the House today. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. The HMOs are not going to provide that type of benefit. They have pretty much said that. So as the gentleman has pointed out and others have pointed out, to provide it as sort of a program that has to be accessible, like access to HMOs, one has to shop around and get it. Many seniors cannot even do that. Some can, thank God, but not everyone can. But to have to go and search, and then an HMO does not offer it, or does not provide that many benefits. So the only way to do it is the way the Democrats want to do it, and that is through a full Medicare benefit. It is voluntary, but it is universal. It is available to everyone on Medicare.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Just take hypertension and diabetes. This is something that affects all Americans, but it affects African Americans more so because we have more difficulty accessing care and medication. If we just take hypertension or diabetes, either one, and the complication of end-stage renal disease, and having to then go on dialysis or having a kidney transplant, the cost of providing that benefit and controlling the blood pressure or controlling the diabetes, and at the very least, forestalling that complication, but probably avoiding that complication altogether is really important, we just cannot compare not only the cost of the two, but we cannot compare the quality of life of the two.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I think our seniors are probably the most qualified to speak, and they have been speaking very loudly about this issue. I want to thank the gentleman for tonight and all of the time laying out the issue so clearly, showing the difference between what the Democrats are offering and what the Republican plan does not offer. The vouchers that Republicans are proposing for education will not help our children any more than vouchers for prescription benefits will help our seniors. I wanted to join the gentleman here tonight because I cannot understand, and I am sure that people out across America just have difficulty understanding, why we still have not passed the Medicare prescription drug benefit. I think maybe it could be just that I have not been a legislator long enough, I have just been one for 5\1/2\ years, having practiced up until my primary in 1996, and on a limited basis for maybe a year after that, and I am assuming it is because of that background why I do not understand why it is taking us so long, why it is taking this body so long to respond to people who need help to buy the medication that they need, and who have been asking for this benefit for such a long time now. Let me tell the Members about how we are trained as physicians. As physicians, we are trained in medical diagnoses. We are told to listen to our patients, to examine them, and then use our medical knowledge to make a diagnosis, and then to again call on that training to prescribe the most specific and targeted treatment to the problem. That is the model I used for 21 years or more, really. I suspect that is why I just do not understand why we are having this problem here on Capitol Hill, because Congress would do well, I think, to apply some of those very same principles to every problem that we face in terms of legislating. First, we should listen to our elderly constituents, as on every other issue. What we would hear is that they cannot afford to buy a full month's supply of medication that they need to control their blood pressure, their diabetes, any of the other diseases that need to be treated, or to ease pain, that would then allow them to live full lives and to attend to even some of the most basic activities of daily living. Without those medications, they might not be able to do that. That is listening to the patient. Then we would examine. When we examine the issue, we would find that most Medicare patients are on fixed incomes, and therefore, they have to make untenable choices between food and other necessities and medication. Just to use one example, a widow living on $12,525 a year, and that is above the poverty level, I think it is about 150 percent of poverty level, a widow at that income level who has acid reflux, which causes acid and burning in the esophagus, discomfort, to treat that she would have to spend about $1,455 a year. That is 12 percent of that widow's income on just one medication alone to treat one illness. In making a diagnosis, then, we would conclude that the patient obviously needs help to pay for medications so she can stay healthy, free of symptoms, and to prevent complications. Then, finally, in seeking a remedy, we would choose one easily accessible and widely available. We would also weigh the pros and cons of that remedy, as in the case of medicine we weigh the benefit and need and side effects. To me, that would lead us to concluding that the best way to address the issue of helping our seniors pay for their medication is through a Medicare drug benefit that is available to every beneficiary. It cannot be through an insurance company. I know that is what the Republicans want to do is to have the vouchers, as the gentleman says, go to the HMO to provide the benefit. They do not want to provide a stand-alone benefit for prescriptions. It goes completely against their business model, and it would result in lower profits. They just will not do it. It would be like sending my patient to a drugstore that I know does not carry the medication. They just would not get it there, like America's seniors will not get the benefit from the Republican prescription drug plan. Now I know that there is a big battle also over the cost of the benefit provided by Medicare, but I think it is important for all of us to recognize that it is too costly for us not to do this, and in the not too far distant future. The cost of not providing this benefit, helping our seniors to be able to treat these very important illnesses that can cause damage to them in the future is just something that we just cannot afford to do. When seniors, or any patient for that matter, cannot get the medications they need for some of the common diseases, they suffer amputations, they suffer heart disease, heart attacks, they suffer strokes, kidney failure, and become disabled. That costs far more than providing a Medicare drug benefit. We need to do prevention. We need to put the investment up front to save money in the long run, but more importantly, I think we owe our seniors as they approach this time in their lives the ability to have a healthy, secure quality of life. We need to make sure that they are cared for. They have worked hard all of their lives and they have paid into a system that was to make health achievable, sustainable, and affordable. We cannot forget about the disabled, who also need to benefit from this, because they also have multiple issues and needs for multiple medications that they would not be able to afford. The system of Medicare began in a time when we did not have the medication we have now, and people did not live as long or as well. We know that we have to modernize all other systems. As times change, needs change. The ways we meet those needs are going to change. So why, then, are we balking at modernizing a Medicare system which is so vital to the well-being of our parents, our grandparents, and not too long from now for many of us. At least I can speak for myself. So I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, to our colleagues, that we need to pass a prescription drug benefit that is available to every Medicare beneficiary. That is the very least that we can do. It is certainly more important than providing tax cuts, and for this body to pit the chance for a better quality of life in what should be the golden years in the lives of elderly Americans against tax breaks that really help no one should not even be an issue. So I would urge us all not to do the political thing but to do the right thing, and to give our senior citizens a full prescription benefit, the kind that they need and they deserve.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I think it is common sense. I do not think we really have to provide specific numbers. I guess someone could probably do that for us, but it is just common sense, with years of dialysis and many hospitalizations in between, because dialysis is not easy to go through, versus providing medication that can control the problem. Those of us who practice know how hard it is to make sure your patient has a month's supply of all of the medication they need. We try to piece samples together and do all kinds of creative things, even with medicines that are not extremely expensive, but it is just not possible to do that in the long run.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. They have to pay for dialysis three times a week.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of my colleagues the plight of the U.S. offshore Territories as it relates to welfare reform and the reauthorization process currently being undertaken in the House. Mr. Speaker, although the U.S. Territories, Guam, Puerto Rico, and my district, the U.S. Virgin Islands, are required to meet all the TANF requirements, they do not have access to all of the tools that other jurisdictions have to successfully move people from welfare to work. Mr. Speaker, the Territories are island jurisdictions, where the ability to move from one jurisdiction to another in search of work is just impossible. As a consequence, in the Virgin Islands, while our welfare rolls have been lowered, we have failed to meet the work participation rates. Despite the fact there was no work to send the many willing participants to, we have been penalized by fines. This in itself is unfair, given our special circumstances, but also consider the fact that we do not receive several other sources of funds that States have at their disposal to overcome similar obstacles. We get no supplemental grant funds, even though our average dollars per person are extremely low; and we do not receive contingency funds, even though we have experienced economic downturns and high unemployment. That is why the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) and I have joined the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Acevedo-Vila) in sponsoring H.R. 4236 to bring parity to the U.S. Territories as they seek to move their citizens from welfare to work. We will be seeking to have this included in a substitute bill. H.R. 4236 would include Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands in the TANF supplemental grants for population increases and exclude this funding from the section 1108 cap. TANF supplemental grants are specifically intended to assist States, and it should be territories also, with higher than average growth rates and/or lower than average welfare funding per poor person. The latter characterizes my district. It would also include Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands in the TANF contingency fund, and also exclude this funding from the section 1108 cap. The TANF contingency fund was intended to assist localities in times of economic downturns when the need for family assistance is greater, evidenced either by significantly higher unemployment rates, or significant increases in the utilization of food stamps. Both are operative in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and currently the TANF contingency fund excludes the Territories. H.R. 4236 would also provide Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands access to all of the funding streams under the Child Care Development Block Grant and the matching grant, while excluding this from the section 1108 cap. These Territories receive CCDF funding under the general block grant discretionary funds. However, they are not authorized to receive funding under 2 subprograms under entitlement grants, the mandatory and matching funds. Provisions to authorize these two funds could provide up to $70 million for child care if matching funds requirements were met. Another area, title IV-E foster care, we would like to take that out of the section 1108 cap as well. Title IV-E foster care is included in the section 1108 cap. As a result, abused and neglected children in foster care services compete for Federal funds with needy families on TANF, poor seniors, and blind and disabled individuals. This is compounded by the fact that Medicaid is also under a cap. We would ask in this bill that the Territories be reimbursed for providing transitional medical assistance to TANF leavers outside of the current Medicaid cap. States receive reimbursement for the medical cost of TANF recipients while they move into work. Currently the Territories are not authorized to participate in this element of Medicaid, and even if they were, because of the Medicaid cap, the Territories would not be allowed to receive any reimbursement for these costs. If the Territories are expected to meet the same work requirements as the States, it is essential that they be authorized access to receiving similar Medicaid reimbursements for their TANF recipients. Mr. Speaker, I come before this body because it is important that all of our colleagues understand the unique plight of the Territories. We want to help our constituents make the step from welfare to work. More than that, we want to give them a hand up and out of poverty. I hope that when these issues are before this body, we will have the support of our colleagues to give the Territories parity in the effort to reauthorize welfare reform and to give us the tools to make welfare reform a real success in our districts.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, this coming Saturday on May 11, bird conservationists across much of the Western hemisphere will celebrate International Migratory Bird Day. Established in 1993, this second Saturday in May has been set aside this year to appreciate the nearly 350 species of migratory birds that travel between nesting habitats in North America and nonbreeding grounds in South and Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean, including my district, the U.S. Virgin Islands. In this respect, I find it fitting for the House to consider today legislation to reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, or perhaps better known by its acronym, NAWCA. Madam Speaker, wetlands are among the world's most productive environments and remain essential habitat for many migratory birds, including waterfowl. In 1986, the United States, Canada and Mexico developed the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, which established a cooperative international management effort to reverse the declines in waterfowl populations and their habitats. Congress subsequently enacted NAWCA in 1989 to implement the habitat conservation elements of that plan. In the intervening years, NAWCA has proven itself to be an effective funding mechanism to support a wide range of public/private conservation activities that preserve or protect wetland habitats on the landscape. Virtually every region of the United States and vital wetland habitats in Canada and Mexico have benefited from NAWCA project grants. The future looks bright. I am pleased to report that H.R. 3908, the North American Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization Act, is a positive step towards ensuring that NAWCA remains an effective conservation tool in the years ahead. Most importantly, the increased authorizations for appropriations in H.R. 3908 will help address a significant unmet demand for NAWCA grants. In addition, H.R. 3908 will also provide a higher level of financial support for conservation projects in the United States where the demand is greatest and where it is possible to generate the necessary non- Federal matching funds. Overall, there should be an increase in non- Federal matching funds for NAWCA grants. Importantly, we have acted responsibly to ensure that this change in allocation will not decrease the existing level of financial grant support for our partners in Canada and Mexico. In closing, NAWCA represents the type of conservation success story which Congress should strive to emulate in its other programs. H.R. 3908 will maintain and build on this solid record of achievement, and I urge Members to support this important environmental legislation. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. The problem this bill is intended to address is the result of two different but related mistakes. The first mistake was to include this small parcel of private property within the boundaries of a Wilderness Study Area. The second was the encroachment onto Federal lands by the Sand Hills Resort. The Bureau of Land Management might have resolved the encroachment administratively had the area not been within a Wilderness Study Area. Thus, the two mistakes compounded each other. Clearly, the sale of part of a WSA raises serious concerns. We would strongly oppose any legislation authorizing such a sale to a landowner who had purposely trespassed on Federal land as a means of eventually acquiring property that might not otherwise have been available for disposal. Unfortunately, determining precisely what this landowner knew or should have known and when he knew or should have known it would require an investigation of events that transpired more than 30 years ago. Further, it appears the property lines in this area of shifting sand dunes have only recently been established conclusively, and a certain amount of confusion is not surprising. Therefore, allowing this landowner to purchase a small parcel for fair market value seems a reasonable solution to a difficult problem, and therefore we will not oppose H.R. 2818. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to once again commend the gentleman from Puerto Rico for his hard work on this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on H. Con. Res. 271. Approximately 42 million people in this country are without health insurance. Those with no coverage are more likely to be young adults, poor, Hispanic, African American, rural or small business employees. As chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus Health Braintrust, but even more so as a family physician who practiced for 21 years before coming to Congress, I know what not having insurance coverage does to families and individuals. They delay or avoid care, most likely seeking care through emergency rooms which cannot provide for need continuity or safety net services which are often underfunded, understaffed, and underequipped. Not being insured is the seventh leading cause of death in this country, resulting in 83,000 deaths annually. Although tonight we are focusing on insurance coverage, it is important to recognize that providing access to health care is more than providing insurance, but also insuring an adequate infrastructure for the uninsured or the newly insured to receive proper health care. Madam Speaker, we must all support educating the public on all of the health care coverage options available, and make an extra effort to link those, but education is only half the battle. We as lawmakers must continue to work on passing legislation that will leave no individual without access to quality health care. This includes lifting the cap on Medicaid for the offshore territories, providing a Medicare drug benefit, paying the doctors and other providers a fee that will allow us to keep our doors open, and passing a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. Most of all, it means committing to universal health care by 2004 to everybody in this country.