Donna Christensen

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of my colleague from Ohio, to restore the Public Housing Drug Elimination Grant. I am dumbfounded as to why the President and my Republican colleagues would eliminate this program, which has proved to be an effective tool at combating drugs in public housing communities. My colleagues, Public Housing faces a devastating cut of $494 million in cuts in this bill. The modest Kaptur amendment would restore funding to the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program. I cannot understand, Mr. Chairman, how this Congress can justify providing nearly $2 trillion to fight drugs in Colombia and yet provide nothing to fight drugs and crime in public housing communities here at home. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, the public housing communities in all our districts have become a magnet for the purveyors of drugs and death. The Drug Elimination Program has been like a beacon in these communities helping authorities to eliminate drug-related crime. In addition to being used to pay for law enforcement personnel and investigators, it has been used for the development of drug abuse prevention programs that employ residents of public housing, as well as to provide physical improvements that increase security such as lighting and tenant support patrols. Indeed, the residents of public housing communities in the Virgin Islands have benefited from this program and will be hurt if it is eliminated as the underlying bill proposes to do. I urge my colleagues to support the Kaptur amendment. If you support the residents of public housing communities in your districts having a safe, crime-free place to live, then you must support this amendment.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2620, the FY 2002 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill because the funding level in the bill is woefully disappointing in the areas of veterans medical care and public housing programs that serve our country's most vulnerable citizens and families. Mr. Chairman, the funding shortfalls in this bill, in my opinion, is totally unnecessary. We have the resources in this country to take care of our veterans as well as to provide adequate housing for the poor, the elderly and the disabled. But because my colleagues on the other side of the isle thought it more important to pass a $1.3 trillion tax cut. I made a request to the subcommittee, which was unfortunately not funded, to assist the Virgin Islands in replacing and upgrading our wastewater and sewage treatment facilities. The government of the Virgin Islands is under EPA mandate to replace or upgrade significant components of our wastewater infrastructure to eliminate constant bypass discharges of wastes in violation of the Clean Water Act. In addition to the Clean Water Act concerns, the constant discharge of raw sewage on our streets and in our beaches are threatening the quality of life of Virgin Islanders as well as, our fragile Tourism economy. Because my community continues to be plagued by this crisis, I will continue to seek the assistance of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee to explore the possibility that some assistance could be provided to my district to deal with this problem. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Lee- Leach Global AIDS Amendment for the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill. The HIV/AIDS pandemic is the most devastating human disaster our world has ever known, with more people having died from AIDS-related complications than any disease, war, or natural human disaster ever recorded. Since the beginning of the fight against HIV/AIDS in the early 80's, more than 22 million people have died, with Sub-Saharan Africa bearing the brunt of the devastation. At the present time, more than 70 percent of the 35 million people infected with HIV live in Sub-Saharan Africa, with the nation of South Africa having the world's largest number of HIV infected individuals, more than 4 million people, living with AIDS. My area of the world, the Caribbean, though much smaller in size and population, has an HIV infection rates second only to those in Africa. AIDS is already the leading cause of death in the Caribbean for those aged 15 to 45 and as in many other areas of the world, the number of cases is growing at an exponential rate according to the Caribbean Epidemiology Center. I am alarmed, as I am sure we all are, by the fact that left un- addressed, more than 100 million people, well more than \1/3\ the population of the United States, will be infected with HIV by the year 2005. Something must be done! Although the loss of life presents the most tragic consequences of HIV/AIDS, additional consequences include resulting military, social, and economic instability. AIDS, unlike many diseases, takes those in the most productive yeas of live, resulting in a significant decline in the number of individuals in affected countries that are available to serve as educators, health care providers, and other skilled laborers. In addition, it has resulted in more than 13 million orphans, 95 percent of whom live in African nations. As a result of the significant losses of life, some developing democracies have begun to recruit these orphans, many of whom have no completed adolescence, into armies used to fight regional wars. Although we still wish it were more, the Lee-Leach Amendment provides the opportunity for the United States to do its part in the global fight against HIV/AIDS, increasing the U.S. contribution to the global HIV/AIDS funds by $60 million dollars, to a total of $160 million. Our contribution will be used to leverage additional funds from our international partners in the public and private sector, with the hope of raising the $10-15 billion dollars per year requested by United Nations. It would send a strong signal that the United States is committed to eradicating HIV/AIDS from the face of the earth and also provide significant direct grant funding to African and Caribbean governments, NGO's and civil society in regions of the world that have been hard hit by HIV/AIDS so that we can finally begin to turn the tide of the disease. I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile amendment, which will help save the lives of millions of people infected with HIV.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I must join my colleagues who have spoken in opposition to H.R. 7. Never can I or will I ever support a piece of legislation which would allow and therefore support discrimination in any way shape or form. I am proud to be a member of the Congressional Black Caucus which does not oppose, but strongly supports, making funding available to support our religious organization's work in the world, but voted unanimously to oppose the egregious parts of the bill which allow the provisions of the hard fought for civil rights laws to be sidestepped. As an African-American and a Christian, I must also say that I am insulted and deeply resent the way the administration has specifically courted the Black Church with this initiative because H.R. 7 falsely advertises the initiative as new, and also as funded, and it most agregiously, allows discrimination. Mr. Speaker, I am and have always been a strong supporter of the work that religious groups such as Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Social Services, the Inter-Faith Coalition, the Moravian conference, The Seventh Day Adventist Church and others have been doing. In addition to these concerns, I am also very troubled by the fact that H.R. 7 contains a provision that allows any federal agency to convert their entire services programs into a voucher in order to circumvent protections against discrimination that are provided for under federal law. This most uncharitable bill goes beyond the question of violating the principle of separation of Church and State, first by allowing discrimination and then by purporting to provide funds for religious and other organizations when it doesn't actually provide any new dollars in the bill at all. Neither should they now, that the lack of funding is uncovered, be allowed to raid the Medicare Trust Fund. As an African-American and a Christian, I must also say that I am insulted and deeply resent the way the administration has specifically courted the Black Church with this initiative because of the aforementioned aspects of H.R. 7 to which I have objected. Mr. Speaker, I am and have always been a strong supporter of the work that religious groups in my and other communities do. Federal support of Faith based organizations is not new. In my district, groups such as Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Social Services, the Inter-Faith Coalition, the Moravian conference, The Seventh Day Adventist Church and others have been doing a tremendous job serving the needy in Virgin Islanders for many years now and will continue to do so with or without this bill. Where there efforts are hampered is through the recent tax cut which will drastically cut funding from the programs that help those in our communities who need an extra hand up--in education, in health care services, in housing, in economic opportunity, and in programs that would promote an improved quality of life. And it just astounds me that while the Administration is pushing this initiative ``as'' one of its highest priorities, in the case of the CBC Minority AIDS Initiative, the Department has decided that Faith Based Organizations can no longer be targeted for funding. I support the Democratic Substitute and urge my colleagues to do the same. This better bill would prohibit employment discrimination and the setting aside of state and local civil right laws and delete the sweeping new language in the bill which would permit federal agencies to convert more than $47 billion in current government programs into private vouchers.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Velazquez-Kelly amendment. First I would like to commend Ranking Member Velazquez and Congresswoman Kelly for their leadership in bringing this amendment to the floor. Mr. Chairman, the current Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations (CJS) Bill, particularly the SBA program funding levels, is perhaps the worst bill in this nation's history for small businesses. The CJS appropriations bill calls for several loan and technical assistance programs to be zeroed out in FY 2002. The total cuts from $860 million down to $728 million in SBA's overall budget would eliminate over 10 critical programs, including the New Markets Venture Capital Companies, BusinessLINC, the HUBZone Program and the Small Business Investment Company Program. This bill, as it is currently written, essentially wipes out the small business programs that we fought for last Congress. The Velazquez-Kelly amendment is a bipartisan proposal that looks to restore a measure of funding to the 7(a), BusinessLINC and PRIME Programs. The 7(a) Program history of success is founded in over $76 billion in loans to entrepreneurs since 1992. Last year alone, the 7(a) Program provided for 43,000 loans totaling $10.5 billion for small businesses. Unfortunately, the current bill calls the 7(a) Program to be slashed from $114 million in FY 2001 to $77 million in FY 2002. This would result in approximately 20,000 fewer loans being made. The BusinessLINC Program would promote mentor-protege relationships between small businesses in low-income and high unemployment areas and large companies. The CJS bill would eliminate the program by zeroing out appropriation for FY 2002. This amendment would add $2 million to the CJS appropriations bill. PRIME establishes a technical assistance program for disadvantaged Microloan participants. While the amendment would add $5 million back to the program, the program will be operating at a 66% cut from the previous year. However, some funding is better than no funding. Mr. Chairman, the offsets for these funding increases will come from three of the biggest agencies in the federal government. While these offsets come at the expense of other agency budgets, we believe these requests are not excessive. We are just attempting to obtain a fair distribution of funding. It is unfair that some agencies receive 100% increases, while programs that deliver key financial and technical assistance to small businesses--the engine for growth in our economy-- are zeroed out. We cannot afford to cut funding for small business development and assistance as the economy slows and mainstream capital sources begin to tighten credit standards. We must continue to retain the services that the 7(a), BusinessLINC, and PRIME provide to businesses in low-income areas--companies that are too often frequently well removed or simply ignored by conventional lending sources.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of all the people of French descent in my district, the U.S. Virgin Islands, on the occasion of the annual observance of French Heritage Week, an event that revolves around Bastille Day--which commemorates the destruction of the Bastille, the state prison in Paris, France, on July 14, 1789, which brought about one of the most significant movements in world history--the French Revolution. The destruction of the Bastille, Mr. Speaker, was a significant act of bravery that not only brought on the French Revolution, but also became the symbol of democracy and human rights and the founding event for the movement towards liberty and liberal democracy around the world. Today, I am proud to represent a striving and vibrant community of people of French descent who have inhabited the U.S. Virgin Islands for centuries--contributing their expertise in fishing, farming, the professions and other vocations that have made significant differences in the political, social, cultural and economic progress and growth on the Territory. Among the many treasures that make the Virgin Islands unique and special is our diversity. In particular, the French community has been a cultural asset through its presence and the many cultural, business and civic activities it promotes. One event put on by the Virgin Islands French Community that comes to mind, is the Father's Day celebration held each year in Frenchtown. Here, the French community recognizing the value in our fathers sponsors a weeklong celebration in their honor. I am especially pleased and privileged to be able to pay homage to our French Community and the Virgin Islands community at-large during the 2001 French Heritage Week celebrations. While it is not generally known, my maternal great grandmother was a Parisian, and so I proudly claim kinship, although my command of the French language is limited. This U.S. Virgin Islands French Heritage Week is a celebration of our heritage and national pride--two things that are important to the survival of any society. I congratulate Senator Lorraine L. Berry, a ten-term member of the Virgin Islands Legislature, for her continual efforts to enlighten her fellow Virgin Islanders on the rich traditions of French culture and history. On behalf of my family, staff and myself, I wish to congratulate the members of the French community of the U.S. Virgin Islands for their many contributions to our community and for so generously sharing their history, culture and crafts with each generation of Virgin Islanders. May God continue to bless our citizens of French descent and may they continue in the rich and strong democratic traditions of their motherland, France. Best wishes for an eventful, fulfilling ``French Heritage Week.''

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, now that we are back from the Independence Day recess and the celebrations, the passage of the Patients' Bill of Rights, the one introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), must be at the top of our agenda. This bill, the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001, is the only one which comprehensively reforms the current managed care system to better meet the needs of those who elected us. During the break misinformation and scare tactics continued. It is important that the American public know the truth. Many of the ads say that the bill would raise the cost of insurance. Not true. What they fail to say is that in the past 3 years or so, the cost of managed care has already increased at an average of 7.1 percent, and the increase is projected to be in double digits for this year. The ads also fail to tell us that while the costs have gone up, less services are covered. Where the same provisions have been enacted in States, there have not been any extraordinary increases in premiums or significant increases in lawsuits. What has happened is that the people in those States have been able to access medically necessary health care, and we need to extend that to the rest of the Nation. Mr. Speaker, let us pass the bill and let us move on to reduce disparities and provide universal coverage.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I am glad that the gentlewoman made the clarification about the employers not being liable, the fact that the premiums and lawsuits do not rise, because we have that experience. It is also important to point out that this is a real bipartisan bill. There has been a lot of work and a lot of compromise to bring this bill forward that addresses issues and has addressed some of the concerns of people on both sides of the aisle. This is a bipartisan effort to address something that has been of great concern to the American people.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and honor to join the gentlewoman from California, and I thank her for yielding to me to speak on this issue. I am a family physician. I have almost 25 years of experience providing health care, mostly in the United States Virgin Islands, and knowing the importance of early access to quality health care to the overall health of this Nation, I never thought that 4 years after we began efforts to pass a strong Patients' Bill of Rights we would still have to take to the floor to plead for its passage. This is another instance, as the gentleman from Ohio said, the people of this country know best. Americans have lost confidence in the current managed care system. They are calling upon us to fix it and to place the medical decisionmaking back in the hands of those trained to make those decisions, the physicians, and the hands who have most at stake, the patients. As late as today patients traveled from New Jersey to meet with Members of Congress, to meet with the Health Care Task Force to once again make the case for the need for the full provisions of the Dingell-Norwood-Ganske bill. They talk about health care delayed and denied and lives lost or destroyed. Two of them told us of having to fight for needed health care while also having to fight at the same time the physically and emotionally devastating disease of cancer. All of their energy and attention was needed at that time and should have been directed to fight the illness and not an insensitive health care system. We also talk about the plight of those who accepted their denials because they felt powerless to fight the large systems. I would say as a physician who has been involved in public health, I know that prevention is worth a pound of cure, but it does not take an M.D. degree to know that. Our grandparents told us that over and over again. If we are ever to rein in the high cost of medicine, we can only do it by ensuring that everyone in this country, regardless of income level or ethnicity, has access to good primary care, secondary care and tertiary care when they need it. To do this the bipartisan Patient Protection Action of 2001, the Patients' Bill of Rights that we are discussing this evening sponsored by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and Senators McCain, Kennedy and Edwards is an important step, long overdue, but better late than never, and a step that we must take now. Even after the Patients' Bill of Rights becomes law, we will still have to provide health care coverage to the 43 to 45 million Americans who do not have health care coverage. We have to close the gap of color and those who live in rural areas. We have to make sure that our young people of color have access to health care careers, and can go back and serve their underserved communities. A lot of debate is being focused on the liability causes that my colleagues referred to, and I think it is important to make it clear that this is not about lawsuits and large awards, it is about putting the necessary teeth in the legislation to make sure that the HMOs and insurance plans put the patient and his or her medical needs in front of their profits. Money cannot buy back the ability to walk to the paraplegic who lost mobility because of delayed health care, or bring back a loved one because they did not receive the diagnostic treatment that they needed. The bill that we support does not, nor has it ever held employers who do not participate in making medical decisions to be liable. Employers if they do not intervene in making those decisions have never been held liable by the Patients' Bill of Rights that was introduced even in the last Congress by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). On the other hand if a managed care organization makes a decision about health care, they should be held liable. Providers have been liable for years, and managed care organizations or insurance plans who make decisions about medical care should be liable as well. There is so much wrong with the managed care system that needs to be corrected, I know we could probably go on for longer than an hour. But we in this body do have the opportunity to put it back on the right track by passing H.R. 526, the Ganske-Dingell-Norwood bill which is also called the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001. We are here this evening to join you to say, let's do it.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Let me just say that the nurses from the Virgin Islands are up this week as well and this is something they are very concerned about. I wholeheartedly agree with everything the gentlewoman said about needing to keep that in the patients' bill of rights, the fact that it is included only in the Ganske-Norwood-Dingell bill. But I wanted to say something about something else that our colleague said. She said that when her son was in rehab, if I heard her correctly, the rehab facility decided that even if they were not going to get reimbursed they would provide the service and soak up the cost. We find that happening more and more where either the provider or the facility is saying, well, we know this is necessary. So we are going to take the chance. We are going to provide it to the patient even if we do not get reimbursed. Well, hospitals cannot afford not to be reimbursed and still be able to provide quality service to the patients that come to them, and providers on the other hand, they are also taking the risk and saying well, I know my patient needs this, I am going to go ahead and do it, make the referral or order the diagnostic test but when they come up for review later on they run some risks as well. We find that more and more providers, whether it is a hospital or a physician or another health provider, they are making those decisions to provide the care and take the risks but it also puts the patient under some stress that again they do not need to know, well, am I going to have this paid for. I am really glad we are here tonight supporting the Ganske-Dingell-Norwood bill because this bill provides for access to specialists. The decision is going to be what is medically necessary, access to emergency room services, just using your prudent layperson's judgment so that people can get care and get it early and that our facilities and our providers can be reimbursed for the services they provide.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Absolutely.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. As I said earlier, too, this is something that the people of America have clearly said they want. All of the provisions that are included in the Ganske-Dingell-Norwood bill are direct responses to what the people of this country have said they want to see in their health care system. I agree that this is an important beginning, but it is a beginning because we do have to go out and provide insurance coverage because there are 43 or so million people that will not even be touched by what we do here. This is an important part of making sure that health care and quality health care is accessible to the people who are covered within this system and accessible when they need it. We do have other issues.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. When one talks about containing costs as the driving force or making profits on the other end, the driving factor for pursuing managed care, a lot of people are left out for whom it is very expensive to provide health care. They are largely the poor people who have not had access to health care for many years; people of color in this country who have not had access to health care; people in our rural areas. So we have to end this two-tiered system that our colleague just referred to of health care in this country and make sure that that quality health care is equally accessible to all of our citizens and residents in this Nation.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague from Guam in once again speaking out against the unequal treatment that the American citizens in the Territories receive from the Medicaid program. By virtue of where we live and only by virtue of where we live, low- income Americans in the territories are not able to receive the full benefits of the Medicaid program. For the residents of my district, the U.S. Virgin Islands, in order for a family of 4 to qualify for medical care under Medicaid, the maximum salary that a family can earn is $8,500 a year, one-half of the Federal minimum wage. By contrast, in year 2002, all States at a minimum will provide Medicaid for all children 19 years old and younger living in families at or below the poverty level at $17,050 for a family of 4, more than twice that amount. Historically the Government of the Virgin Islands matched the Federal contribution with a combination of cash and in kind. When the value of both is added, it equaled and many times exceeded the Federal contribution. While this resolves the Federal requirement on paper, it has created a financial havoc for the Territorial hospitals and clinics that really incur the cost of in-kind services but never get reimbursed. Because of the cap and 50-50 local match, the local Virgin Islands Government also bears the brunt of the cost of the Medicaid program contributing 66 percent or more on average, adding to the burden of the Territory. In addition, because our hospitals do not get DSH payments to supplement the large amount of low-income patients that we serve, this creates an additional financial burden on the Territory's hospitals; and compounding this dilemma is the fact that the Virgin Islanders, nor do the residents of Guam, get SSI benefits, which means that our disabled citizens are also excluded from the benefits of this program, again just because of where we live. I place emphasis on ``where we choose to live'' because the fact that all a low-income Virgin Islands resident has to do to receive SSI or full Medicaid benefits is to move to Miami or New York where a growing number of our residents now reside. We would prefer to keep our poor, sick and disabled residents at home instead of sending them to these districts because of an inequity in the law. Moreover, it is plain wrong that families must move away from their homes and friends in order to receive a benefit that their fellow citizens on the mainland do not have to leave their home to receive. Why does this unequal treatment exist? The answer most given is that the Territories do not pay Federal income taxes, but it is not as simple as that. The fact is that people who receive SSI and themselves in the States do not pay Federal taxes because they do not earn enough money. This Congress in their wisdom, through the earned income tax credit and other tax credits, allow low-income Americans to pay very little Federal taxes. But these same citizens, like my constituents, all pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes for which there are no credits or exemptions. How is it that one group of American citizens, or even residents who are not yet citizens, can receive medical care even though they do not pay Federal taxes while another group does not. Likewise when my constituents are called to serve their country when we are at war or even when we are not, they are not asked whether they pay Federal taxes; and we serve willingly and proudly and in large numbers. Mr. Speaker, a recent report, the Access Improvement Project of the Virgin Islands, revealed that great disparities exist for Medicaid eligible children in the Virgin Islands compared to the continental United States. The report shows that while the Nation as a whole spends an average of $76 for EPSDT screening per Medicaid eligible child, the U.S. Virgin Islands only spent $1.20. Additionally, the total Medicaid expenditures per child also shows an astonishing disparity. In the age group 15 to 20, national Medicaid expenditures were approximately 599 percent more than what is being spent in the Virgin Islands. We also received a 50 percent match, despite a State like Mississippi where the average income is $1,500 higher than ours. They receive 80 percent match. And the Virgin Islands Medicaid program cannot provide wheelchairs, hearing aids or prosthetic devices, and only provides physical and occupational therapy to a limited degree because of the limited funding. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) and I pledge to work to remove the Medicaid cap and to right this injustice on behalf of the poor and disabled in our districts. I hope that our colleagues will agree that it is not right to penalize American citizens of similar circumstances only because of where they live, and that they will join and support our efforts.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to once again commend and thank our colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the sponsor of this bill, and thank our chairman for the generosity with time this afternoon. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes on both sides.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), my last speaker, who represents Quincy, the home, the place that was the town that was home to President Adams and his family.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), which will be the home of the new memorial.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands. (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. That is fine.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), my colleague, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 1668. I am pleased to join my colleagues on the floor today in support of this legislation which honors a great American. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands held a hearing on June 12 on H.R. 1668 that was highly informative. We received testimony from noted historians David McCullough and Joseph Ellis, who provided the subcommittee with enlightening and detailed testimony on the accomplishments of former President Adams and his family, as well as the appropriateness of establishing a memorial here in Washington, D.C. John Adams, our first Vice President and second President of the United States, was an early American statesman and patriot, and I am pleased to support this worthy legislative effort to honor former President Adams and his legacy. It is truly overdue. The bill that is being brought to the floor today includes amendments to clarify the focus of the Adams Memorial. These changes are consistent with the testimony we received at our hearing. I want to commend the bill's sponsor as well, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for his insight and his perseverance in expanding our knowledge about and generating our interest in our second President and his family, and his perseverance in making this memorial a reality. My thanks also to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), our chairman, and the leadership for expediting the consideration of this measure before the July 4 recess. It is fitting and proper that the House pass this legislation in conjunction with the 4th of July, which honors American independence, an event that John Adams was extremely instrumental in helping to achieve. Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly support H.R. 1668, as amended, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.