Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3403, the ``911 Modernization and Public Safety Act of 2007''.

This legislation ensures that consumers using Voice over Internet Protocol or VoIP technology can access the 911 system. It also requires the development of a national plan to ensure that the 911 system continues to evolve.

Consumers expect that when they place a call to 911 using a wireline phone, wireless phone, or any other type of technology, the emergency operator who answers will send the right type of first responder to the correct location in the shortest time possible. The ability to dial 911 and reach an emergency operator is so integral to our daily lives that we teach our children from the earliest moment how to dial 911.

As our communications system has evolved, so too has the 911 system. We have seen this before with the introduction of wireless phone service. As more consumers began using cell phones, Congress passed legislation to ensure that the 911 system could accommodate emergency calls made over the wireless network.

Over the last few years, VoIP technology has provided a new way for consumers to make calls using the Internet. H.R. 3404 ensures that consumers using VoIP service are able to access 911 as easily as consumers using wireline or wireless services. H.R. 3403 will give VoIP providers access to the components they need to provide 911 service and will extend the liability protections afforded to wireline and wireless carriers today to VoIP providers, public safety officials, and end users in relation to VoIP 911 calls.

The constantly evolving nature of technology can present a challenge to legislators. H.R. 3403 meets that challenge by ensuring that our 911 system continues to adapt. It requires the development of a national plan to migrate to an Internet Protocol-enabled 911 system. It also amends an existing grant program to allow funding for public safety answering points that are moving to an IP-enabled system.

As technology evolves, it is important that public safety communications also evolve. Too often public safety is left behind, burdened by yesterday's technology and yesterday's network. H.R. 3403 therefore requires that public safety representatives participate in the formation of the national plan. This will help ensure that public safety has access to the communications platform of the future.

Moving to an IP-enabled 911 system will also benefit consumers with disabilities. H.R. 3403 requires that the national plan address solutions for providing 911 and enhanced 911 services to members of the disabilities community who may not be able to speak to or hear an emergency operator. By including those representing the disabilities community in the formation of the national plan, we will ensure that all consumers are able to access emergency services.

Because consumers rely on 911, Congress must ensure that the 911 system is reliable. H.R. 3403 fulfills this duty by addressing the addition of VoIP service to the marketplace and by establishing a pathway to the future of the 911 system. This important measure has strong bipartisan support, including the support of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Ranking Member, Representative Barton, and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Internet, Representative Upton.

I commend Representative Gordon for his excellent work on this legislation. I also thank the other members of the 911 Caucus, and Representatives Eshoo, Shimkus, and Pickering for their important and ongoing work in the area of Emergency communications.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3403.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3919, the ``Broadband Census of America Act of 2007''.

This bipartisan legislation marks an important step in bringing us closer to affordable, robust broadband service for all Americans.

Currently the Government does not adequately collect information on the extent of broadband deployment and usage in the United States. H.R. 3919 addresses this knowledge gap by improving the quality and quantity of data that the Government is authorized to collect concerning broadband availability and subscribership. Armed with this information, Government decision-makers. will have the in-depth information necessary to craft informed, coherent broadband policy.

H.R. 3919 calls for the creation of a national broadband inventory map. This map will depict, at granular levels, where broadband service is available. We are informed by the efforts of States such a Kentucky that have successfully developed similar maps. State-level experience tells us that this map will likely spur the deployment of additional broadband facilities and will be a valuable resource for consumers.

H.R. 3919 will also jump start efforts by local communities to improve broadband deployment and usage through the creation of grant programs to facilitate the collection of data for the broadband inventory map and local technology planning. These programs will help bring broadband facilities to communities that currently have little or no service.

This is a good bill produced through positive, bipartisan efforts. I commend Ranking Member Barton, Subcommittee Chairman Markey, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Upton for their leadership and contributions to this legislation. I am proud to support it, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Madam Speaker, today the House will vote on a conference report which includes the 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill and the 2008 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill. I rise in support of this legislation because I believe that this legislation will fund programs families in the 15th District need and rely on--quality education, strong health care, jobs that are safe for its workers and secure retirement plans.

I am disappointed that the President has threatened to veto this legislation. I find it extremely irresponsible that he finds it acceptable to fund another $200 billion for the war in Iraq, but has issue with an increase of $9.8 billion for education, health and workforce programs and an increase of $4 billion for veterans' health care.

Specifically this legislation will:

Provide $37.2 billion to VA hospitals and clinics, and traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder research, over $2.6 billion more than the President requested.

Invest $124.2 million into VA claims processors to address the backlog of 400,000 benefit claims.

Increase education funding to $60.7 billion, funding that will be dedicated to Title I grants to help low-income children, teacher quality and after school programs, IDEA grants and Pell grants.

Dedicate $12 billion to dislocated worker training, Job Corps, and worker protection efforts at the Mine Safety and Health Administration and the National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health.

Through this legislation we will fund all these programs, while only spending enough money equal to the cost of 2 months in Iraq. Let me be clear that it is not the goal of this Congress to withhold funding for our troops; however, it is important that Congress give this administration the message that our domestic programs should not be forgotten at the expense of a poorly handled and mismanaged war in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, the annual appropriations process is never easy, but this Congress we have an opportunity to pass a good piece of legislation that is also fiscally responsible. As Members of Congress, it is our duty to our constituents to fund programs that will improve their quality of life, which is why I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 774, I call up the bill (H.R. 3963) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3963, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.

Madam Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it is an excellent bipartisan compromise. I would observe that it meets the concerns expressed both in the President's veto message and also in the comments raised by our Republican colleagues as we debated the bill at earlier times.

I will note that the bill protects health insurance coverage for some 6 million children who now depend on CHIP. I will observe that it provides health coverage for 3.9 million children who are eligible, yet remain uninsured. Together, this is a total of better than 10 million young Americans who, without this legislation, would not have health insurance, and it is to be noted that those same young people will be losing their health insurance shortly if we do not act expeditiously on this matter.

As mentioned, the bill makes changes to accommodate the President's stated concerns.

First, it terminates the coverage of childless adults in 1 year.

Second, it targets bonus payments only to States that increase enrollments of the poorest uninsured children, and it prohibits States from covering children in families with incomes above $51,000.

Third, it contains adequate enforcement to ensure that only U.S. citizens are covered.

Fourth, it encourages States to help low-income families to secure health insurance provided through their private employer.

The bill is focused on the private marketplace. The evidence of that is the bill has strong support from the private health insurance industry. It is supported by the medical community, AMA, children's advocates, educators, advocates for people with disabilities, health professionals, hospitals, the AARP and others.

It is solid, bipartisan legislation worked out in careful meetings with Members from both parties, including Senator Hatch and others on the Senate side who have done such important work on this matter in times past, and that includes also our dear friend, Senator Grassley.

It is solid, bipartisan legislation that addresses the concerns expressed by the President and by our colleagues in the House on the Republican side. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 3963.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, it is a privilege for me to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) who has been a great leader in these matters.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I would be happy to oblige my good friend.

The answer to the question is yes.

That would be a matter to be determined by the State in which the transaction and the events occurred.

Well, it's a ``yes'' if the State so decides. It's a ``no'' if they decide not.

Again, the response is that that is up to the State, and there is nothing in the legislation to preclude that.

Again, the answer is if that is so determined by the States, the answer is yes.

Well, I would certainly hope so, but I can't guarantee.

Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record the disregards for children's coverage that have been submitted to us by the Congressional Research Service.

The point here is that the money needs to continue to flow to working families so that we can keep them working rather than staying on welfare.

Within the Medicaid and SCHIP programs, states are

permitted to disregard or not count certain types of amounts

of family income as decided by the State in determining

eligibility for the program.

This bill maintains this long-standing flexibility to allow

States to disregard certain legitimate costs like child care

and child support costs, recognizing that this income is not

available for a family to spend on health coverage.

Allowing States to disregard these costs ensures that

working families have the money they need to pay for work-

related expenses to ensure that low-income families can keep

their jobs. This is important to keep families from having to

go on welfare to get health coverage for their children.

The following are the monthly disregards applied by States

in 2006.

The state of Alabama disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received

for a family in its Medicaid program when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90

of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of

child support received for a family in its SCHIP program when

determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP.

The state of Alaska disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received and

the full amount of child support paid for a family in its

Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an

individual for Medicaid. It does not disregard income when

determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP.

The state of Arizona disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses, and $50 of child support received

for a family in its Medicaid program when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It does not

disregard income when determining eligibility for an

individual in SCHIP.

The state of Arkansas disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received

for a family in its Medicaid program when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $50

of child support received for a family in its ARKids B

Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an

individual for Medicaid. It does not disregard income when

determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP.

The state of California disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received and

the full amount of child support paid for a family in its

Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an

individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90 of earnings, $200

or $175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received

and the full amount of child support paid for a family in its

SCHIP program when determining eligibility for an individual

in SCHIP.

The state of Colorado disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received

for a family in its Medicaid program when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards all

childcare and medical expenses, including health insurance

premiums paid in the last 90 days for a family in its SCHIP

program when determining eligibility for an individual in

SCHIP. Note: Child support received is not counted as income

in SCHIP.

The state of Connecticut disregards $90 of earnings, $200

or $175 of childcare expenses and $100 of child support

received for a family in its Medicaid program when

determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It

disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare

expenses and $50 of child support received for a family in

its SCHIP program when determining eligibility for an

individual in SCHIP.

The state of Delaware disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received

for a family in its Medicaid program when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90

of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of

child support

received for a family in its SCHIP program when determining

eligibility for an individual in SCHIP.

The District of Columbia disregards Under poverty-level,

the full amount of child care expenses may be disregarded for

families under the federal poverty level, and disregards $100

in earnings and the full amount of child care expenses for

those under the SCHIP-funded expansion when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It does not

disregard income when determining eligibility for an

individual in SCHIP.

The state of Florida disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received

for a family in its Medicaid program when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards

either Medicaid disregards or gross income (whichever is more

beneficial to the family) when determining eligibility for an

individual in SCHIP.

The state of Georgia disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received

for a family in its Medicaid program when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90

of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of

child support received for a family in its SCHIP program when

determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP.

The state of Hawaii disregards $90 of earnings for a family

in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an

individual for Medicaid. It does not disregard income when

determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP.

The state of Idaho does not disregard income for a family

in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an

individual for Medicaid. It does not disregard income when

determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP.

The state of Illinois disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received and

the full amount of child support paid for a family in its

Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an

individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90 of earnings, $200

or $175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received

and the full amount of child support paid for a family in its

SCHIP program when determining eligibility for an individual

in SCHIP.

The state of Indiana disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received

for a family in its Medicaid program when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90

of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of

child support received for a family in its SCHIP program when

determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP.

The state of Iowa disregards 20 percent of earnings, $200

or $175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received

and the full amount of child support paid for a family in its

Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an

individual for Medicaid. It disregards 20 percent of earnings

and $50 of child support received for a family in its SCHIP

program when determining eligibility for an individual in

Madam Speaker, I yield to a Member for whom I have great personal affection and respect, Mr. Andrews of New Jersey, for 1 minute.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, it's a privilege for me to yield at this time 1 minute to a very valuable Member of this body, our friend and colleague, Mr. Altmire of Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, at this time I reserve.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Madam Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, my friend (Mr. Pallone).

Madam Speaker, I yield to my distinguished friend, the majority leader, the balance of my time for purposes of closing.

I object. I reserve a point of order.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I begin with an expression of my affection and respect for my good friend from Texas (Mr. Barton). In most matters he is an extraordinarily fine legislator, except on occasions when he offers these motions to recommit.

I begin by pointing out that my good friend's motion to recommit is the same tax about which there have been such prodigious complaints by my Republican colleagues, but that fewer kids are covered, and that there are many impediments inserted into the bill by the motion to recommit to covering the number of kids.

Having said that, my colleagues on the other side say they want to ensure that lowest-income States are covered, but they strike the bonus payments that CBO says will get 1.9 million of the lowest-income children covered who would not otherwise be covered.

Second, they say they are for working families. But it is interesting to note that they are forcing, by this, many of the working families who would receive coverage under the bill before us are forced to go onto welfare in order to get health care because they strike the provisions which would discourage that kind of unfortunate event. My colleagues, I would observe, still have the wrong medicine for the problem.

Now, in addition to this, the recommit would prohibit States looking to expand coverage to a family of three at $52,000 from doing so unless they meet arbitrary enrollment targets. The result of that is, of course, again harder for people who deserve and need this kind of relief to get this kind of benefit.

The last point I want to make here is their proposal does not remedy the current problem that has caused thousands of children to lose health coverage due to Republican bureaucratic requirements. I would point out something else, and that is my good friends have essentially in this, as near as I can figure, reenacted the President's proposal, which would set forth a directive to the States as to how they will administer this, something that has caused a huge outrage amongst the States, amongst persons affected and amongst advocates for the poor and the unfortunate. This is perhaps the worst part of what the proposal to recommit does.

Let's look at what the bill does. The bill increases the number of children who are eligible for coverage, for health insurance, from 6.6 to 10 million young Americans. It must be observed that we are doing this amidst a circumstance where we have seen significant increases in the number of our children joining the ranks of the uninsured.

The bill does more. It sees to it that we take care of the problem. Nearly 70 percent of all uninsured children are from families below $41,300 for a family of four. Of the 9 million uninsured children, nearly two-thirds are either preschool or elementary school age. This is the time when health care becomes singularly precious and important to them.

I would remind my colleagues that a Nation is judged by how it treats and cares for those who are most vulnerable and least able to help themselves. The bill sees to it that we amplify and include greater numbers of those who are most dependent upon others for their survival.

But in addition to that, I would remind my colleagues that this legislation is something which is of great importance because we are talking about the future of the kids. Giving them health care now when they have need of it is something that ensures that Americans in the future will be the kind of productive, valuable citizens who are able to carry forward the competition of this Nation in some of its most difficult, competitive times.

Now, this bill would significantly increase and improve access for needed health care to children. The proposal in the motion to recommit significantly cuts back on that.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and vote for the bill.

Madam Speaker, I have noted in recent days that some of my colleagues have asked to have their names removed from the list of those cosponsoring House Resolution 106. I have not asked to be removed as a cosponsor because I still strongly support the goals of the Resolution, and believe that it is important to acknowledge the atrocities committed against the Armenian people by the Ottoman Empire do indeed constitute genocide.

While I support the message of the Resolution, I have recently signed a letter asking that it not be brought to the House floor at this time. While the Armenian genocide is a tragic part of history, in the present there are American soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq. Regrettably, Turkey has responded to this Resolution with threats that would endanger the safety of those soldiers and make it more difficult for us to quickly and safely bring our troops home.

I know that my friends in the Armenian community have worked very hard over the years on behalf of this Resolution, and I know that they will be disappointed if its passage is delayed. However, they will be no more disappointed than I am about the fact that more than four years after the President launched his misguided war in Iraq, our troops are still in harm's way.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Dalai Lama upon being awarded the prestigious Congressional Gold Medal of Honor.

The Congressional Gold Medal is the nation's highest and most distinguished civilian award. The honor must be approved by at least two-thirds of the Members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate in order to be awarded. Over 100 awards have been conferred since its creation in 1776, including recipients General George Washington, Winston Churchill, and Nelson Mandela.

His Holiness, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, has exemplified the spirit of the award, demonstrating tremendous compassion and tolerance. Through his selfless advocacy of peace and human rights, the Dalai Lama has lived as an example of what one committed individual can accomplish. His efforts to better the lives of the Tibetan people have not gone unnoticed, and I am truly honored to play a role in this special day. I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me in honoring His Holiness, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill entitled the ``Protecting Consumers through Proper Forbearance Procedures Act of 2007'', which I am introducing today. This legislation is intended to correct persistent problems in procedure created by two words in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Section 10 of the Communications Act permits a telecommunications carrier to file a petition with the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, asking the FCC to forbear from applying certain statutory or regulatory requirements to it. The FCC may grant forbearance if it finds that doing so is in the public interest.

It is certainly within the prerogative of Congress to create a statutory regime that permits a regulatory agency to forbear from applying a statutory requirement, so long as the agency finds that consumers will continue to be protected and well served. The problem in this circumstance is that the statute states that the carrier's petition will be ``deemed granted'' if the FCC does not act within a prescribed timeframe. In other words, if the clock runs out before the FCC has reached agreement on the merits of a petition, the petition is automatically granted.

This untenable situation must be corrected. It can and has led to undesirable results.

First, the FCC last year permitted one forbearance petition to be ``deemed granted'' without issuing an accompanying written order, thereby making it impossible for Congress or the courts to ascertain the scope of relief granted or the legal rationale supporting the agency action. In this situation, which could easily occur again, it is difficult for Congress to conduct proper oversight of the implementation of the Communications Act, as well as oversight of the telecommunications industry.

Second, the ``deemed granted'' language results in unsound decision- making at the FCC. Faced with contentious, complicated issues as set forth in these petitions, the FCC now routinely waits until the last possible minute--in some cases literally the 11th hour--to make a rushed decision. All the while, during the FCC's deliberations, the threat of an automatic grant of forbearance from statutory provisions hovers over the proceedings. Such a disjointed process is not likely to result in public policy that benefits consumers.

This bill simply removes the ``deemed granted'' language from the statute. Carriers are still free to seek forbearance, and the FCC may still grant forbearance where appropriate. But the ``deemed granted'' language must be removed to safeguard the ability of Congress and the courts to conduct appropriate oversight, to protect consumers, and to restore transparency to the decision-making process.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of a world-class learning and educational institution: The Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum. On October 20, 2007, the Hands-On Museum will be Celebrating 25 Years of Discovery.

The Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum serves as a focal point for informal science education in the greater Ann Arbor community, occupying 40,000 square feet in an old firehouse. From exhibits that tangibly display the effects of gravity, photography, anatomy, geology, music and many other scientific phenomena, to a live bee colony spread throughout the building; the Hands-On Museum brings learning to life. Special events like the Big Freeze and National Engineering Week are just part of what make the Hands-On Museum such a wonderful place; one which allows children and adults to experience learning first hand, together.

The history of this great institution is filled with instances of well meaning people building it from the ground up. In 1982, a small, but extremely dedicated group of individuals came together to create the Hands-On Museum in the old brick firehouse in downtown Ann Arbor. They did this because they wanted a place for their children and many others to come and learn, while having fun at the same time. These volunteers were able to raise enough money to open the museum and ensure its future funding. These first efforts eventually led to the further expansion of the Hands-On Museum and in 1986 it received a Kresge Foundation Challenge Grant, which allowed it to open up new exhibits on the third and fourth floors of the firehouse. The Hands-On Museum initiated its own $6.5 million Capital Campaign fund, in 1993, which allowed it to expand by purchasing adjoining buildings and introducing new programs. Ever-evolving, recent renovations were finished in October 1999 funded with additional gifts and donations. Thanks in large part to the work of many generous donors, the Hands-On Museum has seen over 3.1 million visitors to date.

The Hands-On Museum is a remarkable institution and has been widely recognized, including being named ``Best Museum'' in 2003 by the Detroit Free Press. It was also named both ``Best Museum'' and ``Best Kids' Activity'' by Ann Arbor News readers in 2006. Along with these awards, the Hands-On Museum has also received national recognition by the National Science Foundation, the Institute of Museum and Library Services and the Association of Science and Technology Centers.

The Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum has now served to educate several generations of children. It is truly a treasure for residents of the City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County and the State of Michigan. I applaud the Hands-On Museum for all that it has done; all that it means to the children who walk through its doors; and for all that it will do to educate both current and future generations of children.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against the war in Iraq in part because I feared the challenges that the United States would face installing a government that was both democratic and responsible. I am increasingly concerned about the recent reports concerning the corruption of the Maliki government in Iraq. The Bush Administration has told us that the controversial troop surge has led to political progress in Iraq. The unfortunate reality is that corruption has been prevalent throughout the Iraqi government, hindering political progress in the nation. Even worse, our own government has attempted to shield the American people from the disturbing reality of what is really going on in the Iraqi government. I am pleased that the House of Representatives is considering this resolution, which condemns the deceptive actions of the State Department.

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

I will also yield 15 minutes of my time to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the matter under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Today we face an awesome responsibility to do what is right for America's children. The debate here is about one thing only: health care for kids. Some have tried to change the subject, obfuscating this debate with misconceptions, half-truths, and outright lies. Whether this is ignorance or malfeasance, allow me to help them understand the legislation.

First, the bill terminates the coverage of adults under the CHIP program. I repeat, terminates.

Second, the bill prohibits the use of Federal funds for illegal aliens. Section 605 plainly states, ``No Federal Funding for Illegal Aliens.''

Third, the bill is fully paid for and will not increase the national debt. In fact, CBO estimates this bill, if enacted, will return money to the Treasury.

The legislation before us would provide health care and health insurance coverage for 10 million needy American children. It provides funding for States to enroll millions of low-income children who are already eligible for benefits yet remain uninsured. Under current law, these boys and girls are entitled to their benefits. Continuing this situation of not providing coverage is a travesty.

I am not alone in this view. Former Surgeons General for Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and for the current President recently wrote in support of this legislation the following: ``We implore you to not put off the health needs of our Nation's children. Please act today.''

This legislation has the strong backing of the entire medical community, children advocates, educators, school administrators and school boards, as well as insurance companies across the country, and 43 of the Nation's Governors want SCHIP enacted because they know children cannot learn if they are not well.

They also know something else. These are the most vulnerable people in our society. We will be judged how we care for them; but beyond that, this is an investment in the future of the country. More than 300 organizations and a long list of distinguished Americans support this bill.

I urge my colleagues to join in overriding the veto.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the chairman of the subcommittee, a great expert on the business of health.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds for purposes of responding to the comments just made.

I want my colleagues to take a careful look at the remarks just made and the poster just presented. Every one of those statements is false. There is no treatment in this for illegals. There is no treatment in this for their parents. This is not socialized medicine.

It is supported by the health care industry. It is also supported by the insurance industry. It has no relationship to and it doesn't even look like the Hillarycare thing about which the gentleman complains.

I would note something else. This is a proposal which is a block grant to the States. It is not an entitlement.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to show the bipartisanship of this bill which is supported by one of every four of our Republican colleagues, including our dear friends Mr. Grassley and Mr. Hatch in the Senate. At this time, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from South Carolina, my friend, Mr. Clyburn, 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, at this time I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Madam Speaker, I would just note that my good Republican colleagues have ignored one fact that is important, and that is that every time that there is an inclusion of anybody over the level of 200 percent of poverty, it is on an express waiver granted by the Republican White House.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Madam Speaker, I would observe that here we have three speakers before we're prepared to close. And if you would permit, Madam Speaker, the Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, will close for us.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Madam Speaker, at this time I reserve my time. I have one more speaker and then the Speaker who will be closing for us.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to our Speaker to close, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I will submit for the Record a letter from Peter Orszag, Director of the Congressional Budget Office. That office notes several things. First of all, one, this bill actually saves money for the Treasury; two, it is fiscally responsible; three, it is fully paid for.

The bill also covers approximately 10 million children in 2012, but it authorizes that only through 2012. In my Republican colleague's comparison with events in the year 2017, those comparisons are both impossible and bogus. I would note that the legislation covers 4 million more children than the administration's proposal.

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, October 18, 2007.

Hon. John D. Dingell,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to questions that we have

been asked about the enclosed enrollment table that CBO

circulated yesterday regarding the State Children's Health

Insurance Program (SCHIP), two points are worth noting.

First, as indicated in footnote 2 of the table, the

enrollment figures are for SCHIP only. The Children's Health

Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) would also

raise enrollment in Medicaid by 1.3 million in 2012 relative

to the baseline. Second, as indicated in footnote 6 of the

enclosed table, CHIPRA authorizes SCHIP only through 2012,

and the figures for 2017 are therefore based on an

extrapolation of CHIPRA beyond the legislation's

authorization window. Under that extrapolation of CHIPRA

through 2017, SCHIP and Medicaid enrollment combined would

rise relative to the baseline.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to

contact Keith Fontenot at 226-2800.

Sincerely,

Peter R. Orszag,

Director.

Enclosure.

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to let my colleagues know that we recently lost one of our nation's most dedicated conservationists. Marvin ``Sam'' Washington embodied the American tradition of conservation. I want his family to know that Sam was an inspiration to us all and that he will be very sorely missed.

An avid hunter and angler, Sam served on the Board of Directors of Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) and was also a member of the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund and the State Parks Advisory Committee. From 2003 to 2007, Sam served as Executive Director of the MUCC, becoming one of our strongest advocates for access to Michigan's natural resources and protection of Michigan's hunting and fishing heritage.

Sam was a passionate outdoorsman who channeled his love of wildlife into action. He understood that nature must be cherished, enjoyed and preserved for future generations--not exploited. At a time when many of our natural resources are at risk, Sam stood tall, fighting for action on global warming, mercury emissions, wetlands protection and responsible land use.

Sam was much more than a conservationist, however--he was an integral part of his community. He taught English and coached various sports in the Bloomfield Hills School District. He was also a minister, as well as a dedicated husband and father to his wife Peggy and two daughters, Jenny and Wendy.

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all my colleagues join me in paying tribute to a great American conservationist, my friend Sam Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I have followed with interest news reports from Iraq documenting some of the terrible atrocities that have been committed at the hands of military contractors hired by the United States. I have been keenly interested in the recent congressional hearings that have been held on this matter. Based on what I have learned, I am pleased today that the House of Representatives is considering this bill, which would ensure that those who do business with the United States Government in Iraq can be held accountable when they commit criminal acts. Unfortunately, I cannot be present for the vote today, but I wanted to ensure I submitted this statement of support so the record will reflect that I am strongly in favor of the goals of this important bill.

This bill is a fair and sensible way to ensure that military contractors can be prosecuted for their criminal actions in a U.S. court. This is important both because it gives the government a way to police the behavior of these contractors, and also because it shows the Iraqi people that the United States is serious about the rule of law. While I am glad Congress is taking this action now, I remain concerned about the Bush Administration's failure to take steps to investigate or prosecute those who committed wrongdoing in the past. I believe Congress should continue to investigate these incidents and ensure that those responsible are held accountable.

Madam Speaker, the President's veto of a bipartisan plan to help 10 million children is incomprehensible. It willfully ignores the needs of low-income children and the recommendations of Congress, 43 State Governors, more than 300 coalition groups, and the vast majority of the American people.

Unlike America's children, the President has nothing to lose by vetoing this legislation. President Bush has government-run health insurance. But millions of American children do not have any coverage at all.

It saddens and baffles me to think that the President would not want to make health insurance for 10 million children a positive part of his legacy. I pledge to keep fighting for this bill and to protect America's most vulnerable children.

This matter is too important to the children of our Nation. I support the Leader's motion to postpone immediate consideration of the President's veto of H.R. 976 so that we may provide Members time to consider the magnitude of this vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of House Resolution 635, a resolution recognizing the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. On September 13 this year, millions of Muslims throughout the world, and a great number in Michigan's 15th Congressional district, began a month of fasting, prayer, and spiritual renewal. It is an important step for acceptance and tolerance within the United States that Congress, for the first time, is recognizing this exceptional religious observance.

During the holy month of Ramadan, Muslims engage in self-discipline and purification. From sunrise to sunset, Muslims refrain from common daily activities such as eating and drinking, and tobacco use. Muslims also spend time reading the Koran, contemplating Islam, and cleansing their spirits. Ramadan is also a time to gather with family and friends, both at the nightly iftar, as well as at the conclusion of Ramadan, during the Id-al-Fitr.

It is a pleasure to join my colleagues in honoring the celebration of Ramadan, not simply because Muslims are an important and growing part of American society, but also because goals and tenets of Ramadan--self sacrifice, charity, and spiritual renewal--are shared by Americans of all faiths. Hopefully, Congressional recognition of Ramadan will lead to an increased appreciation for these shared values. Certainly, recognizing Ramadan, along with its observance in the United States, contributes to the vibrancy, dynamism, and character of our great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly about the provision of this legislation which provides for a 3-month reauthorization of the Title V abstinence-only education block grant program.

On August 1 of this year, the House of Representatives passed legislation which made significant and responsible changes to the abstinence-only education programs. The House-passed legislation would have provided states with the flexibility to offer programs best suited to the needs and desires of their citizens and it would have ensured that Federal funds were being spent on effective programs that provide medically accurate information.

Sadly, those changes are not incorporated into the bill before us today because opponents of the House-passed abstinence language decided to hold hostage the important reauthorizations of TMA and Q1, in an effort to ensure that no improvements were made to the discredited abstinence-only programs.

Because it is absolutely necessary that we reauthorize TMA and Q1, the abstinence- only education changes were sacrificed for now. Let me be clear: I am dismayed that the House-passed abstinence-only language was omitted from this legislation and I will continue

to fight for those important, responsible, and necessary changes in the coming months.