Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Greenhills School for receiving the prestigious Intel Schools of Distinction award for 2007.

Chosen from almost 1,000 entries, this prestigious award is granted to only six schools nationwide each year. The award is designed to recognize those schools that demonstrate excellence in implementing innovative programs within their classrooms, specifically in the fields of math and science. The science faculty of Greenhills School has exemplified the spirit of the award, modernizing classroom labs to incorporate wireless computers. Their efforts educated students not only in the complex field of science, but also in technology's role as a laboratory instrument. In addition, they have demonstrated an enthusiasm to connect with all students in the school.

Greenhills School has always stood out as an exceptional place to learn. Located in Ann Arbor, it boasts the largest percentage of National Merit Semi-Finalists and AP Scholars of any school in the State of Michigan. With students averaging outstanding SAT and ACT scores, it is not surprising that 100 percent of Greenhills graduates enroll in college. This award is a testament not only to the science teachers of Greenhills School, but all of the 64 faculty members who work to provide students with one of the best educations in the country.

Science teachers Dr. James Lupton, Dr. Deano Smith, Thomas Friedlander, Catherine Renaud, Dee Lamphear, Martha Friedlander, Ann Novak, Chris Gleason, Deborah Jagers and Michael Wilson have all demonstrated an admirable passion and dedication that benefits over 500 students at Greenhills School. They deserve recognition for their exceptional achievement.

Madam Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in commending Greenhills School for their 2007 Schools of Distinction Award.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 675, I call up from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 976) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief for small businesses, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 675, I have a motion at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 976, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.

Ten years ago a Republican Congress and a Democratic President passed a landmark program to reach children who had fallen through the cracks of the health care system. These kids weren't poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, and their parents, most of whom worked, couldn't afford health insurance on their own.

Today this program provides health care for 6 million children across the Nation. Those 6 million kids today are in jeopardy because this successful program will expire September 30. The legislation before us will continue helping these 6 million of our children and extend health care to 4 million more of our young people.

This bill is for parents like Ms. Molina, a mother of two children who worked two part-time jobs but still could not afford health insurance. CHIP got her kids treatment for dental work, two sprained ankles, one broken arm, and a severe burn.

It's for parents like Ms. Mingeldorff, the mother of a child born 25 weeks prematurely who would have had to turn down a job without health insurance because it would have made her ineligible for Medicaid.

This bill is for every child who needs a vaccination, a cavity filled, chemotherapy, insulin, antidepressants, or other life- sustaining health care.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the children in your district and to remember this legislation will provide health care for 6 million who are now deriving that and 4 million more. The issue here is are you for or against health care for the kids under the SCHIP program?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Pallone.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, with affection and respect for my good friend from Texas, I would observe that none of the abuses that he points out have been found in the years in which this legislation has been in place, and there are none of the abuses that he would find here going to come forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a real expert in the field of health care and a caring and concerned practitioner as a nurse. We are grateful that she is with us.

Reserving the right to object, will the gentleman restate his unanimous consent request?

Mr. Speaker, that would contravene the understandings we had with our good friends in the Senate who insisted on this language. I have to object.

Mr. Speaker, I would observe an interesting point, and that is the Congressional Budget Office says that we are taking care of 4 million additional kids who are identical in all particulars to those we now care for under SCHIP. There is no vast increase in socialized medicine or anything of that sort, as we hear from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to a very able member of our committee, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege for me to yield time to a distinguished member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the respected gentlewoman from New Mexico, a very valuable member of our committee (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) 1 minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield myself 2 minutes.

We have here before us a bill which gives $35 billion to strengthen and improve children's health coverage. It protects 6 million children today covered by SCHIP. It adds an additional 4 million. It is the largest investment in children's health since the passage of the original Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997.

It provides $300 million in outreach grants for the States, community organizations, tribal organizations, and national initiatives. It provides a new express lane initiative for one-stop enrollment. It facilitates enrollments for newborns so coverage starts immediately. It does more than this. It revises the current SCHIP program formula to more accurately attract State need in that it follows the House provisions.

It provides the children enrollment program contingencies adjustment allotments to States to succeed in reaching the eligible but the unenrolled.

It does more. It provides dental coverage for CHIP children. It also provides mental health coverage for children. It provides grant money for diabetes clarification and prevention. It clarifies the coverage of school-based clinic services through the CHIP program. It creates a new option for CHIP programs to subsidize employer options and employer coverage for children whose parents may already have access to coverage.

It does not do any of the things that were charged on the other side because it does not change the law that CHIP now has in place. It just offers additional benefits to children under the SCHIP program.

It is a program which will cover 4 million more kids. It has to be passed by the first of the next month or else all of these kids are going to lose their coverage.

I was at the Governors' meeting in northern Michigan, and the one thing that the Governors were unanimous on is that we need to pass this SCHIP because it is an essential program and an essential part of their program for the care of our kids.

It is a piece of legislation that will make this country better. Take care of our kids. See to it that we do the job that we should in making health care available for all of our kids.

I yield back the balance of my time, excepting I'm going to save time to yield to my dear friend, the majority leader, to close.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the distinguished majority leader the balance of my time for purposes of closing.

Mr. Speaker, I insert these remarks into the Record in response to some unfortunate remarks made on the House floor regarding a provision in the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, H.R. 976. A statement was made suggesting that a certain provision had been inserted in the bill to solely benefit my home State of Michigan, a statement that could not be further from the truth. The provision for which this accusation was made in reality would ensure that all States would not be penalized due to factors in Medicaid funding that are beyond their control.

The Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP, is the formula used to calculate the amount of Federal funding distributed to States to offset Medicaid expenses. The Federal Government's share of a State's Medicaid funding is based on the State's per capita income. Put simply, States with lower per capita incomes receive more Federal Medicaid funding; States with higher per capita incomes receive lower Federal Medicaid funding.

Due to recent changes to accounting rules, the current FMAP formula needs to be updated. Accounting rules that require employers to pre- fund employee pension and insurance funds may cause a State's per capita income to be calculated far higher than it really is. To

comply with the rules, employers may occasionally have to make large transfers to a pension or insurance fund. This money is counted in the calculation of a State's per capita income in the year of the transfer, even though it may not be paid out for years. When this occurs, a State then appears wealthier than it is, causing the State to lose Medicaid funding.

The FMAP adjustment included in the CHIP Reauthorization Act corrects this unfair penalty. It simply ensures that when an employer makes a significantly disproportionate pension or insurance contribution, the State is not denied much-needed Medicaid funding.

This adjustment provision is not limited to any single State. In fact it now applies to three States, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. It may well be that many more States will have cause to complain about this soon, unless it is corrected. It would apply to any State in any instance where there is a significantly disproportionate employer pension or insurance fund contribution that exceeds 25 percent of a State's increase in personal income for a year.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 1852, the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007. Section 29 of this bill is designed to clarify congressional intent regarding certain properties that entered the HUD property disposition process prior to the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act but where the initial proposed disposition was delayed. An example of one such project is Parkview Apartments in Ypsilanti, Michigan. While I believe that this particular project is already subject to the grandfathering provision of the DRA, Section 29 clarifies that such properties should be considered ``pre-DRA'' properties, and that HUD should proceed with its prior disposition contracts as to those properties. This clarification was requested by HUD and, in drafting this provision, we were assisted by HUD staff and were assured that this language was the clarification the agency needed to proceed with the 2004 contract as to Parkview Apartments.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the time with thanks to my beloved friend from Minnesota for whom I have enormous affection and respect.

Mr. Chairman, southeastern Michigan is the home for two major airports that accommodate large amounts of air and cargo traffic, Detroit Metro and Willow Run Airport.

Southeast Michigan has made strong efforts to develop an aerotropolis between the two airports, and we meet all of the tests that would be required for this, including rail, truck, highway, water, and other kinds of access. We believe that these would be very useful in establishing an intermodal access program which would complement these efforts by facilitating the many public transit plans in southeast Michigan.

I request at this time the assurance of my beloved friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, that he will be helping us on this, and I assure him that I will be requesting the assurance of the chairman of the Wayne County Airport Authority that he will cooperate fully in giving priority consideration to this matter to move it forward.

I would now yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) who has been so active in this matter.

I yield now to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Whatever time I have remaining, I yield to my beloved friend from Minnesota.

I thank my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3580) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise and extend the user-fee programs for prescription drugs and for medical devices, to enhance the postmarket authorities of the Food and Drug Administration with respect to the safety of drugs, and for other purposes.

Mr. 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 matter on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express strong support for H.R. 3580, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. This is excellent legislation. It contains needed reforms to strengthen the safety of our Nation's drug, device, and food supply.

I want to pay a word of compliment to my Republican colleagues and say that we have come to a compromise which I believe is satisfactory in the broad public interest and is an excellent piece of legislation. And I want to commend my friend Mr. Barton and our Republican colleagues for having worked with us well on this matter.

On July 11, 2007, the House passed H.R. 2900, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments, by a bipartisan vote of 403-16. The bill was hailed by all as a strong bill that would improve the lives of Americans by ensuring that drugs and devices are reviewed in a competent and in a timely fashion.

Earlier this year the Senate passed a similar bill. Since July, bipartisan meetings have been held frequently between the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to reconcile the differences between the two bills.

This bill includes two very different user-fee programs, both vital to the timely approval of lifesaving drugs and devices. The legislation would significantly improve our postmarket safety programs, thereby preventing many of the drug and device injuries and deaths that occur today. It fills an important gap in therapies available to one of our most vulnerable and important patient groups: our children. Finally, I note that the period of market exclusivity in the pediatric studies remains 6 months, as in current law.

I want to thank all the members of the committee who have worked hard on this bill. They have endured long hours to ensure that this bill would be completed before the expiration of the two user-fee programs at the end of this month. And I want to pay particular tribute to the staff on both sides for their outstanding labors.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that if this bill does not pass in the time limits which are imposed upon us by the September 30 expiration of this statute, we will have significant problems here that we may not be able to address because, I would point out, that failure to do so will leave us with a situation where we are going to find that RIF notices will be going out at Food and Drug and the ability to approve new drugs will all of a sudden come to a screeching and unfortunate halt.

I urge my friends and colleagues to support this legislation; it is a good piece of legislation, it has the support of all who have worked with it, and I would commend it to the attention and the kindness of my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the chairman of the subcommittee, and that he be permitted to control the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge, honor, and celebrate an event taking place in ``the world's largest freshwater marsh restoration project.'' Ever more popular each year, the Pointe Mouillee Waterfowl Festival is celebrating its 60th year of bringing together all manner of wilderness enthusiasts and outdoorsmen for an exciting weekend of appreciation, competitions, and games.

The Pointe Mouillee Waterfowl Festival is a unique event open to all wildlife lovers of every age, and it is free of charge to the public. This event is made possible through the hard work of the organizers of the Festival, sponsor businesses, conservation groups, and the hundreds of visitors who travel with their families for the annual event. Of course, one must also remember the many diverse species of waterfowl whose presence at Pointe Mouillee highlights the work of those who spend their precious time working to restore and maintain the marsh. The whole festival is a wonderful opportunity to see all the benefits of conservation come together in one remarkable weekend for everyone to enjoy.

Pointe Mouillee, aptly named ``wet point'' in French, began its role as a haven for sportsmen in the late 19th century when it was owned by an upper-class group of only eight men. It endured as such--only adding two new membership slots--for seventy years. In 1945, however, the aristocratic ownership of the 2,608 acres of marshland ended when it was sold to the Michigan Department of Conservation. At that point, the beautiful channels and lands were opened to the happy public. Ten thousand outdoorsmen, one thousand times the previous restricted membership, flocked to enjoy Pointe Mouillee that season alone.

Over time, however, as construction began on dams and the natural flow of the Huron River was shifted, the important balance of the habitat began to shift as well. As this trend was exacerbated in the 1960s and 1970s the damage only worsened. Nonetheless, despite the many obstacles, the Festival continues to work to preserve the marshland and bring even greater attention to the beauty and utility of those 2,608 acres.

Madam Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in saluting the Pointe Mouillee Waterfowl Festival as it celebrates its 60th anniversary. I have every hope, and every confidence, that this great festival will carry on its proud tradition of appreciation toward the natural beauty of the Pointe Mouillee and other such sites throughout Michigan and the entire region.

Mr. Speaker, six years ago, America awoke on a sunny Tuesday morning to learn we were under attack. Today, we once again pause to reflect upon those who lost their lives that day, and those they left behind. We remember the bravery of the firefighters, policemen, emergency responders, and volunteers who charged up the stairs of the twin towers or into the inferno of the Pentagon. We remember the passengers on Flight 93, whose sacrifice in the fields of Pennsylvania saved countless lives elsewhere. We remember the ordinary Americans who gave something of themselves that day or in the weeks that followed, by volunteering at ground zero, by giving blood, or donating money.

As we think about that day, and the way it changed us all, we must also ask ourselves whether we have done enough to honor the memories of the many victims of the attacks. I am pleased that on this September 11, Congress can finally say that it passed legislation to implement the recommendations of the independent bipartisan 9/11 Commission. However, we cannot be complacent, and must continue to improve the security of our ports, borders, and other critical infrastructure. Finally, as Osama Bin Laden's latest video reminds us, those who perpetrated the September 11th attacks are still at large. We must ensure that our military has the resources it needs to track down those responsible for the attacks.

As Americans gather to remember September 11, 2001, let us reflect upon the fact

that on a day that will be remembered as one of the worst for America, Americans were at their best. Maintaining the spirit of unity that brought us together in the aftermath of those attacks is perhaps the way that we can best honor the memories of those who died.

Madam Speaker, I have the great privilege today of welcoming and thanking a dear friend, a distinguished American, and a wonderful clergyman to the House for the prayer, and I want to thank you and my colleagues for your courtesy to him.

I am delighted to present to my colleagues the wonderful gentleman from Ypsilanti, the Reverend S.L. Roberson, and I want to thank him for taking time to be with us today to act as our guest chaplain.

He has dedicated his life to the service of his fellow man and is one of the most beloved and respected pastors and citizens of the State of Michigan. He has been pastor of the Metropolitan Memorial Baptist Church in Ypsilanti for 53 years. He has served his country with great distinction as a member of the United States Marine Corps, of which he is very proud.

He has undergraduate degrees from Eastern Michigan University, has studied at Detroit Bible College, and has a doctorate of divinity from Urban Bible College so that he may more fully and better serve his fellow man.

In addition to his civic and spiritual service, he has worked for Ford Motor Company for 33 years in their Labor Relations and Personnel Services of Industrial Relations Department. He has found time to serve as president of the Ypsilanti Housing Commission and is chaplain of the Ypsilanti Police Department.

He is a wonderful individual to provide the opening prayer for the Congress because of his great life experiences and his wonderful service to his country, including distinguished service in the military. He has given his fellow citizens over 50 years of spiritual guidance, and he has administered God's word to civil servants and citizens alike all across Michigan.

I ask my colleagues to welcome this distinguished American, our guest chaplain, Rev. S.L. Roberson, and to welcome his wife and friends who are in the gallery today.

I thank you, Madam Speaker. We have before us a man of great respect and a real cornerstone to his community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Rhetaugh Graves Dumas, PhD, RN, FAAN, who passed way on July 22, 2007.

Rhetaugh Dumas had an exemplary life and career as an esteemed international leader in nursing and health care.

Dr. Dumas served as the dean of the School of Nursing at the University of Michigan from 1981 to 1994 in which she had a major impact on the advancement of nursing, health care, and academic programs. In 1994 she was named vice provost for health affairs and the Lucille Cole Professor of Nursing. She retired from active faculty status in December 2001, after 20 years of service to the University of Michigan.

Before arriving at the University of Michigan Dr. Dumas was a deputy director at the National Institutes of Mental Health. She was the first woman, the first nurse, and the first African-American to serve as a deputy director at NIMH.

Earlier in her career, Dr. Dumas served on the faculty of Yale University's School of Nursing and director of nursing of the Connecticut Mental Health Center at the Yale-New Haven Medical Center.

Dr. Dumas, born in Natchez, Mississippi, received her bachelor's degree in nursing from Dillard University, master's degree in psychiatric nursing from Yale and her Ph.D. degree in social psychology from Union Graduate School, Union for Experimenting Colleges and Universities.

Dr. Dumas served on a number of national boards and committees including as an appointee to the President's National Bioethics Advisory Committee during the Clinton administration.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in extending the appreciation of the U.S. House of Representatives for all the contributions Rhetaugh Grave Dumas made to our Nation during her extraordinary life.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The legislation here represents the work of 10 committees. In the portion of the legislation written by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, there is not a single provision that a Member would feel justified in opposing. The legislation from the Commerce Committee sets appliance standards for buildings and other devices and appliances which, when in full force, will save 10 million tons emissions of carbon dioxide, more than the annual emissions of every car in this country. It promotes the development of the Smart Electricity Grid that will deliver energy to a household in a more efficient manner. It paves the way for more efficient use of electricity and

will make innovations like plug-in hybrid vehicles even more promising.

It improves the loan guarantee programs to the Department of Energy, and it makes the largest investment in our history in biofuels, along with other things which will move forward and see to it that the infrastructure is there to provide the necessary service.

Some of our Members are unhappy with what is not in the bill; some of them are unhappy with what is in the bill. I would observe that we will be having additional legislation which we are contemplating bringing forth from the Energy and Commerce Committee in the month of September which will address a large number of questions not now before the House, including the question of global warming in all of its aspects.

These controversies have been avoided so that we could produce a consensus bill that will pass the House and the Senate and be signed into law by the President. That bill is before us at this time, and it merits our support.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I want to thank my distinguished friend from Texas (Mr. Barton) for all the good work that he does. I want to express my affection and respect for him. I want to thank him for raising the question about the departure of Mr. Albright.

Mr. Albright has served the committee with distinction. He has been a friend to all of us. He has been a wise counselor. He will be an extraordinarily fine public servant when he moves to the Department of Energy.

He will be missed here. He carries with him the affection, the respect and the good wishes of all of us. I wish to have him know of my friendship, affection and respect for him.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material into the record on H.R. 3221.

Reserving the right to object, you know, I enjoyed the reading of this so much the first time that I think I'd like to hear it again.

But out of special affection for my dear friend from Texas, I will not ask that it be read.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment and it should be adopted.

How many of my colleagues saw television last Sunday night when they saw the hundreds of thousands of fraudulent counterfeit pharmaceuticals, pills that could be imported into the United States from China, and saw Chinese entrepreneurs bragging about how many of these they could make available?

You can kill people with bad drugs two ways. One is by giving them adulterated, contaminated unsafe drugs. That'll kill them. The other way is to give them drugs that don't do anything. And these drugs, although cleverly marked and wonderfully packaged, don't do anything.

How many of you want the blood on your hands of having people killed by allowing drugs to be imported which are not safe or which do not do what they're supposed to do?

How many people here want to see to it that your constituents are getting drugs which won't deal with hypertension or which won't address the problems of cancer or which won't deal with other life-threatening drugs, with life-threatening conditions?

I urge you to support this amendment.

I commend my good friend from Michigan for his leadership, and I say thank you. The Nation owes you a debt.

The Nation is watching this Congress to see whether or not this Congress is going to protect the people or whether we're going to expose them to great risk. I challenge my colleagues to do what is right.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 594, I call up the bill (H.R. 3162) to amend titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the children's health insurance program, to improve beneficiary protections under the Medicare, Medicaid, and the CHIP program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my good friend from California will not object.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope my good friend would not object.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to make the same unanimous consent request, and then I will withdraw it. But first I want to make an observation here for the benefit of all of my colleagues and friends.

This is a very important piece of legislation. I am not going to defend the behavior of any Member here, and I am not going to criticize the behavior of any Member, but I am going to make an observation that I think is important.

This is a very important piece of legislation. Twelve million of our kids are going to have their health insurance increased or not depending on how we conduct ourselves today. I want to have a broad exposition. If you look at the time that we have to give to Members who wish to be heard on this, we are talking about a minute or 30 seconds, hardly enough time for any Member to adequately make a position on something which is important to him and to the kids.

I think that we have a chance to do a great deal of good for our young people. I don't think that it is excessive to say we are going to give enough time so that this matter can be properly discussed, nor do I think there is any benefit in denying our Members the time to do this and denying the Members a chance to be heard.

Now, I am going to withdraw this.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked unanimous consent and I reserved the right to object.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act, the CHAMP Act, is a good piece of legislation. It expands and improves a most successful program, bipartisan in character, created in 1997. That program has cut the rate of uninsured children by a full third. Some States have been able to ensure as many as 60 percent of the children who previously had no health insurance.

This bill is about taking care of our kids. It is about taking care of the future of the country. Today, 6 million of our youngsters get their health care through the program. With this legislation, an additional 5 million previously uninsured children will be able to see doctors, receive immunizations, and get dental and mental health coverage.

The bill requires that children receive priority in coverage. It allows States to cover pregnant women, recognizing that healthy moms make for healthy babies. I am certain my Republican colleagues on Energy and Commerce understood this point, because our clerk read this bill to them. As I am sure all of us there will recall, all some 486 pages were to be read.

The CHAMP Act does not allow one thin dime to be spent on illegal aliens. You will find this prohibition in section 135 of the bill. Nor does it create a government-run health insurance system. Coverage under CHIP and Medicaid are provided primarily through private health insurance. All but two States use some form of managed care for their programs. Nothing here will change that, and the newly covered children will be exactly the same kind of child in the same situation that every one of the children now covered happens to be.

The CHAMP Act also covers and secures Medicare for the future. This past Monday marked the 42nd anniversary of President Johnson signing that wonderful piece of legislation into law. I was there.

The CHAMP Act shores up the Medicare trust fund, improves benefits for seniors, protects their ability to choose their own doctors, and these reforms effectively provide low-income seniors on Medicare with an additional $1,200 in benefits.

The CHAMP Act is an act of fiscal responsibility. Seniors in traditional Medicare will pay approximately three-quarters of a billion dollars in excess premiums to cover the overpayments now being made to HMOs, a great injustice. The things that my Republican colleagues are complaining about are that we stop that evil practice. The CHAMP Act also adds 3 years to the life of the trust fund by stopping these overpayments which are accelerating the insolvency of the Medicare trust fund.

I know that President Bush has pledged to veto counterpart legislation in the Senate that is much more modest in its ambitions.

I include the rest of my speech for the Record and urge my Republican colleagues to read it. It is an excellent speech.

The legislation before us accomplishes two critical goals. It will provide health care to as many as 12 million children. And it will allow our elderly to continue seeing their own doctors.

The CHAMP Act--the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act-- improves a most successful program created with bipartisan support in 1997. That program has cut the rate of low-income uninsured children by one-third. Some States have been able to insure as many as 60 percent of their children who previously had no health insurance.

Today, six million children get their health care through this program. With this legislation, five million previously uninsured children will be able to see doctors, receive immunizations, get dental care, and other coverage.

This legislation requires that children receive priority in coverage. It allows States to cover pregnant women, recognizing that healthy moms make for healthy babies.

While I am certain that my Republican colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce understand this point--because our wonderful clerk read the bill to them--I will restate it for others listening:

The CHAMP Act does not allow one Federal dime to be spent on illegal aliens. You will find this prohibition in section 135 of the bill.

Nor does the bill create a ``government run'' health care system. Coverage under CHIP and Medicaid are provided primarily through private insurance--all but two States use some form of managed care for their programs. Nothing here would change that. And the newly covered children are exactly the same as those now covered.

The CHAMP Act also secures Medicare for the future. This past Monday marked the 42nd anniversary of President Johnson signing Medicare into law. The CHAMP Act shores up the Medicare trust fund, improves benefits for seniors, and protects their ability to choose their own doctors. These reforms will effectively provide low-income seniors on Medicare with an additional $1,200 in their pockets.

The CHAMP Act is an act of fiscal responsibility. This year, seniors in traditional Medicare will pay nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars in excess premiums to finance overpayments to HMOs. Those overpayments will accelerate the insolvency of the Medicare trust fund. The CHAMP Act adds three years to the life of the Trust Fund.

I am well aware that President Bush has pledged to veto counterpart legislation in the Senate that is much more modest in its ambitions, and I have received my own veto letter from the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. They stand on one side of the debate.

Let's look at who stands on the other side: 12 million children. The American Medical Association. The American Academy of Pediatrics. The National Rural Health Association. The National Council on Aging. The AARP. The Federation of American Hospitals. The March of Dimes. The Children's Defense Fund. The NAACP. The National Governors Association, including the Governors of New York, Michigan, California, Illinois, and Maryland, and the Catholic Health Association--which notes that ``the most important pro-life thing the Congress can do right now is ensure that the State Children's Health Insurance Program is reauthorized.''

A vote against this bill is a vote to deprive six million children of healthcare. A vote against this bill is a vote to continue the plunder of the Medicare Trust Fund by bloated private interests. A vote against this bill is a vote to deny seniors in Medicare additional benefits.

I urge all of my colleagues to stand up for what's right for children, seniors, people with disabilities, and taxpayers: support the speedy passage of the CHAMP Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, my good Republican friends will be discussing process, and we want to discuss kids and the future of the country.

For that purpose, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, my friend, Mr. Pallone of New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for purposes of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) 1 minute.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, our problem is a simple one, and I say this with respect and affection to my colleague. Our Republican colleagues have chosen to allocate time with two committees on this side and one committee on that side. The end result is that there is one committee on the Republican side which is not using its time. In order to balance out the time use, Mr. Stark and I are reserving our time at this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it would appear at this time that many of the difficulties that confront us could be addressed by the appearance of our good friends on the minority side of the Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for purposes of a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

The gentleman from Michigan will continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, out of a surcease of good will for my Republican colleagues, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, I would yield 1 minute at this time to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, my dear friend, Mrs. Capps.

And I make a similar reservation.

I have no objection.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 1 minute to my very dear friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I note that Mr. McCrery has time remaining.

He is a very valuable Member of this body, and I'm sure he would make very good use of the time that's available to him, and I would suggest that the business of the House could be expedited by having Mr. McCrery proceed to yield time to members of the Ways and Means Committee on the minority side.

Mr. Speaker, I would then yield, with the understanding that the Democrats want to give the choice of the doctor, while our good Republican friends want to give a choice of HMOs.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).