Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably absent during rollcall votes 537, 538 and 539. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 537 to provide for the House to adjourn for the August District Work Period; ``yea'' on rollcall 538 on the Veterans Disability Benefits Claims Modernization Act; and ``yea'' on rollcall 539 calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China to immediately end abuses of the human rights of its citizens.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1108, the Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. I urge the House to vote in favor of this legislation, which takes critical steps to protect the public, especially minors, from the dangers of tobacco use.

According to the American Heart Association, cigarette use is the number one preventable cause of poor health and premature death worldwide. It is estimated that smoking causes one in five deaths in the United States, or approximately 400,000 premature deaths per year.

Despite laws in every state prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors, the U.S. Surgeon General estimates that young people ages 12 to 17 continue to purchase and smoke millions of packs of cigarettes each year. H.R. 1108 contains a number of strong provisions to protect young people from tobacco advertising and access to tobacco products. The bill requires the Food and Drug Administration to ban outdoor tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds, restrict tobacco vending machines to adult-only facilities, require retailers to verify age for all over-the-counter tobacco sales, and mandate Federal enforcement and penalties for those who sell tobacco products to minors.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act also includes provisions to ensure that tobacco advertising is not misleading to consumers. In the past, tobacco companies have been allowed to use such terms as ``light,'' ``mild,'' and ``low'' without proving that products labeled with these words were less dangerous to health than generic equivalents. This bill requires tobacco manufacturers to prove that products actually impart reduced risk or reduced exposure to users before employing terms that imply these safeguards.

In addition, H.R. 1108 contains vital provisions that aim to reduce the harmful health effects of tobacco products for adults who do decide to use them. The bill allows the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the contents of cigarettes and other tobacco products. This authority is of paramount importance. Over 4,000 chemicals, including 60 carcinogens, have been identified in tobacco smoke. It is unlikely that tobacco will ever be an inherently safe product. But allowing the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the chemical additives to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco will help to reduce the health dangers of these products to the extent possible.

Passage of H.R. 1108 is an essential step forward in promoting the health of all Americans. Let's pass this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde U.S. Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act.

Five years ago, Congress passed the first U.S. Leadership Act aimed at combating HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria worldwide. Since that time, U.S. assistance has enabled 33 million HIV counseling and testing sessions, provided antiretroviral treatment to 1.45 million people, and prevented 157,000 infants from contracting HIV through mother-to-child infection. In addition to combating HIV/AIDS, the U.S. Leadership Act has contributed to the treatment of millions of people with TB, and to the distribution of millions of bed nets to prevent the spread of malaria.

But there is so much more work to be done. There are currently about 39 million people worldwide living with HIV/AIDS, more than the population of California. Each year, 2 million people die from tuberculosis. Every 30 seconds, a child dies from malaria, a fully preventable disease.

From both a moral and self-interested perspective, we simply cannot afford to let the epidemics of HIV, TB, and malaria grow. Our long-term prosperity and security are inextricably linked to our commitment to help build stronger economies and reduce poverty around the world. Promoting public health is a critical component of this effort. Disease cripples not only individuals, but economies as well, preventing parents from supporting their families, and leaving children orphaned with no financial security, limited opportunities for education, and narrow prospects for future contributions.

We must also recognize that in a global society, we ourselves are not immune to these diseases. Malaria was rampant in parts of the United States as little as 60 years ago. The World Health Organization estimates that worldwide, more than one third of the world's population is infected with the tuberculosis bacteria. Poorly supervised or incomplete treatment of tuberculosis can be more harmful than no treatment at all, allowing the bacteria to develop resistance to drugs and increasing the hazards of contracting the bacteria for the whole planet. In an ever more integrated world, we cannot wall ourselves off from the reach of these diseases.

This bill reflects our commitment to contribute to the treatment, prevention, and ultimate elimination of these diseases worldwide. It ensures a balanced approach to the prevention of HIV/AIDS that includes abstinence, faithfulness, and condom promotion as the three-tiered strategy to prevent HIV infection. The bill also includes key provisions that recognize the inherent link between disease treatment and support of basic needs, such as food, shelter, and economic opportunity.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1362 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6107) to direct the

Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a

competitive oil and gas leasing program that will result in

an environmentally sound program for the exploration,

development, and production of the oil and gas resources of

the Coastal Plain of Alaska, and for other purposes. All

points of order against the bill are waived. The bill shall

be considered as read. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto

to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one

hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Natural

Resources, and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute

if offered by Representative Rahall of West Virginia or his

designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be

separately debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and

controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one

motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, all of us are aware of the soaring cost of gasoline and the impact it is having on the people we represent. Our constituents want to know what we're doing to provide relief at the pump.

Over the initial opposition of the White House, the Congress has already passed legislation to suspend further oil purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve this year, freeing up 70,000 gallons of oil a day for use by consumers. Further action is needed to help the economy and help consumers.

The bill before the House today takes the next step. It requires the Energy Department to release 70 million barrels of light, sweet crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in exchange for the same amount of heavier grade crude oil. Light, sweet crude oil contains less sulfur and is the easiest oil to refine into gasoline. Under this legislation, the Secretary of Energy would be directed to deploy 70 million barrels of light crude oil over the next six months. Passage of this bill would also be a shot across the bow of the speculators who have been driving up the cost of oil. More than any other action the Federal Government could take, this proposal has the greatest potential to reduce gasoline prices in the near term.

I know that some of my colleagues will object to the use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for this purpose. They will protest that the Reserve is for use in emergencies. Like a broken record, they will repeat their call to open up the entire Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. I do not agree. Rising oil and gasoline prices are causing serious damage to our Nation's economy. We have before us the means to mitigate some of that damage and do so immediately.

Vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf are already open to drilling. Less than 2 years ago, and with my support, Congress voted to open up an additional 8.3 million acres for offshore exploration and drilling. All told, the oil companies are using only 10.5 million of the 44 million offshore acres that have already been leased to them. In any case, according to the Bush Administration's own Energy Information Administration, even if we repealed the offshore ban today, oil and gas production would not begin there until 2017 at the earliest; further, lifting the remaining offshore drilling restrictions and I quote from the EIA analysis ``would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.''

We cannot wait until 2030. The need for relief at the pump is immediate. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the legislation before the House.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 93) approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The bill before us will renew the import ban on products of Burma. While there can be concerns about the universal effectiveness of unilateral sanctions, Burma clearly presents a unique situation. There is overwhelming evidence that Burma continues to blatantly disregard human rights and suppress democracy, and it is therefore important to continue the import ban for another year.

Under the military regime that rules Burma today, Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house arrest, which the military regime extended yet again in May. She has been detained for 12 of the last 18 years without being charged or tried. The government is also detaining almost 2,000 other civic activists indefinitely and without charge. The detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and these other activists would be reason enough to renew the sanctions. Unfortunately, there are many more examples of human rights abuses in Burma.

Government security forces killed and injured hundreds of demonstrators during their suppression of pro-democracy protests in September. These forces have also committed other extrajudicial killings, as well as disappearances, rape, and torture in the past year.

Regime-supported organizations and militias have harassed, abused and detained human rights and pro-democracy activists. The government regularly tramples on the Burmese people's privacy and their freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, religion and movement.

Violence and discrimination against women and ethnic minorities; recruitment of child soldiers; and trafficking in persons, especially women and girls, persist. Workers' rights remain restricted and forced labor, including that of children, continues to be a problem.

The military regime's handling of tropical cyclone Nargis this past spring also underscores the poor human rights situation in Burma. The regime did little to warn citizens about the calamitous cyclone. Almost 150,000 people are dead or missing. Nor did the regime provide adequate assistance to hundreds of thousands who survived the cyclone.

While dozens of nations, including our Nation, responded immediately to the cyclone and attempted to provide humanitarian assistance, the government initially denied them permission to enter the country. It continues to severely limit their ability to provide assistance.

As a result, the Burmese people unnecessarily suffer. In light of Burma's continuing dismal record and the lack of any concrete steps to provide basic human rights to its citizens or to implement basic democratic reforms, I urge my colleagues to extend the ban on the import of Burmese products for another year.

I also hope the European Union, ASEAN and other nations around the world will continue to work with the U.S. to increase pressure on the Burmese regime. This week's ASEAN meetings in Singapore offer the opportunity to do so.

I would also like to submit the following letters for the Record:

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, July 9, 2008.

Hon. Howard Berman,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding H. J. Res. 93,

which renews the import restrictions contained in the Burmese

Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 (P. L. No. 108-61). This

legislation was introduced on June 5, 2008.

As you know, the Committee on Ways & Means has jurisdiction

over import matters, such as the import ban imposed by the

Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. Accordingly, certain

provisions of H. J. Res. 93 fall under the Committee's

jurisdiction.

The import ban imposed by this Act must be renewed annually

by Congress to remain in effect. Last year, the Committee

allowed the renewal legislation to proceed to the floor

without a Committee markup. To again expedite this

legislation for floor consideration, the Committee will forgo

action on this bill and will not oppose its consideration on

the suspension calendar. This is done with the understanding

that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee or its

jurisdictional prerogatives on this, or similar legislation,

in the future.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

our understanding with respect to H.J. Res. 93, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record.

Sincerely,

Charles B. Rangel,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield as much time as he shall consume to the lead sponsor of this resolution, the distinguished colleague from New York, a member of our committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time with the hope that we will pass this. And I think Mr. Crowley noted the efforts of our late colleague and close friend, Tom Lantos. He paved the way on this, and I think we need to follow in that path.

I enthusiastically support this bill. The housing crisis has hit home, hundreds of thousands of homes throughout the country. There is a provision that's going to allow local governments to act.

I met a couple of months ago with mayors and city managers in the district I represent in MaComb and Oakland counties. They talk about the impact of foreclosures on the family in the house, on the neighbors, and on the city. And now we're going to provide some assistance for local governments to respond.

I trust them to act wisely. I trust them to act wisely.

There's another provision in this bill that is important for industrial America. In the stimulus bill, we provided some money for incentives for growth in industry but not for companies that are currently not profitable. We correct that problem in this bill so that those companies that are not currently profitable but are trying to grow, as is so critical in the manufacturing sector, have some help.

This bill is a tribute to Mr. Frank and the committee, to Mr. Rangel and our committee that has worked, the minority included on many provisions, and I think is a tribute to the leadership of this Congress that is determined to act when the crisis opens up.

I hope there will be a bipartisan vote for this. American families deserve it.

Madam Chairman. I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Michigan, Mrs. Miller.

Carbon fiber, which is a very lightweight material, is sturdier, less susceptible to corrosion, and more durable than steel. The Michigan DOT has constructed a bridge featuring carbon fiber technology in 2001, and is planning to build 3 more bridges in the next two years. The use of carbon fibers and a new ultra high strength concrete could result in a 100-year sustainable bridge.

The institution pioneering this technology is Lawrence Technological University, which is located in my district, but is very much a regional asset in southeast Michigan.

This amendment requires the Secretary of Transportation to study the costs and benefits of using carbon fiber composite materials in bridge projects and report back to Congress within 180 days of the bill's enactment. This will allow us to review those findings in time for next year's reauthorization of federal transportation programs.

Madam Chairman, using advanced technologies like carbon fiber in bridge construction is a classic investment decision: if we pay a bit more today, we can save money ``down the road'' on maintenance and repairs.

A cost-benefit analysis of this investment from the Department of Transportation will help us determine how good an investment this will be, and I urge all my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make the following changes in the engrossment of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the text of H.R. 3890 that I have placed at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I urge the House to join me in voting to override the President's veto of the ``Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008.''

A vote to override the President's veto of this bill is a vote in support of our seniors and their doctors. It is a vote in support of people who have worked hard, who have contributed, who have earned the best health care available to them at this stage of their lives. It is a vote that sends a clear message that politics should not get in the way of their access to the care they deserve.

H.R. 6331 prevents a pending 10 percent reduction in the payments physicians receive for treating Medicare patients. The bill also allows for the expansion of preventive care services under Medicare, reforms the pharmacy payment process for the benefit of our small community pharmacies, and delays and repairs a flawed competitive bidding process for durable medical equipment.

We must continue a vigorous effort to ensure that Medicare remains strong for all of the Nation's citizens. This bill honors that commitment without delaying difficult decisions about Medicare's funding future; it is fully paid for.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the veto override.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, I was unavoidably absent during rollcall votes 471, 472 and 473. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 471 to authorize the Preserve America Program and Save America's Treasures Program; ``yea'' on rollcall 472 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease a portion of a visitor center to be constructed outside the boundary of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore; and ``yea'' on rollcall 473 to amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the AMT Relief Act. Once again, we are considering a one-year ``patch'' for the AMT. This bill will protect over 25 million families who would otherwise be forced to pay higher taxes under the AMT through no fault of their own.

We all know that the AMT was never meant to apply to middle-class families, and I think we all agree that we need to find a permanent fix to this problem.

But once again, the minority wants to insist that we provide this tax relief in a fiscally irresponsible manner. Patching the AMT for 2008 without offsets would increase the deficit by $61 billion. Our colleagues in the minority will argue that because Congress never meant for this to happen, or that because it maintains the status quo for taxpayers, we don't have to pay for it.

The reality is that we pay for it one way or another. The minority would have us borrow the money and make our children pay for it.

Let me say a word about the offsets we've used here, because this bill is paid for with provisions that end basic inequities in our tax code.

The Joint Committee on Taxation's revenue estimate for the carried interest provision indicates that over $150 billion in income will be taxed at capital gains rates rather than ordinary income rates if we do not make this change. This is a lot of income, and according to the Joint Committee, this is not going to ``mom and pop'' operations, a common reference by those arguing against this provision.

For anyone who thinks there are ``mom and pop'' private equity funds, or that this is essentially about ``mom and pop'' real estate developers, let me quote the Joint Committee on Taxation. In a memo to the Ways and Means Committee staff, the Joint Committee writes: ``We assumed that nearly all recipients [of carried interest] would be at the highest marginal tax rate.'' The top tax bracket for married couples starts at $357,000 in taxable income. Claims made that the carried interest issue is about ``mom and pop'' business owners just are not credible.

More generally though, treating carried interest as ordinary income is not about raising taxes, it's about fairness. Investment fund managers should not pay a lower tax rate on their compensation for services than other Americans. The only thing this does is say to the fund managers, if you're providing a service, in this case managing assets for your investors, you ought to be taxed on that compensation at the same rates as everyone else.

If they have their own money in the funds they manage, they will still get capital gains treatment on that portion of the profits. This is no different in concept than options for corporate executives. They are both incentive compensation to encourage performance, and carried interest should be taxed at ordinary rates like stock options.

The argument that this proposal will hurt economic growth or even pension plans is just disingenuous. If it will hurt growth, why have senior economic advisers to the last three Republican Presidents publicly supported this proposal? Real estate partnerships, including those that don't use carried interest at all, earn less than 10 percent of all income from real estate development and construction.

Regarding the oil and gas provisions, I think it's important to look at the history of how these companies got these subsidies in the first place. In 2004 we had to replace the FSC provisions of our tax code because of a WTO ruling. We replaced them with a deduction to encourage domestic manufacturing.

The minority, then in the majority, added the oil and gas industries to what was supposd to be a deduction for manufacturers, even though the FSC provisions we were replacing had nothing to do with oil and gas. This was an unjustified giveaway then, and it is only fair that we correct the situation, especially now that oil companies are earning record profits. ExxonMobil alone earned $40.6 billion in 2007, a U.S. corporate record.

So, Mr. Speaker, this bill protects middle-class families from the AMT, it's fiscally responsible and it makes our tax code fairer. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. I appreciate the hard work that Mr. Hoyer and others have done on this legislation. The bill before the House is a vast improvement over the administration's Protect America Act, which I strongly opposed last August. The legislation is also a significant improvement over the seriously flawed FISA legislation approved by the Senate earlier this year. In many respects, the bill before the House strikes a reasonable balance between giving the Government the tools it needs to protect U.S. national security and protecting Americans' constitutional rights.

In particular, I am pleased that the bill reaffirms that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the exclusive legal means by which the Government may conduct surveillance. This stands in stark contrast to the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. I also support the provisions of this bill that protect Americans traveling abroad. They need no longer leave their constitutional protections at home.

At the end of the day, I oppose this bill because of the provisions that would confer retroactive immunity on the telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. We are a nation of laws, and it sets a dangerous precedent for Congress to approve a law that dismisses ongoing court cases simply on the basis that the companies can show that the administration told them that its warrantless surveillance program was legal. A program is not legal just because the administration claims that it is. The retroactive immunity provisions in this bill shield the administration from accountability for its actions. The goal here is not to harm the telecommunications carriers, but rather to get to the truth of what happened. A much better alternative would be to grant indemnification to the companies and go forward with the trials.

Irrespective of the outcome of today's vote, we need a full accounting of the administration's surveillance program, and the bill before the House provides for an Inspectors General audit describing all Federal programs involving warrantless surveillance conducted since September 11, 2001. The audit is to be completed within 1 year. Congress must get to the bottom of what happened and prevent it from happening again. It is essential that Congress follow up on the audit's findings with robust oversight.

Thank you for yielding.

Thank you to the Rules Committee, and to you, Mr. Obey, who has been more than a stalwart central figure in this whole effort. And as I'm going to say, there are hundreds of thousands of people who will say to you, thank you, because today the voices of over one million people who have not been heard enough on this floor are finally being listened to with a much-needed extension of unemployment benefits.

Some have written us the most persuasive letters about being unemployed, often for the first time, sending out hundreds of resumes, losing their health care, and having difficulty making ends meet. They have not marched on Washington. They have individually been in their communities looking for work. But if they did form a line, these million plus and those who've exhausted their benefits, by estimation, it would extend from this Capitol to Denver, Colorado.

I asked the State of Michigan to provide me information on individuals who have exhausted their benefits just yesterday, and we have the figures now. They come from the broadest range of occupations--sales, health care, production, management, financial operations. I would suggest that each Member do the same, because once you look at the data, you will have no doubt that we are doing the right thing today.

Today is a victory for more than one million of our citizens and an additional 2.5 million estimated to exhaust their benefits. This is a vital first step, and we will be ready to fight to sustain this program for people who continue to be unemployed through no fault of their own in a truly difficult job market.

Let me say to the gentleman from California who talked about our trying to embarrass the Republicans, we're not trying to embarrass you. You're embarrassing yourselves.

You come here when we're talking about 8 million unemployed, 1\1/2\ million who have exhausted their benefits, and soon it will be an additional 3 million, and you come here and talk about energy policy? You won't provide unemployment comp benefits so people can buy the gas to look for a job?

You talk about trade policy. Look, the jobless numbers came out this morning. Jobless claims jumped to the highest level since last March. Those claims rose to 384,000, an increase of 25,000 from the previous week, a much bigger gain than analysts had been expecting.

And you quote the administration policy. Mr. Hastings, under the administration policy, unemployed in Yakima would not be eligible for extended benefits because Washington, as a State, has less than 6 percent. How can you come here?

Go home, if I might be personal for just a minute. Go home and explain your position to people in Yakima, and those from Ohio, those from Pennsylvania, those from other States.

I conclude. Look, I'm from Michigan. I would benefit under the administration's narrow approach. I won't vote for it.

If you're jobless, you deserve the extended benefits, the million plus and the 3 million plus.

If I have the time.

Will you grant me a little time?

I yield to my distinguished colleague from Washington.

I understand that.

Taking back my time. The 2-week window, you talk about, 26 additional weeks, 52 weeks. You can't give a single example.

And you raise a straw man and woman when we're talking about real men and women who have been laid off, who've been looking for a job, who can't find it. And you come here with these straw arguments.

You go home to Yakima. Others of you go back to Pennsylvania and other States, and talk to the hundreds of thousands of people looking for work and say to them, I voted ``no.''

That's unconscionable.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

To the Chair, to the gentleman from Illinois, in Michigan, you have to work two quarters to be eligible. The 1-week example is a straw man and woman example. Let's be faithful to the reality here.

I think the more we discuss this, the clearer the issue becomes, including the last statement that we heard. There's no disagreement about the need for growth policies. But to say that, and use it as an excuse not to provide extended unemployment benefits is really indefensible.

You can't say to people who have been out of work for 26 weeks, who are there through no fault of their own, and who must be looking for work, that because of the absence of growth policies they should, essentially, be out in the cold. That's close to a cold-blooded approach to this issue.

And, if you mention States like Iowa, look, in some States, if there's a surplus, people who are out of work, in most cases, if they're looking for work, and they must, will find other work.

But it makes no sense to take the position of the administration, and that's what the gentleman from California, essentially, was reflecting, where they say that historically, the unemployment rate has had to be at a certain level in order for Unemployment Compensation to be extended.

And there was, they say, an exception after September 11, 2001. It's really hard to fathom who people would use 2001, September 11, as an excuse not to extend benefits.

The unemployment rate when President Bush signed the extension was 5.7. It's now 5.5. And essentially, what you're saying is we're going to deny benefits to well over a million, with 3 million more likely to come, because of a difference of \2/10\ of 1 percent.

And then you say you want it to be targeted. But, as we pointed out, the data vary from month to month. One month it's 100 metropolitan areas with unemployment rates over 6 percent. More recently, it's been 65 or 66. It will probably go up. How do you, in good conscience, stand before people in those areas and say no?

I mentioned to the gentleman from Illinois----

I ask for 2 additional minutes.

I asked the gentleman from Illinois how he would respond to people in certain areas. I don't know how you do that.

I asked the gentleman, and I didn't mean to get personal really, but just to raise the issue poignantly. If you're from the State of Washington, as he is, and there's higher unemployment than 6 percent in Yakima, how do you say to the people there, you don't get the extension, while people in other States receive it. It is simply not-- --

Yes.

Let me just take back my time. Look, the position, that hasn't been the position of the administration. It's used the 6 percent level. That's what they're talking about here. And you have to go home and explain to the areas, I mentioned three in Illinois, because the State isn't above a certain level, but areas are, you don't get it, while people who are in a State like Michigan with over 6 percent, everybody does.

But the trouble is, everybody counts in this country. Everybody who's out of work 26 weeks, through no fault of their own, and looking for work, they have to be looking for work.

I read these letters from people in Michigan, and I just say this: Just read letters from people in your State. No longer can you go to unemployment offices in most States, because they're not there, so people aren't in line. But they're in line in this country.

As I said, if you're counted----

I guess 1 more minute if I might.

If you counted the people who are now exhausting their benefits, or have, and those who are likely, it would reach, the line, from here, this Capitol to Denver.

So don't talk about energy policy. We have to face up to that. Don't talk about trade policy. We have to face up to that. Talk about the lives in the homes of over a million people.

I just hope that, you withheld, or there were withheld the three votes necessary to get to two-thirds yesterday.

I know the maneuvers on this floor.

But essentially, they're obeying the position, if not the orders, from the White House instead of the orders from the people at home.

I urge strong support of this. I urge that we pass it with even more votes than was passed last time and send it to the Senate so we can get this job done.