Floor Statements

It's estimated that 4 million workers, 4 million, would be eligible under this unemployment extension, over 1 million who have already exhausted and 3 million in the future.

You know, in previous downturns when there were unemployment offices giving out checks, we could go there and we could talk to the people. That's no longer true in most States, but we should not let the absence of real faces blur our vision in Washington.

If you had the 4 million people line up, it would extend from Washington, D.C., to Denver, Colorado, and we should not differentiate as to what State they live in. If they've exhausted their benefits, they should be eligible.

Mr. Weller says targeted, that's over 6 percent. It leaves out a majority of those who have exhausted their benefits. It's not targeted. It's ruthless. It's ruthless. It doesn't take into account the lives of people.

We saw the biggest increase in 20 years last night, from 5 to 5.5 percent. When President Bush signed the extension in 2002, it was 5.7. So you're going to stand up here now and quibble because of a difference of two-tenths of 1 percent, you don't want to extend benefits.

The 20-week thing is a Trojan horse. It's another excuse not to step up to the plate.

This is not a political issue. This is a people's issue. The exhaustion rate is the highest it's been at the beginning of the past five recessions. I urge on a bipartisan basis the passage of this bill.

I want to read, Mr. Weller, the metropolitan areas with unemployment above 6 percent that would be left out under your so- called targeting, Danville, Illinois, these are among many, and Kankakee and Rockford. I just picked those three out. And it is unconscionable for you to say----

I will yield on your time.

No, no. The 6 percent is the trigger for the additional 13 weeks, not for the basic 15 weeks. You misstate----

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has vital energy provisions. Vital. It has important tax provisions, including the R&D tax credit.

So here we hear the Republicans opposing it. They did not know how to govern effectively when they were in the majority, and they're showing today they don't know how to oppose effectively when they're in the minority.

They criticize PAYGO. Their creed is ``pay-no.'' They don't want to pay for anything. They oppose a tax provision to close a loophole, an egregious one, and they call that a tax increase. They say this is their principle: Don't pay for extending current tax law, even though the reason it meets its end is because they didn't want to extend it a few years ago and increase the deficit. What illogic.

They say do further with the extenders, but they don't want to pay for it. They say do more right now on the AMT but don't pay for it.

We're going to keep working on the AMT. We're going to keep trying to pay for it. The reason this may not succeed in the Senate is because of the minority Republicans and in the White House.

I think the public is tired of this blockade. We will keep moving ahead and I hope with success. It's time to act. I hope there will be some minority support for this bill.

Amendment 3 concerns unemployment compensation. It's estimated that in the first 6 months of this year, 1.3 million Americans will exhaust their benefits. The number of long-term unemployed Americans is almost twice as high now as it was in the last recession.

This is targeted at the long-term unemployed wherever they live. The Republican approach, Mr. Weller's approach, the President's opposition, it's not targeted. It misses tens of thousands of people who are unemployed for more than the 26 weeks. I come from Michigan with a high unemployment level. I want all the unemployed long-term to be covered wherever they live.

I think it's time that the minority and the President get out of the offices they reside in and get into the shoes of typical American families.

I read a letter that came from a person in Roseville whose husband had lost his job as a machinist:

``With the job market as bleak as it is today, the fear that unemployment benefits may run out is something no family should have to face. My husband has been actively seeking work since his layoff, but there's simply nothing to be had right now. I've never seen him look so sad and upset in all our nearly 30 years of marriage. The President and Congress must be made to understand that what is happening to the workers of this country, and most especially, to the people of Michigan is not something they've chosen for themselves.''

Opposition to extension of unemployment compensation is unconscionable. I urge support for amendment 3.

I rise in strong support.

There has been some bipartisanship that has motored this legislation, and I hope it won't break down today.

The crisis in housing needs the attention and the support of everybody. It needs much more than tea and sympathy, it needs legislation. Recently I met with mayors and managers from the 12th District, in Macomb County and southeast Oakland. And they all talked about the plight of the homeowner, the plight of the communities when houses are shut down. We have to act. And I pay tribute, all of us should, to the Committee on Financial Services.

And let me say just a word about the tax provisions. They would provide credit to first-time homebuyers. Essential. It would improve access to low-income housing. Essential. It would allow families to deduct property taxes through the standard deduction. It's a good experiment. It should have been done earlier. And it also would allow Federal home loan banks to help relieve pressure on credit markets.

I read the Statement of Administrative Policy that said it was risky and it was an expansion of the purpose of the banks, and I think it's incorrect in both respects. So I just want to close with the sense of urgency that I think all of us feel. Mr. Bernanke said that if markets were simply allowed to follow their own course, it could ``destabilize communities, reduce the property values of nearby homes and lower municipal tax revenues.''

What more do we need to impel us to act than the flight of families, the plight of communities, and the plight of municipalities? Let's vote on a bipartisan bill. Let's vote for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the City of Southfield, Michigan, on the 50th anniversary of its incorporation as a city.

Southfield's city leaders have coined the phrase ``center of it all'' to describe this diverse community situated in the center of metro- Detroit that has grown to the 13th largest city in the State of Michigan.

The residents of Southfield are what has always made this community strong and independent. For example, 17 days after the area was designated as ``Ossewa Township'' on July 12, 1830, citizens petitioned the State to change the name to Southfield. And in the 1950s, a group of Southfield Township residents formed the ``Save Our Southfield'' committee and lent their own money to the group's treasury. This group promoted the incorporation of Southfield and financed the filing for incorporation. Southfield became a city on April 28, 1958.

Southfield has grown from a rural farming community to a premier business and residential address in Michigan. This modern city of beautiful homes and golden skyscrapers has become home to nearly 80,000 residents. Their 26 million square feet of office space brings the city's daytime population to more than 175,000, making Southfield one of the leading business centers in Michigan and the Midwest Region.

Southfield is home to leading manufacturers and other diverse businesses, strong educational institutions, innovative health care institutions, strong community organizations, and a vibrant faith community. It also retrains a feeling of warmth and closeness within its neighborhoods.

I am pleased to have lived in Southfield during a time of transformation of city leadership and institutions which are an increasing representative of the diversity of this wonderful community. I have also been pleased to represent the residents of Southfield since I came to Congress.

As Mayor Brenda Lawrence and other elected officials join the citizens of this exceptional city to celebrate their golden jubilee, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating its residents on its 50th year. Let this be the opportunity to pay tribute to the history of Southfield and re-commit ourselves to a prosperous and progressive future.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Coast Guard Authorization Act. In particular, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation's ballast water treatment requirements.

The Great Lakes are one of this nation's crown jewels. They are the most unique set of freshwater lakes in the world. They provide drinking water for millions. They provide habitat for our fisheries and they offer tremendous recreational and tourism opportunities.

The Great Lakes are threatened by damaging aquatic invasive species that arrive in the Lakes at a rate of one every eight months. The communities I represent have first-hand experience of the devastation these aquatic invaders can cause. In the mid-1980s, the zebra mussel was brought to the Great Lakes by hitching a ride on an ocean vessel from Europe. They were first identified in Lake St. Clair in 1988, and since then the zebra mussels have spread throughout the Great Lakes and have made their way into the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The economic and ecological costs of dealing with aquatic invasive species are staggering.

Invasive aquatic species pose a clear and present danger to virtually every U.S. waterway and coastal area. Many more invasive species will arrive in rapid succession and spread within U.S. waters unless effective measures are taken to prevent them.

The bill before the House contains strong provisions to reduce and hopefully eliminate the spread of aquatic invasive species through ballast water. The bill establishes a national goal to eliminate invasive species from ballast water that is discharged into U.S. waters by the year 2015. As an interim step, the legislation requires all ships entering U.S. waters to conduct ballast water exchange at least 200 miles off the nation's coastline. Between now and the end of 2013, the legislation requires vessels to be fitted with effective ballast water treatment equipment.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this comprehensive response to one of the most serious problems confronting the Great Lakes and waterways across the nation.

Trade policy under the Bush administration has been badly off track. The approach of the administration and the then-Republican majority in Congress was to go their own way and dismiss bipartisan effort, starting with a side letter to the Jordan FTA thwarting enforcement of worker rights provisions negotiated by the Clinton administration.

In the cases of Morocco, Bahrain, and Oman FTAs, it was left to Democrats to negotiate with governments of those countries to bring their laws into compliance with international labor standards before a Congressional vote, with no help from the administration.

And we all remember CAFTA, where the administration's approach was go it alone from the beginning through the end, with false claims that the other nations were already in compliance with international standards.

And last year, with the loss of a congressional majority, the Bush administration was forced to include fully enforceable labor and environmental standards in the Peru FTA. And when Democrats pressed for Peru to bring into compliance with the language of the agreement, the administration attacked Democrats and refused to even participate in the changes that Peru made in its legal structure.

At that time Democrats made clear that Colombia was different from Peru with the level of violence against workers, impunity from prosecution, and laws that did not meet international standards, and that sustainable progress was required before consideration. The administration kept on insisting that the status quo was good enough and has done nothing to address these concerns.

Urged by both the House and Senate Democratic leadership not to proceed with the Colombia FTA under present circumstances, the administration decided once again to go its own way. This rule reflects the Speaker's response to assert a congressional role on international trade under the Constitution of the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution.

China has a law that includes protections for the distinctive culture, language, and identity of ethnic minority citizens. Its Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law guarantees ethnic minorities the ``right to administer their internal affairs.'' More specifically, the term ``regional ethnic autonomy'' reflects ``the state's full respect for . . . ethnic minorities' rights to administer their internal affairs.'' Madam Speaker, China in recent weeks has reflected anything but ``the state's full respect'' of ethnic minority rights nor of basic human rights recognized in both Chinese and international law.

Protest activity has included instances of rioting resulting in destruction of property and death of Tibetans and non-Tibetans alike. This is unacceptable in any context. But most protest activity, while at times disorderly, has been nonviolent. The Chinese Government's reaction, however, has revealed a level of hostility towards Tibetans not seen in decades and has heightened fears for the Tibetan people.

The Chinese Government would do well to consider a number of concrete steps to address the current crisis, and I would ask, Madam Speaker, that a list of such steps prepared by the staff of the Congressional- Executive Commission on China be submitted for the Record.

Addendum to Floor Statement of Representative Sander Levin, Chairman,

Congressional-Executive Commission on China

Addressing Tibetan Protests

1. Distinguish between peaceful protestors and rioters,

honor the Chinese Constitution's reference to the freedoms of

speech and association, and do not treat peaceful protest as

a crime;

2. Provide a detailed account of Tibetan protest activity

in each location where such activity took place;

3. Provide details about each person detained or charged

with a crime, including each person's name, the charges (if

any) against each person, the name and location of the

prosecuting office (``procuratorate'') and court handling

each case, and the name of each facility where a person is

detained or imprisoned;

4. Allow access by diplomats and other international

observers to the trials of people charged with protest-

related crimes;

5. Allow international observers and journalists immediate

and unfettered access to Tibetan areas of China;

6. Ensure that security officials fulfill their obligations

under Articles 64(2) and 71(2) of China's Criminal Procedure

Law to inform relatives and work places (monasteries in the

case of monks) where detainees are being held;

7. Encourage and facilitate the filing of compensation

suits under Chinese law in cases of alleged wrongful arrest,

detention, punishment and other official abuses during the

recent protests;

8. Permit international observers to monitor closely the

implementation of China's new Regulation on Open Government

Information, which comes into force on May 1, 2008, with

special emphasis on implementation in Tibetan areas.

9. Strictly enforce the Regulations on Reporting Activities

in China by Foreign Journalists During the Beijing Olympic

Games and the Preparatory Period, with special emphasis on

access to and in Tibetan areas of China.

10. Commence direct talks between the Chinese government

and the Dalai Lama.

The commission monitors and reports on human rights and rule of law developments in China on an ongoing basis, and I encourage all to visit the commission's Web site, www.cecc.gov, to subscribe to the online newsletter and to use the commission's work to remain up to date on developments in China.

The resolution of Tibetan grievances can only occur with direct talks between the Chinese Government and the

Dalai Lama. The international spotlight will remain long after the ceremonies of the Olympic Summer Games. As China plays an increasingly important role in the international community, other countries will appropriately assess China's fulfillment of the commitments it has made in both Chinese and international law, including legal and constitutional commitments to ethnic minorities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007.

Eleven years ago, the Congress came together to approve legislation that put the country on the road to mental health parity. But along that road, too many potholes remain unfilled. A letter I received last week from a Michigan psychologist reads, ``Every day I see families with `good health coverage' discover that their loved ones cannot get the mental health care they need because their employer-sponsored health insurance sets arbitrary, one-size-fits-all limits on mental health treatment that it does not impose on other medical or surgical benefits.''

When the National Institute for Mental Health reports that 1 in 4 adults have a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year, and 1 in every 17 Americans suffers from a more serious mental condition, we know that it is time to take action. Whether it's a friend with signs of clinical depression, a son or daughter with a drug addiction or a parent with schizophrenia, too many people are not receiving the treatment that they need. In fact, a study conducted by the NIMH found that only 18 percent of Americans requiring mental health services received minimally adequate care.

We are all too familiar with the burden that inadequate access to mental health care can cause. People experiencing severe mental illnesses routinely exceed the number of allowable visits to a health care provider, leading to financial hardship or insufficient levels of care. Under the current system, a person seeking mental health services may have to wait months to get an appointment with a practitioner in his or her insurance plan's network, or have to pay a fortune out-of- pocket for mental health care.

The legislation before us ensures that Americans will have access to the mental health care they need by removing these barriers. Specifically, the bill requires health insurance companies that offer mental health benefits to offer them in a way that beneficiaries pay no more out of pocket than they would pay for physical and surgical health benefits. The bill also requires insurance companies that cover mental health benefits to cover the entire spectrum of them so that treatment for conditions like substance abuse and eating disorders will be covered.

All of us should join in supporting this important legislation to continue moving America along the road to parity, and the eventual elimination of discrimination, financial hardship and insufficient levels of care in our health care system.

Mr. Speaker, as you listen to the minority, it shows the bankruptcy of their approach to energy. They have been in control of this town for all these years, and we have moved backwards. So, instead of coming up now with an alternative of their own, what they do is raise arguments that are so irresponsible. For example, about raising gas prices. The Joint Economic Committee has refuted that.

There isn't a single argument that Mr. English raised that can bear any weight of observation. It is absolutely mysterious why, in a time of global warming, what they do on the minority side is come here with a cold shoulder.

This is a responsible bill, a balanced bill. It addresses long-term needs on energy, long-term incentives for renewable energy, solar, wind, biomass, and also tries to give impetus to the use of biofuels like E85, and actually tries to make some progress with the deployment of pumps. Also, in terms of what we use every day, refrigerators, washing machines, there is an incentive here to increase the efficiency and also to do so with American jobs.

So I stand here today wondering, where have you been all of these years

when you controlled this institution and the White House? And that is, I think you have not only been out to lunch, but you have been out to dinner, and you come here today with nothing but attacks that are unwarranted.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we move this bill once again, and hope the Senate will find the 60 votes and that the President will come to his senses on energy in this country.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5264) to extend certain trade preference programs, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

I rise today in support of extending the Andean Trade Preference Act, which provides duty-free treatment to certain exports from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.

The ATPA program is a program that has been working. It has benefited the region by providing much-needed economic development to these four countries. There is also some evidence that it has helped create some alternatives to the illegal drug trade.

Importantly, and I emphasize this, this has all been accomplished in a way that is more complementary than it is competitive; so there have been economic benefits for the four nations and for our Nation. In fact, if you exclude oil and oil products, the U.S. has a trade surplus with the region. We export about $13 billion to these four countries, and they export about $11 billion to us.

Beyond the numbers, the composition of the trade is also complementary. With agriculture, it's the seasonal nature of the trade. Crops from these countries tend to be imported when the U.S. crops they compete with are not in season.

It's also complementary in textiles and apparel trade. Under ATPA the U.S. textile industry ships U.S. yarns and fabrics to the region, and they export to us apparel made with those U.S. inputs. In fact, U.S. exports of yarn and fabric to the region were $111 million in 2007, up from $58 million in 2002. The only apparel that comes in duty free that is not made with U.S. yarn and fabrics is made with materials that we don't have in our country like pima cotton and alpaca.

It's the complementary nature of this trade that has generated widespread support for the extension of this program, including support from the business community and the labor community.

Concerns have been raised about whether Ecuador and Bolivia are living up to their ATPA obligations and treating U.S. investors fairly. And the answer is, and I want this to be clear, that the administration has the authority to revoke ATPA status to any country failing to meet any of the ATPA criteria, and there is a broad range of them, including those related to the treatment of investors.

If this program is not extended, it would be mutually disadvantageous to both the United States and to these four countries.

I want to emphasize, as I did some months ago when there was an extension, we are talking today about the Andean Trade Preference Act. We are not talking about any other FTA, whether it be Colombia, Korea, or any other place. Each agreement must be decided on its own merits. In any respect, therefore, it would be counterproductive to vote against extending the Andean Trade Preference Act.

I strongly urge approval of this 10-month extension.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a valued member of the committee.

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

Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Becerra).

It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) who is indeed very active in these international issues.

I am the only speaker remaining. Why don't you proceed.

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

In closing, let me just emphasize a few points. Mr. Rangel and I and others offered a bill for a longer extension than this one, but we weren't able to bring that about here on a bipartisan basis. So what we have today is a 10-month extension, and I very much urge its passage.

I simply want to emphasize that every program has to be considered on its own merits. This is a continuation of a preference program that has been mutually beneficial. This is not involving an FTA with any of these countries. FTAs involve different and broader considerations. So I think discussion of that must be left for a different time under different circumstances after different events have occurred.

Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I have always been a strong supporter of the Andean Trade Preference Act. These preferences have been critical in encouraging both development and liberalization in a key region. But as we look at where each of the four Andean nations stands today, we see that they are all at very different stages, with preferences having significance for different reasons.

Peru is a country that has made tremendous strides in its economic liberalization process while remaining a close political ally, and we have propelled our trade relationship forward through ratification of a free trade agreement (FTA). As we go through the implementation process, preferences are still necessary to provide continuity until the agreement is fully realized. But Peru has clearly graduated beyond one-sided preferences, and our engagement will only grow exponentially.

In the case of Colombia, once again, this is a country that has made outstanding progress on economic and political fronts, and has negotiated an FTA with us in good faith. We have left this agreement in limbo for far too long, and should vote to pass it immediately. I have supported repeated extensions of our preference system for Colombia, because it would be unfair to punish them for our inability to make progress. But this is a critical agreement that will help to lock in great gains, and we cannot afford to allow the U.S.-Colombia FTA to languish any longer.

Bolivia and Ecuador, however, have not made the great progress in liberalization that their neighbors have. Our trade preferences in these two countries are critically important, but for very different reasons. It is important for us to continue to engage with them, to encourage both economic and political liberalization. Preferences can help workers in these countries reach that first rung of the economic ladder. And with new opportunities come rising living standards, and momentum for greater reform.

However, there can be no progress without the rule of law. Both countries are facing great challenges on this front, with justice systems that are unable--or perhaps at times even unwilling--to uphold the law and create an environment that supports free markets and accountable governments. In some instances, there have been egregious abuses in the courts, punishing those who have invested in the economy and creating a powerful deterrent to other prospective investors. Both Bolivia and Ecuador have much to gain by focusing on strengthening the rule of law, and much to lose by neglecting to do so. Without an improved legal environment, our trade preferences will be of little value.

Furthermore, failure in this regard will erode support in Congress for preferences altogether. I believe the fact that we are considering only a ten-month extension of the program is a reflection, in part, of grave concerns

that many Members hold for the direction Bolivia and Ecuador are heading. It is my hope that ten months from now, when we again address the issue of preferences for the Andean countries, we will be witnessing a renewed commitment in these two countries for the reform and liberalization that are essential to eliminating poverty and improving the standard of living for every Bolivian and Ecuadorian.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the H.R. 5264, the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), a program meant to assist the Andean countries in their economic development. The ATPA provides duty free treatment for 94 percent of imports from the four Andean nations-Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador.

The original Andean Trade Preferences Act was passed in 1991 and extended and expanded in 2002 with the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA), and again extended last June 2007. This program is fundamental in our mission to foster trade-based economic relations between the United States and the Andean region and stimulate legitimate economic alternatives to narcotics production and trafficking in the Andean region.

If Congress does not pass the Andean Trade Preference Act, the previous extension of the program will expire on February 29, 2008. Renewing ATPA will continue to build on the program's success and help us achieve our larger policy goals for the Andean region. At a time of increasing economic uncertainty, it will help sustain critical U.S. jobs that are dependent on stable trade with and investments in the Andean region.

From 2003 to 2006, U.S. textile exports to the Andean region increased by more than $50 million signifying a 40 percent increase. However, with the uncertainty the constant renewal brings, last year it was extended for 8 months 2 hours before it was set to expire, it has discouraged companies from continuing their investment in the Andean region.

Our current regional partnership is grounded on the joint struggle to eradicate the narcotics menace that terrorizes both the Andean region and the United States and to provide economic stability through trade. As the Andean region currently enjoys duty-free treatment, an expansion of these trade policies, like the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement, would allow us to enter into a full partnership with the remaining Andean countries instead of just a one way trading benefit.

While free trade agreements are not on the immediate agenda of Congress, I urge a vote in favor of H.R. 5264, to extend trade preferences for Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia and continue to show our support for our Andean neighbors and allow U.S. companies to continue investing in that region.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Rangel, for your kind words, and congratulations to the bipartisan leadership that has worked this out.

Yesterday in this very place, the President said: ``Our economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty.'' For millions of people in this country, our economic difficulties are very, very certain indeed, and that is true of the over 7 million who are unemployed.

Economists agree that unemployment insurance is one of the most stimulative approaches that can be undertaken. Unemployment is rising significantly. In December, the total number of unemployed was 900,000 higher than the same month in the prior year, and long-term unemployment is now twice as high as it was in the last recession. Almost a fifth of those who are unemployed have been unemployed over 26 weeks, and in Michigan, 72,000 people will exhaust their jobless benefits in the first half of this year.

In the past, the extensions of unemployment compensation have come too late. The time for action on extension is here and now.

Madam Speaker, the question of whether the Federal Government is finally going to do more to provide health coverage to children who need it is not going to go away. This is not an issue of partisan politics. It's not a complicated issue either. It's simply a matter of doing what's right.

I believe that no American child should be without access to decent health care. This is especially true given the worsening economic conditions that are battering Michigan and every other State. Rising unemployment results in more American families losing their health insurance. Not only do workers find that health coverage is increasingly beyond their reach, the problem extends to children.

A new study by the Joint Economic Committee underscores the fact that between 700,000 and 1.1 million additional children will enroll in Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Programs each year due to slowing employment growth. The projections show that more than 35,000 additional children in Michigan alone will need help. But State budgets have been hard hit by the economic downturn. They don't have the resources to provide health care coverage to millions of kids that already need it, let alone all the new children who will need help due to the economic downturn.

That's why it's vital that Congress vote to override the President's veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program bill. By doing so, we can extend health care coverage to nearly 4 million children who are currently uninsured. Let's not let America's children become casualties of the economic downturn. Vote to override the President's veto.

Madam Speaker, it has become clear, not only to my colleagues in Congress, but also to the American people, that the intransigence of President Bush and his supporters in the House and Senate have made it difficult to advance long-needed bills to improve Medicare and expand the Children's Health Insurance Program.

The bill we are considering today in no way reflects negotiations with the Senate on the CHAMP Act that the House approved with a bi- partisan majority on August 1st, and the Senate's Medicare and SCHIP priorities. Rather, it is a skinny health extenders package that generally extends some provisions in current law for only 6 months.

Shoring up Medicare from years of neglect under the Republican Congress and expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program to cover 10 million low-income children are top priorities for me and the New Democratic Majority in Congress. That is why the House approved the CHAMP Act of 2007 to eliminate the scheduled Medicare physician payment cuts for the next 2 years and expand the Children's Health Insurance Program to cover 10 million low-income children nationwide. The only reason that the legislation we approved in August to improve the Medicare and SCHIP programs has not been signed into law is because President Bush and his allies in Congress oppose it.

There are several provisions of importance back home that I wish to recognize. We were able to keep in the health extenders bill a moratorium on cuts to school-based Medicaid services that the Administration has proposed. We have included a 6-month extension of a wage-reclassification program in the Medicare program, and have provided funding to extend the Special Diabetes Program for research, treatment and prevention of diabetes through September 30, 2009.

Unfortunately, imperative improvements to the Medicare program have been dropped from the bill. Improvements approved in the House in August include mental health parity for seniors, making prevention more accessible by eliminating co-pays and deductibles for preventative services like mammograms and colonoscopy screenings, and expanding programs that help low-income seniors pay for their health care and prescription drugs.

The Children's Health Insurance expansion that has been dropped from the bill would have extended children's health insurance to enroll 6 million kids that are currently eligible for the program and not yet enrolled. That's in addition to the 6 million low-income children already receiving health care under the SCHIP program nationwide, including 55,000 kids in my home state of Michigan whose parents make between $20,535 and $41,300 a year.

I urge my colleagues to support the short-term extensions in the legislation before us today, and to join me in addressing long-needed reforms to Medicare and SCHIP in the new year.

Madam Speaker, it's interesting to listen to the minority. They don't defend this tax loophole. No one has gotten up and said people who should pay their taxes aren't paying those taxes and so it's okay. That's really what you're saying. You're saying it's a tax increase when you go after people who should be paying their taxes. It's absurd. It's carrying a political label to an absurd level, and unbelievable.

I suppose if we give more money for the collection of taxes for people who owe them who don't move offshore, that's also a tax increase?

You're hiding behind a label. What you're doing is saying, once again, when there's a hole of debt, dig it deeper.

This has become the theater of the absurd.