[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 125 (Wednesday, August 1, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H9287-H9298]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3162, CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND
MEDICARE PROTECTION ACT OF 2007
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 594 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 594
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House 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. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of
rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Ways and
[[Page H9288]]
Means now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) two hours of debate, with one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means and one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and
(2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 3162 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
{time} 1130
Unfunded Mandate Point of Order
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I make a point of order against
consideration of H. Res. 594 because the first section of the rule
waives all points of order against H.R. 3162 and its consideration,
except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. This waiver includes points of
order under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions)
makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
In accordance with section 426(b)(2) of the Act, the gentleman from
Texas has met the threshold burden to identify the specific language in
the resolution on which the point of order is predicated.
Under section 426(b)(4) of the Act, the gentleman from Texas and the
gentlewoman from Florida each will control 10 minutes of debate on the
question of consideration.
Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the Act, after the debate the Chair
will put the question of consideration, to wit: ``Will the House now
consider the resolution?''
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, while the CBO estimate in the report
from the Committee on Ways and Means does not identify any unfunded
mandates, it's important to note that there are and that there is no
such estimate for the amendment self-executed by the closed rule
reported in the dead of night by the majority's Rules Committee. We
have no way of knowing whether these new provisions, which we did not
see before midnight last night, will impose strict new
intergovernmental mandates on our State and local governments.
Furthermore, this new language appears to be littered with earmarks
for hospital-specific projects. We do not have a list of the Members
requesting those projects, and we do not know if the proper
certifications have been filed with the authorizing committees.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is essential that we stop, take a
breather and put off consideration of this hastily drafted legislation,
which was totally rewritten in the dead of night, behind closed doors.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the question of consideration.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I wish to be heard on the gentleman's
point of order.
I would just like to buttress the arguments that have been provided
by my friend from Dallas. It was about 1 o'clock this morning that the
Rules Committee convened, after having had this package for a half an
hour. And I know my very dear friends on the Rules Committee, who
probably haven't gotten a heck of a lot of sleep last night, remember
very well that into the evening I had been handed by members of my
staff a list of some of these hospitals that were specifically raised,
that the concern that was raised by my friend from Dallas. And I've got
to tell you that as I look at the hospitals in the Nashville, Davidson,
Murfreesboro area in Cumberland County, Tennessee, and Marionette,
Wisconsin and Michigan and Chicago and Massachusetts and New York,
Clinton County, New York, we, Madam Speaker, don't understand what
these are.
As my friend has just said, there are no names attached to this
whatsoever. And we were promised this great new sense of openness and
transparency and disclosure and accountability, and none of that has
happened here.
And so I join my friend in saying that what we should probably do, if
we are going to proceed here, is take a breather. I think that would be
the right thing for us to do.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule
and, ultimately, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. We
will stand up for our children and the hardworking families in America
and fight through these delaying tactics trying to put off having our
parents be able to take their kids to the doctor's office. They deserve
no less.
We're going to fight through all these procedural delays today, as we
did yesterday, because these parents and children's health in America
simply will not wait. We must consider this rule, and we will consider
and vote and pass the CHAMP Act today.
I have the right to close, but, in the end, I will urge my colleagues
to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the new Democrat majority promised the
American people and those Republicans who are now in the minority that
this would be an open and transparent new way of doing business by
Democrats. We were told back in January and February, oh, the only
reason we're doing closed rules is because we've got to do them to get
our agenda through quickly, because we're not going to allow anybody to
stop that. Six in '06 has to be done.
Well, Madam Speaker, there were no hearings even done on this with
the text of the bill that the committee could look at. Last night, 30
minutes before we went into Rules Committee, we had an opportunity to
see the language.
On top of the $200 billion Medicare cuts, the Democrats have now
slipped in extra hospital funding for powerful Democrat districts. That
means where Democrats are they've slipped in these brand new earmarks,
right there for them.
We have not had an opportunity to look at the bill, we don't know
whether the proper notification has been done, and so what we're saying
now today is that what we should do is take a few minutes and sit back
and look.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the
gentleman from the Rules Committee raising these very, very important
questions.
Our membership should know, and I think the American public will want
to know, that one of the reasons to have a meeting in the dead of the
night to make changes in this package is because this package, in the
name of helping children, is designed to do much more than that. As a
matter of fact, the SCHIP program, in its original form, was an
excellent program, working very well to help children who are
uninsured, on the margin of poverty.
The design of this bill is to expand that program into eventually all
children and pushing them off of private health care, et cetera. The
real plan here is to set the stage for a movement of the next gigantic
step in the direction of what should be called ``Hillary Care,''
national socialized medicine. Literally, that's what they're about.
The program has been working very well. It does need some additional
funding. These States do not need the opportunity to expand these
programs not just to illegals but to children who presently, in high
percentages, are already in private health care systems. Their design
is obviously a design that goes way beyond the stated purpose for this
bill.
I appreciate my colleague yielding.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee we had
an opportunity to see firsthand what this new Democrat majority is all
about. And not one time, not one time, was the word let's make health
care better for America, not one time was it about trying to make
things better for
[[Page H9289]]
doctors and hospitals and patients. It was a slam dunk, hit 'em out of
bounds, the doctors, who they claim make all this money, who it's all
about the doctors making money.
And I had an opportunity to engage those people who represented the
Ways and Means Committee and the Commerce Committee, and I said, hey,
during your hearings, that you talk about you having all these
hearings, did anyone ever bring up that specialty hospitals are those
many times joint ventures with hospitals where they're trying to take
care of patients who come for elective surgeries to get them out of
hospitals that are full, emergency rooms that are backed up, and then
we've got a problem with health because of bacteria in the hospitals.
And these hospitals are safer and offer elective surgery to get people
in and out that is much cheaper and safer and better.
They acted like it was a foreign concept. They acted like they had
never heard about the marketplace before.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding and appreciate his very
thoughtful remarks on this.
I was talking earlier about these earmarks that have been included in
this measure that have no names attached to them whatsoever. They cover
the States of Tennessee and Michigan and New York and other spots, and
we don't have any comprehension of them, and I guess that's allowed.
Now, it wouldn't have been allowed in the last Congress, because when
we passed earmark reform; Madam Speaker, let me just explain to my
colleagues who may be a little confused on this, that when we passed
earmark reform in September of last year we said that there should be
full disclosure, a full listing, full transparency on all
appropriations bills and on all tax bills and other authorizing
legislation.
Now, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, when we came forward, and of
course we were maligned for having passed that earmark reform in the
last Congress, but when we finally came forward and rectified the
structure that allowed people to only send a letter to the chairman of
the Appropriations Committee if they wanted to raise concern, but they
had no ability whatsoever to raise concern or raise a point of order on
the House floor about an earmark, we saw that, finally agreed to it.
But guess what, Madam Speaker?
Unfortunately, the authorizing legislation including tax bills was
completely omitted, completely omitted from this transparency plan that
we had in the 109th Congress. And so that's, I guess, why it's allowed
to include all of these hospitals in this measure without having any
names attached to them, without any opportunity whatsoever to raise
questions about them; and so I continue to support the effort of my
friend here.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we believe that the earmarks which have
been presented, which the way this bill has come to the floor, is not
properly done. It did not follow regular order. It is without the
transparency that the new Democrat majority has touted and talks about
every single day. It is without the smell test of ethics to know,
straight up, what somebody is going to spend money on, the people's
money. And because of that, we are opposing and asking that this bill
go back and be properly done to where everyone can understand.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1145
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I understand that I have the right to
close, so I will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman
from Texas has yield back his time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time
remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I believe that the case that we are
making here today is a smell test, and that is that if the new Democrat
majority wants to have closed rules, not have openness with regular
order, not present bills before they would be voted on to allow people
enough time to see what is in them and to be transparent about what is
in the bills and who is getting the money and who is spending the
money, you have not passed the smell test. And thus we are asking that
you not do what you are doing.
We oppose the Democrat majority.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject these
dilatory tactics. Health care for America's children cannot be delayed
or denied. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the question of consideration.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is: Will the House now consider
the resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 197, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 782]
YEAS--222
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--197
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
[[Page H9290]]
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Bean
Boucher
Braley (IA)
Clarke
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Johnson, Sam
Mack
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
Rogers (KY)
Rothman
Tancredo
{time} 1210
Mr. EHLERS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 782, I was
questioning former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during a
hearing investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of
Corporal Pat Tillman, in the Committee on Government Oversight and
Reform, and was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
general leave
Ms. CASTOR. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House
Resolution 594.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 594 provides for
consideration of H.R. 3162, the Children's Health and Medicare
Protection Act of 2007.
The rule provides 2 hours of general debate in the House, with 1 hour
controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means and 1 hour controlled by
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.
The rule makes in order the Ways and Means Committee substitute,
modified by an amendment printed in the Rules Committee report. That
amendment reflects a compromise between the committees of jurisdiction.
The rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Madam Speaker, in our great country today, the wealthiest country in
the world, parents still struggle to ensure that their children lead
healthy lives.
Is there anything more important, after the birth of your child, than
visits to the pediatrician and the care of devoted nurses? And as your
baby grows, is there anything more fundamental than regular checkups
and physicals?
Many dedicated doctors and nurses are on call at all hours when, God
forbid, something goes wrong or your child is sick. Fortunately, in
America today, many hardworking families have regular and affordable
health care through the State Children's Health Insurance Program, what
we called SCHIP; and today the Congress will vote to extend and improve
children's health insurance for another 5 years.
Regular, accessible and affordable health care puts children on a
path to success in life. A healthy child is a healthy student. A
healthy child means more productive parents who do not miss work.
Healthy students become productive adults. They succeed in life and
eventually make America stronger.
Every parent and grandparent in America today understands the
importance of our debate and our fight to ensure that children can see
a doctor or a nurse and have access to affordable health care.
Despite all that we understand about the importance of healthy kids
and early preventative care, health insurance and those all-important
visits to the doctor are all too expensive and out of reach for over 11
million children in America.
{time} 1215
Uninsured children are five times less likely than insured kids to
have a primary care doctor or to have visited a doctor or a dentist in
the past 2 years. This lack of access in medical attention harms that
child, the family, the community back home and ultimately this great
country.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to stand up and fight for
these families and America's children by passing this rule and
supporting the House Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization bill,
the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act, or the CHAMP Act.
I am proud to say that the precursor to SCHIP originated in the 1990s
as a novel plan by State leaders in my home State of Florida. These
innovators understood the link between healthy kids and success in
school. They helped parents with direct information on access to
affordable health care for their kids.
President Clinton and the Congress were so impressed by what the
State of Florida was doing for children's health care that they took
the Florida KidCare blueprint and fashioned a national program. It has
enjoyed national success and bipartisan support ever since. Indeed, the
overwhelming majority of Governors in this country support the
reauthorization of SCHIP.
Madam Speaker, I include for the Record a letter of support from
Republican Governor of Florida, Charlie Crist.
State of Florida,
Office of the Governor,
Tallahassee, FL, August 1, 2007.
Hon. Katherine Castor,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman Castor: Thank you for your continued
leadership on the reauthorization of the State Children's
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). As you know, renewing this
program is critical to the approximately two million children
and families currently eligible for SCHIP in our State.
As Governor, I too want to ensure that low-income children
have access to quality health insurance, and commend the
Florida Delegation for working so hard over the past several
months to ensure that this important program is reauthorized
before it expires on September 30, 2007.
The proposals of the Senate Finance and House Energy &
Commerce Committees have positive components that I believe
will make this program stronger. However, as Congress
progresses toward a final product, I wanted to bring your
attention to the core principles that I believe are essential
to ensuring SCHIP remains dedicated to its original intent.
Children Should Be the Cornerstone of SCHIP Funding; States
Need the Flexibility to Dispense SCHIP Funding Over Multiple
Years; Federal SCHIP Funding Should Be Based on Projected
Spending and Allow for Population Growth; States Need the
Flexibility and Funding to Conduct Additional Outreach
Activities.
Thank you again for your commitment to the KidCare program
and to Florida's children and families. I look forward to
working together to ensure that the thousands of eligible
children in our state receive the highest quality benefits
through this important healthcare program.
Sincerely,
Charlie Crist,
Governor.
Despite the great success across the country, 11 million children in
the United States remain uninsured. Almost 7 million of them are
eligible but not enrolled in the State-Federal children's health care
program. Two-thirds come from working families in which one or both
parents are working but were not offered employer-based health
insurance or were unable to afford it. Most of these families are
taking home under $40,000 per year. In my home State of Florida alone,
over 700,000 children remain uninsured.
A few months ago, I ran into a high school friend of mine, Mia
Dorton, and she explained how important the Children's Health Insurance
Program had
[[Page H9291]]
become to her and her family. You see, Mia's husband lost his job and
the family was uninsured for 2 months. Mia said, ``It's awful to have
to choose between whether or not to put food on the table or take your
child to a doctor.'' Mia said that she and her husband lived in
constant fear that one of their children would get sick or injured.
When he got a new job, the health insurance for the family was over
$700 a month, so Mia told me that they just couldn't swing it. But when
her KidCare application was approved, she said that this revolutionized
her life.
So for the many working families in my district that struggle for
access to affordable health care and all of these great families across
America, this low-cost insurance is the only way to make ends meet.
Access to health care for working families throughout America through
this innovative partnership of Federal, State and local communities is
a winning proposition. Indeed, for every 29 cents the State provides,
Federal SCHIP provides 71 cents. It's the best matching rate in
children's health care. This bill will make it easier for parents and
kids to get to the doctor's office. It will eliminate that costly,
bureaucratic red tape.
Madam Speaker, we will fight through these procedural delays today
that have been brought by the other side of the aisle. We will stand on
the side of America's children and hard-working parents. The new
direction we chart today for healthier children fulfills the promise of
America.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to yet
another closed rule and to the ill-conceived underlying legislation.
While I do not support this bill nor the way it has been brought to
the floor without a single legislative markup, I would like to thank
the Democratic leadership for one thing: By cramming this bill through
the House, they are giving every single Member of this body the
opportunity to go on record regarding which vision for the future our
Nation's health care system should take.
Madam Speaker, for that, I truly appreciate and respect what the
Democrat leadership has done.
The first vision for our future, for them, is to slowly shift as many
Americans as possible into a one-size-fits-all government program. You
know what it has been called in the past: Socialized medicine.
I congratulate the Democrat leadership, because that vision is ably
embodied in the bill today, H.R. 3162. Rather than using this bill as
an opportunity to cover children who cannot obtain coverage through
Medicaid or the private market, this bill uses children as pawns in
their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant
upon the government for their health care needs. And you know what they
say, Madam Speaker: If you think health care is expensive now, wait
until it's free.
Democrat advocates of bureaucrat-run, Washington-run health care
fails to disclose how they would achieve this vision. Republicans who
actually care about covering children created SCHIP so that children
who had no insurance coverage through Medicaid or the insurance market
could get it without bankrupting the Federal Government or dislocating
a healthy marketplace.
H.R. 3162 turns this innovative vision on its head by increasing
government spending exponentially, leaving taxpayers holding the bag
for these increased costs. This bill has no income limits for
eligibility, no annual authorization limit, and allows States to
determine who qualifies, despite the fact that the Federal Government
is on the hook 100 percent of the time. This is on top of a current
system which we know that some States already abuse. Minnesota spends
61 percent of its children's health care insurance on adults, while
Wisconsin spends 75 percent of its children's health care money on
adults, taking scarce resources away from the intended target,
children.
But the real losers under this big government vision are patients.
For 100 children who are enrolled in the new SCHIP proposal, 25 to 50
children will leave private insurance, according to the Congressional
Budget Office; 77 percent of children at between 200 and 300 percent of
the Federal poverty level already had insurance in 2005.
As we all know, being a part of the government-run health care
program does not mean better quality. Since most SCHIP programs
reimburse at Medicaid rates, many of these new SCHIP enrollees will
encounter significant difficulties accessing care. American Medicaid
patients, for example, are currently waiting as long to see a
specialist or to have surgery as patients in Canada.
If Democrats were serious about ensuring that every American has
access to inexpensive and high-quality health care, we would be taking
a different vision and a different direction for our health care; one
that tackles the system's real underlying problems and revolutionizes
and gives incentives to our health care system to provide better
results.
All families should have access to tax exemptions up to $15,000 a
year for health care, not just those who work for large employers.
Congress should spend its time passing a law to give Americans the
ability to purchase health insurance across State lines, because health
insurance options should not be limited by your zip code.
Congress should be working to ensure that those who can't get
insurance on the market have access to coverage through high-risk pools
and low-income tax credits.
Madam Speaker, I am not here to oppose the idea of SCHIP. It was a
Republican-controlled Congress that created SCHIP. I do support its
true mission. But H.R. 3162 is a camouflaged attempt at slowly
siphoning Americans away from insurance plans into a big, Washington,
D.C. government-run system.
To pay for this flawed, big government vision, this legislation robs
seniors by forcing many of them out of their existing Medicare coverage
at a time when our Nation is looking for better ways to sustain
Medicare's future. Medicare part C is an innovative plan that is
working well by bringing choices into Medicare. After these seniors are
harmed in the long run, it is the taxpayers who will be stuck with the
rest of the bill for this incredible expansion of government and
intrusion into our lives in taking away our choices.
Republicans have already proven this would be a positive, innovative
vision that can work. Two years ago, Members from both sides of the
aisle came together to pass the Dylan Lee James Family Opportunity Act,
or FOA. We learned that many children with disabilities fell into a
catch-22 circumstance in which their families made too much to qualify
for Medicaid but could not afford or access private coverage, so these
children often went without coverage. FOA was a commonsense solution
which filled a void and provided coverage for these children up to 300
percent of the poverty level.
Madam Speaker, we have two serious issues facing our Nation that we
are dealing with right now: Medicare's future, and making our Nation's
health insurance system more affordable and accessible for all
Americans. By focusing the wrong vision for our future, the bill does
nothing to address either problem.
It ignores the fact that our Nation produced the greatest health care
advocates in the world, many of which come as a result of a competitive
insurance market. The American survival rate for leukemia is 50
percent. The European rate is just right at 35 percent. For prostate
cancer, the American survival rate is 81.2 percent. In France, it is
61.7 percent, and in England, it is 44.3 percent.
Rather than trying to emulate the European socialized, outdated
approach, we should be working on a vision to give every single
American an opportunity to take part in our competitive insurance
market.
Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this closed rule
and the underlying legislation to drag America into a one-size-fits-all
model of defeatism. Returning the balance of power, once again, to
Washington, D.C. to run our health care plan is what the new Democrat
majority is all about.
Madam Speaker, I oppose that.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, the record of the House reflects that the
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee
[[Page H9292]]
on Health did have at least seven hearings, full-blown hearings, on the
matter at hand today, and the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health had
over 15 hearings, including four to six seminars for all of the Members
involved. So to hear from the other side that there was no hearing
whatsoever is not, in fact, the case.
At this time, I would like to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee
on Rules and a leading advocate for children and seniors in this
country, from a State that is renowned for its progressive health care
institutions.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me
the time.
Madam Speaker, I want to say that I am enormously proud of the
accomplishments that we can credit to the Democratic-led Congress. From
education to health care, from national security to increasing the
minimum wage, great strides have been taken to make our country
stronger, healthier, and better prepared for the future. And there is
more to come.
But it is with special pride that I rise today, because I feel that
what motivated me, and so many of my colleagues, to come to Washington
in the first place was the thought that on any day a vote could be held
that would improve the lives of millions of people throughout our
beloved country.
{time} 1230
And that is exactly the chance that we have been given today, the
chance to vote for a bill that will improve medical care in the
country, improve the health of our citizens, and offer new hope for
literally millions of children who would otherwise be left with
neither.
Madam Speaker, I think that everyone listening today recognizes the
reality of the situation we face. Addressing the state of health care
in our country is one of the most important issues to the American
people for one simple reason: Our health care system is failing far too
many Americans. Tens of millions of our citizens have no insurance and
tens of million more are underinsured. For them, all of the medical
wonders in the world that our doctors produce might as well not exist.
When they fall ill or, worse, when their children are hurt or have a
fever or need care, where do they turn? Far too often the answer is:
Nowhere.
We need a comprehensive solution to this problem, and the citizens of
the country expect and deserve no less. That is a challenge that we
must confront together, and it will take time. But today, here and now,
we have the chance to make a real dent in one of the most galling and
shameful inadequacies of our health care system, and that is the lack
of health care for America's children.
Congress created SCHIP in 1997 with broad bipartisan support. As a
result, 6 million children currently have health care coverage that
they otherwise would not have. In my home State of New York, nearly
400,000 children are enrolled, which is the second-highest number in
the Nation.
There is a reason why President Bush pledged that he would fully fund
SCHIP while he was on the campaign trail in 2004: It was because this
program is enormously effective and enormously popular with the public.
And, yet, there is so much more to be done. Nine million American
children still remain without health insurance. It is a situation that
remains quite unconscionable.
The bill allows us to take an enormous step forward. It will cover 5
million more children, which will make 11 in total. That would be a
truly historic change. Such a vast improvement is reason enough to
support the legislation, but the bill does even more to strengthen the
health of Americans.
It strengthens Medicare by expanding preventive benefits, as well as
mental health services, a matter of grave importance to many of our
citizens.
It reduces the costs for seniors and people with disabilities, who
also often have low incomes; and it extends the policies that protect
access to health care in rural communities, of vital importance to all
of us.
What is more, the bill would prevent a proposed 10 percent cut in the
Medicare reimbursement to physicians, replacing it with an increase for
2 years. We cannot afford to have more physicians say they can no
longer afford to have Medicare patients. This is especially important
for districts throughout the country, districts like mine where we are
having trouble holding on to good doctors because of financial concerns
that until now have not been addressed.
Finally, this bill will raise the tax on the price of cigarettes by
45 cents a pack, a significant preventative health care initiative in
its own right. This act alone is projected to save tens of thousands of
lives and billions in future health care costs by preventing more than
a million children from taking up smoking.
Madam Speaker, in spite of these undeniable benefits and in spite of
the overwhelming popularity and accomplishments of this program, SCHIP
is under attack.
Sadly, the President proposed to greatly underfund SCHIP, a decision
which would severely limit its effectiveness; and Republicans on the
other side of the aisle agree with this approach.
But not content to merely limit the reach of SCHIP, we will today
witness an attempt on the Republican side to sink this bill entirely,
as, indeed, we have seen already several times this morning. In the
face of all of the positive results coming from this program and all
that it is set to achieve, the harshest rhetoric is going to be cast
against it.
Madam Speaker, we all know that my Republican colleagues cannot
really believe what they are arguing. Instead, their objective is a
different one: to deny the Democrats a chance to talk about yet another
legislative accomplishment. They are willing to do it at the expense of
the health of the Nation's children, but we will not allow it. And
those who argue against passing this bill are arguing in favor of the
status quo, the same situation we faced more than 10 years when bold
attempts to fundamentally reform our Nation's health care system were
subjected to withering attacks.
What was the result? Reforms were blocked, and the national situation
grew worse and worse with every passing year of Republican control.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and a ``yes'' on this bill, not
only just for America's children but for their parents as well.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member
of the Rules Committee.
Mr. DREIER. ``Madam Speaker, this rule is an affront to the
democratic process. The underlying bill will harm every single one of
the 40 million Americans served by Medicare. At 1 a.m. this morning,
with absolutely no meaningful opportunity to review the almost 700-page
legislation, the Committee on Rules met to consider the resolution now
before us. By now I should be used to it, but we cannot tolerate these
continual attacks on democracy.
``When you refuse to allow half this House to speak and to give their
amendments, you are cutting out half of the population of the United
States from any participation in the legislation that goes on here. It
defies reason and it defies common sense that political expediency and
newspaper headlines could force this monumental legislation, probably
the most monumental that any of us will do in our tenure in the
Congress of the United States, to force it through the Chamber with
little more than cursory consideration.''
Madam Speaker, as eloquent as that statement was, it wasn't mine.
That statement that I just read was in fact the statement delivered
right here on the floor on June 26, 2003, by the now distinguished
Chair of the Committee on Rules, my very good friend from Rochester,
New York (Ms. Slaughter).
It was offered during the debate on the Medicare prescription drug
bill and the modernization act which passed and has provided access to
affordable prescription drugs for seniors for the past several years.
Madam Speaker, if these words that I just offered from the
distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee from back in 2003 were true
then, they certainly are true now.
As Mr. Sessions said, last night, the Rules Committee met for 2\1/2\
hours in
[[Page H9293]]
the dark of night to try to figure out the intricacies of this bill,
just shortly after we as Republicans, the minority, received the final
text. What became clear last night is even the authors aren't clear
about the effects of this legislation.
We had an in-depth discussion about specialty hospitals and whether
this bill would deprive 150,000 constituents, our friend from Pasco,
Washington (Mr. Hastings), a hardworking member of the Rules Committee,
150,000 of his constituents, whether or not it would prevent them from
having access to hospital care.
First, our witnesses said, no, it wouldn't. Then they said, yes, it
would. Then they said the hospital deserved to be closed because the
physicians who own the hospital and serve that community were trying to
``get away with something.''
Now that is the round-and-about discussion we had on what is taking
place in eastern Washington. That is just one isolated issue. You can
just imagine how many more there are in this monstrosity of a bill. And
the majority's answer to that question: Deny all amendments. Prevent
anyone from having an opportunity to improve the bill.
Yes, Madam Speaker, we have the latest manifestation of the new
Democratic philosophy described so eloquently in the Rules Committee
last week. It was declared by one of our Rules Committee colleagues: If
you have a problem with a bill, then no amendments for you. It is a
circular logic at its worst.
I feel compelled to point out that even on the much-maligned Medicare
prescription drug legislation that we had, we gave the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel) a substitute. What do we get on this bill, in a
word, we got absolutely nothing. No substitute, nothing.
Madam Speaker, there was no need to bring this bill before the Rules
Committee at 1 a.m. this morning. The chairwoman of the Rules Committee
began the 110th Congress by stressing that we would end the committee's
so-called ``California hours'' that I imposed on them and have our
meetings in the daylight. Well, I have to say, Madam Speaker, at 2:30
this morning the sun was not out. I have to say that this measure is
one that clearly we support, SCHIP, but not this very undemocratic
process and this horrible measure.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to
the gentleman from Wisconsin, a true health care reformer, Dr. Kagen.
Mr. KAGEN. Madam Speaker, this is a great day for our Nation's
children. This is a great day for our seniors and their doctors. For,
today, we will begin the necessary process of guaranteeing access to
affordable care for the people who need it most, our children and
elders.
And this is a great day for the House of Representatives as well, for
we are beginning to solve our Nation's most important domestic crisis,
access to affordable health care for every citizen. The CHAMP Act
begins to allow for the practice of medicine that really believes in
prevention. We will finally provide dental and mental coverage for our
kids. With this bill, we are being fiscally responsible and socially
progressive, just like America; and I am proud to serve in a Congress
that finally pays for its bills.
Today, we are shifting money away from overpaid insurance companies
to benefit children and seniors. We are bringing down costs for the 80
percent of all Medicare patients who are now paying too much for their
premiums. In my home State of Wisconsin, an additional 81,000 children
will acquire coverage.
I was honored to work with the committee chairmen, Chairman Rangel
and Chairman Dingell, to ensure that there will be an express lane to
enroll kids who are already in similar programs and eliminate the late
fee for those who signed up late who are in need.
People in America can see, the Democratic majority will leave ``No
Patient Left Behind.''
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, these debates are great. It gives
everybody on both sides, including the Democrats who ran on an agenda
of having socialized medicine, Washington, D.C.-run health care, they
can come down to the floor of the House and talk about this is their
model of a great bill.
We disagree.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pasco,
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me this time to speak against this
closed rule that bars every single Member of this House from offering
an amendment to change this Democrat bill, a bill, Madam Speaker, which
I am compelled to oppose.
This nearly 500-page bill is being rammed through the House with the
Rules Committee meeting on this bill at 1 a.m. this morning and with no
Members even being allowed to propose fixes or alternatives because we
are told it is absolutely imperative that Congress act to provide
government-run health care coverage to more Americans.
So I am compelled to ask: If the purpose of this bill is to provide
more health care coverage for Americans, then why are the Medicare
plans of over 8 million seniors in our country being put at risk by
this legislation?
Why are over 150,000 Washingtonian State seniors going to have their
Medicare Advantage health coverage put at risk by cuts in this bill?
Why are one in 12 seniors on Medicare in my congressional district
facing a potential loss of their current coverage? How do you expand
health care to more Americans if you are forcing the elimination of
Medicare plans that seniors have chosen?
Madam Speaker, even more troubling to me is a provision in this bill
that would force the closure of the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center in
my district in Wenatchee, Washington. After reading the bill, this
health center wrote a letter to me that states: ``Should section 651,''
of this bill, ``be enacted into law as written, we foresee the likely
closure of the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center and our outlying
facilities in the next few years.''
July 26, 2007.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cantwell and Representative Hastings: Late
yesterday, Representatives Dingell, Rangel, Stark and Pallone
released legislation entitled the Children's Health and
Medicare Protection Act of 2007 (CHAMP). Upon review of this
bill, we discovered a provision, Section 651 that would be
devastating to Wenatchee Valley Medical Center. It appears
that this legislation is on a fast-track towards enactment by
the House and possibly by the entire Congress.
We seek your immediate assistance in attempting: to either
modify this provision or have it removed from the bill
entirely.
Should Section 651 be enacted into law as written, we
foresee the likely closure of WVMC and our outlying
facilities in the next few years.
The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center was founded in 1940 in
a rural and remote area of Washington State. The three
founding physicians desired to establish something akin to
the Mayo Clinic model in a medically underserved area.
Through committed work, personal investment, risk taking, and
collaboration over a geographic region that spans more than
12,000 square miles, the Medical Center has adhered to and
largely achieved that model and vision.
The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is organized as a
hospital system. The system is located in eight different
communities in the north-central area of Washington State.
Those communities are Wenatchee, East Wenatchee, Moses Lake,
Cashmere, Royal City, Omak, Tonasket, and Oroville. The
Medical Center is one of the largest employers in its region
with 1500 employees. Its physicians provide the majority of
the admissions, medical support, and physician staffing for
these community hospitals: Central Washington Hospital
(Wenatchee); Wenatchee Valley Hospital (Wenatchee); Samaritan
Hospital (Moses Lake); Mid-Valley Hospital (Omak); and North
Valley Hospital (Tonasket).
The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is a 100% physician-
owned and directed hospital system. Each of the 150+
physicians who are ``owners'' of the WVMC own less than 1% of
the Center. The proposed legislation would require us to stop
being what we are and attempt to morph into something
different. We have concluded that selling 60% of our hospital
(to whom?) as required by Section 651, and preventing WVMC
from growing beyond it's current bed size, as also required
by Section 651 is non-sustainable, a death-knell.
We could attempt to cope initially by closing money-losing
sites like Royal City, Tonasket, and Oroville. The closure of
the latter two sites will have the corollary impact of
depriving North Valley Hospital of seventy five percent of
its medical staff, and
[[Page H9294]]
would likely result in its closure. We would have to drop
money-losing services like the Medical Hospitalist program
($550,000 loss per year) and Trauma Surgeon on-call program
($850,000 loss per year) at Central Washington Hospital. We
have supported those programs because they save lives, are
cost-effective (for society at large), and are likely a pre-
requisite to induce many physicians in the physician
recruiting climate to any practice setting.
A broad and comprehensive delivery system in a rural region
is an inter-connected and fragile organism. The proposed
legislation fixes a problem that doesn't exist in either
North Central Washington or the Wenatchee Valley Medical
Center, and will unleash a series of decisions that will be
deleterious in the short-run, and likely calamitous over the
next five years. The proposal needs modification, and a
significant increase in flexibility to reflect actual on the
ground actualities in rural delivery systems.
The multi-specialty physician practice that is part of the
Wenatchee Valley Medical Center includes more than 30 medical
and surgical specialties in addition to a large number of
primary care providers. The Medical Center provides the only
services available in the region in the following
specialties:
1. Medical Oncology
2. Radiation Oncology
3. Pulmonary Medicine
4. Medical Hospitalist
5. Surgical Hospitalist
6. Vascular Surgery
7. Neuro-Surgery
8. Cardiology
9. Rheumatology
10. Endocrinology
11. Nephrology
12. Gastroenterology
13. Neurology
14. Urology
15. Dermatology
16. Physiatry
This year, the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center will serve
more than 150,000 unique patients. Ninety four percent of
those people reside in the four rural counties (Chelan,
Douglas, Grant, Okanogan) where the Medical Center is
located. The majority of these patients have long-standing
relationships with the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, some
of those continuous relationships reach all the way back to
the organization's founding. The four counties in North
Central Washington have a combined population of 240,000. A
comparison of the patients served by the Medical Center to
the region's population indicates that the Medical Center is
a key, and likely indispensable, component of the region's
healthcare infrastructure.
The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is a collaborator. It
offers training opportunities to medical students and
residents of the University of Washington and other medical
schools; and has many training affiliations with area
community colleges in the allied health professions.
Wenatchee Valley Medical Center specialists outreach more
than 1200 times annually to hospitals and clinics in outlying
communities. Medical Center staff provides 24/7 coverage for
the Emergency Room at North Valley Hospital in Tonasket.
Medical Center staff provide 24/7 medical and surgical
hospitalist coverage for the Trauma Center at Central
Washington Hospital. The Medical Center is making its
Computerized Medical Record available to all practitioners in
the region, and its Patient Profile is being advanced by the
Community Choice PHCO as a potential continuity of care
record for the region.
The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center has a long-standing
tradition of serving all comers, regardless of their ability
to pay. The Medical Center has a needs based Compassionate
Care program that is well publicized and which will provide
more than $3 million in charitable care this year.
The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is a cost-effective
health care delivery system and is conservative in its
ordering and treatment patterns. The Medical Center has
ongoing focus and initiatives in areas like prescriptions,
medical imaging, hospital and nursing home lengths of stay,
and cardiovascular interventions.
The Medical Center is a Medicaid safety net provider, and
accepts referrals from throughout the state. The Medical
Center ranks among the top 5 Medicaid providers in Washington
State. The region has a high and growing Medicare aged
demographic. The Medical Center provides a variety of
services needed by Medicare patients. The combination of
Medicaid and Medicare represents sixty percent of the
Wenatchee Valley Medical Center's volumes. Most healthcare
financial analysts would maintain that those percentages are
uneconomic and non-sustainable; that the cost-shift is too
great.
As stated earlier, the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is a
hospital system. It was organized in that fashion in order to
survive as a vital, dynamic contributor to healthcare and its
delivery in North Central Washington. Having the opportunity
to bill as a hospital provides the economic life ring that
enables the Medical Center to compete in national markets for
the physician recruits that our undermanned and health
shortage regional delivery system is desperate for. Any
``profits'' earned by the Medical Center are plowed back into
the delivery system; either to subsidize new services (like
the recent opening of the Royal City Clinic in a community
that was without healthcare for the last 2 years) or to
invest in new services such as Image Guided Radiation Therapy
and a Chemo-therapy Infusion Center in Moses Lake. The
Medical Center is currently in the process of recruiting 29
new and replacement physicians to place throughout our
region. A number of these recruits have been requested by the
hospitals we co-labor with. There is significant working
capital investment required to establish these practices, and
frequently a tremendous facility investment needed to house
these practices. Both of these investments are currently
ongoing; and will be a death-trap if the proposed hospital
self-referral legislation is enacted as currently drafted.
If you or your staff have questions or need additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact our
Administrator, Shaun Koos, Jay Johnson, our Associate
Administrator or Bill Finerfrock our Washington DC
Representative.
Your immediate consideration of this matter is critical to
the continued availability of healthcare in North-Central
Washington State. We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
David Weber,
CEO/Chairman, Board of Directors,
Wenatchee Valley Medical Center.
Madam Speaker, the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center was founded in
1940 by three physicians. In the last 67 years, it has grown and now
employs 1,500, serves a population of a quarter of a million people in
an area the size of Maryland, and treats 150,000 patients a year.
This bill would force its closure because it prohibits any hospital
from being more than 40 percent owned by doctors if they are to
continue to receive Medicare payments for providing care for seniors.
The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is 100 percent opened by 150
doctors, and I fail to see why this should be made illegal in the
United States of America.
At just after 2 a.m. this morning in the Rules Committee, I raised
this concern with the two gentlemen representing the Ways and Means
Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.
{time} 1245
When I first asked why the medical center treating 150,000 patients
should be forced to close, the initial reaction of Mr. Pallone of New
Jersey and Mr. McDermott from Seattle, Washington, was that the medical
center and I must be mistaken; we were wrong. They then stated that
other hospitals had called them asking about this section as well.
Madam Speaker, something is terribly wrong in the House of
Representatives if hospitals across this country are calling committees
in a panic to find out if health care legislation is forcing them to
shut down.
Subsequently, after some lengthy discussion in the early morning
hours, the two Democrat committee representatives eventually
acknowledged that I just might be right about what's going to happen in
Wenatchee, and they said that's just what they intend to happen under
this bill. Let me restate this. This is not an unintended consequence.
It is an intentional consequence. My colleague from Seattle said that
some people might squeal about what this bill does, but he stated
that's what was needed to be done to save money. This bill saves money
by putting the medical center out of business?
I sought to fix this provision by offering an amendment to the Rules
Committee with Mrs. McMorris Rodgers from Washington whose constituents
would also be affected by this bill. Our amendment simply would have
removed one requirement of the bill that would force certain hospitals
to close if more than 40 percent were owned by physicians. I'm
dismayed, Madam Speaker, that on straight party-line vote that
amendment was not allowed to be debated on the floor today.
Madam Speaker, I voted to create the SCHIP program, and I believe it
must be renewed, but when we are faced with a bill that puts Medicare
plans of over 150,000 seniors in Washington at risk and threatens the
closure of the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center and all the patients it
serves, I can't support this legislation.
I must ask, what else does this bill do that's not being explained?
What other undiscovered ways will it reduce citizens' access to health
care?
It doesn't have to be this way, Madam Speaker. This House can defeat
this closed rule and we can have an opportunity to open the process.
And with that, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and the
underlying bill.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who
[[Page H9295]]
has been tireless in his efforts in standing up for healthier children
in Texas and across America.
Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, the Children's Health Insurance Program
is pro-family and pro-work.
It is pro-family because few things are more important to our
families than the health of our children.
It is pro-work because it says to those on welfare, if you will get a
job and go to work, you won't lose health care coverage for your
children.
This bill is about helping those who are working hard to help
themselves and their families, and that is a good thing to do. By
passing this bill, we can ensure that 5 million American children will
receive better health care. That is a cause worth fighting for, even if
we have to step on the toes of some special interests to get it done.
All too often in years past under different leadership, Congress has
fought hard for powerful special interests. Today is a new day. We have
a chance to stand up for the interests of America's children, and we
should do it for the sake of our children and for the future of our
country.
Vote ``yes'' on this rule. Vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member
on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton).
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, progress is being made. Last night, if you
mentioned the word ``SCHIP'' on the House floor, a point of order was
made that you couldn't talk about it. At least today we can talk about
it.
I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this self-executing,
closed rule. I want to just recapitulate the history of the SCHIP bill
as it's come through the House and the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Last Tuesday night at 11:36 p.m., after the House had had its last
vote, the minority on the Energy and Commerce Committee staff got the
465 SCHIP bill that was scheduled to be marked up the next morning, the
following Wednesday, at 10 a.m. So that happened at 11:36 p.m. last
Tuesday.
As we all know, last night the Rules Committee got the Ways and Means
version of the SCHIP bill, I'm told, at 12:30 a.m. this morning, met at
1 a.m. this morning, reported out a closed, self-executing rule, with
no amendments. What does that mean? A self-executing rule means if you
pass the rule, everything that's in it automatically happens. There's
no debate; there's no policy argument or anything. It just happens.
Now, this is from my friends on the majority side that when they
became the majority said there was going to be openness; there was
going to be transparency; Rules Committee wasn't going to meet at
midnight; we were going to include the minority in discussions. Such
hypocrisy.
11:36 p.m. last Tuesday night we get a bill from over the transom
that's 465 pages. Midnight last night, or this morning, Rules Committee
meets at 1 o'clock, reports out a self-executing closed rule. That is a
joke.
Vote ``no'' on this rule.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, we will stay up day and night to bring
better health care to America's children.
At this time, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and
to express my strong support for the Children's Health and Medicare
Protection Act of 2007, which makes great strides in improving our
Nation's health care system.
It chills the conscience to think that approximately 9 million
American children are currently without health insurance.
There can be no justice until all of our children, our most valuable
resource, are granted access to the most technologically advanced
medical system in the world.
The CHAMP Act commits $50 billion to reauthorize and improve SCHIP,
our Nation's health care safety net for low-income, uninsured children.
The CHAMP Act would lift enrollment barriers and increase funding so
that we can get our children the care that they need.
I'm also very pleased that Chairman Dingell shares my commitment to
improving children's access to dental care by including a guaranteed
dental benefit and two other dental-related measures that I have
requested in H.R. 3162. Chairman Dingell also recognizes, as I do, that
oral health is an important component for overall health.
With that, I urge the Members to vote for the rule and for the Act.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, if I could inquire upon the time
remaining on both sides, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 10\1/4\
minutes. The gentlewoman from Florida has 13\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, I am in opposition to the proposed tax increase as a
source of funding for the SCHIP program.
Tobacco is lawfully grown, marketed and consumed, and tobacco
manufacturers to growers, Madam Speaker, employ thousands of citizens
in my State, hundreds in my district. These manufacturers and growers,
small and large, provide well-paying jobs and make valuable
contributions to their communities.
At one time, Madam Speaker, tobacco was king. Now it is a beleaguered
industry; yet it remains a convenient whipping boy regarding the
raising of revenue for this body.
When SCHIP was authorized and debated a decade ago, I did not support
it because of its potential to become one more entitlement program that
would, in time, cost more than what's projected. It has, Madam Speaker,
surpassed my apprehensions in cost and scope.
Today, CBO projects that this expansion would cost nearly $87 billion
over the next 5 years. This has led to the proposal that billions of
dollars be cut from Medicare providers such as hospitals and health
care services, coupled with the increase in the tobacco tax, to finance
this expansion.
I cannot condone such an abuse of taxpayers for a program that would
take from one group of vulnerable citizens to expand services to
citizens, in many instances, who are less vulnerable.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a voice of clarity and one of the
most outspoken advocates for the children of Ohio and all of America's
children.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the time and for her leadership on this very, very important issue.
Madam Speaker, today we act to ensure that 11 million children in
this Nation will have access to the health care that they need.
With this legislation, we add 5 million more of our most vulnerable
citizens to the Children's Health Insurance Program. With this
legislation, we will finally ensure coverage for 95 percent of all
children in need in this great country.
Our bill, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection, or CHAMP,
Act reauthorizes and improves CHIP, while also making important
improvements to the Medicare program and changes that will help reduce
tobacco use in this Nation.
Children in the State of Ohio stand to benefit tremendously under
this bill. The coverage of 218,500 currently enrolled in CHIP will be
secured, and funding for the CHAMP Act will allow Ohio to reach another
164,000 children who have remained uninsured until this time.
Expanding and improving health care for our children is one of the
most important things we can do to ensure a brighter future for our
families and our communities and this country.
If our children do not have access to the health care they need, it
affects their schooling, their home life and can have a severe impact
on their ability to grow into a strong, well-rounded adult.
Madam Speaker, we hear a lot of purported excuses and lamenting from
across the aisle about why we should not act to ensure that the
children get the insurance they need here today.
Well, I want those Members to go explain to the families and the
children in Ohio's 13th Congressional District,
[[Page H9296]]
who will now have access to the health care they so vitally need, why
they oppose this legislation. These Members need to explain why it's
okay that we can provide tax breaks to millionaires but can't afford
the less than $3.50 a day it takes to cover a child through CHIP.
If we do not pass this bill, children in my district will lose health
coverage and families may have to face the consequences of medical
debt, and we've seen it all too often lead to bankruptcy and
foreclosure. That's unacceptable to me and my constituents.
On Medicare, Madam Speaker, the CHAMP Act also makes significant
improvements toward improving benefits and limiting premium increases
for beneficiaries. More than 202,000 Medicare beneficiaries in Ohio
will be assured that their out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs
will not rise, and almost half a million beneficiaries in my home State
with incomes under 150 percent of the poverty level will receive
assistance with copayments and deductibles, as well as prescription
drug costs.
Madam Speaker, I do have some concerns regarding changes in the
Medicare policy on the purchase of power wheelchairs and the effect
that this will have on Medicare beneficiaries with long-term
debilitating conditions. But while I certainly support the overall
bill, I hope that we can address this issue in conference or in some
other matter in the near future to ensure people are not hurt.
I strongly support the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I ask unanimous consent
that, as a result of the large number of Members who are coming down to
speak, as a courtesy to these Members, that we would add 10 minutes to
each side for debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
Ms. CASTOR. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. SESSIONS. Do not want to talk further on this bill from the new
Democrat majority.
Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Brighton, Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I think the thing that
surprises me the most on this is the lack of honesty on this bill, and
I think to the credit of many of my friends on the other side of the
aisle, I don't think you've been told what's in this bill.
This isn't about poor, uninsured children. My dad used to say, if a
salesman comes to you and talks about the needs of his kids before he
talks about the quality of his product, beware; you're getting sold a
bill of goods.
That's exactly what has happened today and in the previous days and
why they don't want to talk about the bill, why they don't want
amendments.
Why? It's the single largest cut in Medicare's program history. You
are cutting Medicare to millions of seniors. I wouldn't want to talk
about it either.
And what else are you doing? You're cutting stroke victims when
they're in in-patient rehab. Stroke victims, our seniors, are going to
cut that. Doctors, you're cutting doctors. You're cutting oxygen
equipment and wheelchair services to seniors. You're cutting seniors'
home health care. You're cutting hospital payments. You're cutting
skilled nursing care for the sickest seniors in nursing homes. You're
cutting dialysis services for kidney cancer patients. You're cutting
imaging services for cancer and cardiac patients.
You're telling businesses we're going to make it more expensive for
you to give health care to the working poor.
{time} 1300
You are doing that in this bill. I bet many of you don't even know
that. You are also telling seniors, by the way, once we slash the
largest in history amount of money out of Medicare, your part B
premiums are going up. We're going to make it more expensive for you.
Less doctors taking Medicare patients, higher small business costs,
higher Medicare premiums, not one dollar for the 700,000 under 200
percent of poverty who need our help.
Shame on you.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded, when their time is
expired, they should cease.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the endorsement
letter of our actions today by the AARP.
AARP,
Washington, DC, July 31, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: AARP strongly supports the Children's
Health and Medicare Protection (CHAMP) Act (H.R. 3162). This
well-balanced, fiscally responsible legislation addresses
several priority issues for AARP's nearly 39 million members
and their families. The legislation provides needed
assistance to low-income Medicare beneficiaries; helps to
ensure that beneficiaries maintain access to physicians;
protects beneficiaries from significant additional increases
in the Part B premium; covers millions of children in working
families that cannot afford health insurance on their own;
and includes additional changes that will improve the quality
and efficiency of our nation's health care system.
Helping Low-income Medicare Beneficiaries
The CHAMP Act will help more low-income Medicare
beneficiaries with Part D drug costs and cost sharing in
traditional Medicare by raising asset limits and streamlining
requirements for the Part D Low Income Subsidy (LIS), and
improving the Medicare Savings Programs (MSP) that assist
lower income Medicare beneficiaries with premiums and cost-
sharing in traditional Medicare.
Raising Part D asset limits to $17,000 for individuals and
$34,000 for couples closes the coverage gap (``doughnut
hole'') and helps pay premiums and copays for more low-income
beneficiaries who did the right thing by saving a small nest
egg for retirement. We should encourage people to save for
retirement, not penalize those low-income savers with an
asset test. Further raising the limits in subsequent years
will ensure that more lower income beneficiaries have access
to this needed subsidy.
Streamlining the LIS application by removing difficult and
invasive questions--such as the cash value of life insurance
and in-kind support--and aligning MSP rules with the LIS
criteria, further reduces unnecessary barriers to valuable
assistance for those who need it most.
Helping to Maintain Physician Access and Keep Medicare Affordable for
All Beneficiaries
The CHAMP Act helps ensure that beneficiaries maintain
access to physicians. It also protects all Medicare
beneficiaries from additional premium hikes associated with
physician payment changes by reducing other Part B spending,
including excess payments to private Medicare Advantage
plans. Part B premiums have more than doubled since 2000, and
this legislation strikes a balance between maintaining
affordability for beneficiaries and ensuring that they are
able to obtain physician services.
Ensuring Medicare Trust Fund Dollars are Spent Wisely
The CHAMP Act seeks to restore the balance between the
traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage program. AARP
supports a genuine choice of Medicare coverage options for
beneficiaries. But the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
has reported that Medicare Advantage plans are paid, on
average, 12 percent more than traditional Medicare. This
payment disparity is unfair to all taxpayers, as well as the
vast majority of beneficiaries in traditional Medicare who
pay higher premiums, who subsidize these excess payments.
According to actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, these excess payments shorten the life of
the Medicare Part A Trust Fund by two years.
AARP supports a level playing field between traditional
Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans. Excess payments to MA
plans should be phased out while protecting beneficiaries
from disruptions during the transition period. Well-run
managed care plans can continue to use provider networks,
care coordination, and evidence-based practices to control
costs while improving quality. The CHAMP Act helps to improve
quality in Medicare Advantage by providing new beneficiary
protections and requiring all types of plans--including
private fee for service plans--to be subject to the same
rules.
Strengthening Medicare for the Future
The CHAMP Act helps to strengthen Medicare for both current
and future beneficiaries by:
Expanding Medicare coverage and eliminating cost sharing
for evidence-based prevention services to promote more cost-
effective efforts to keep people healthy, rather than high-
cost treatments once people suffer from preventable
conditions.
Bringing parity to Medicare cost sharing requirements for
mental health outpatient services.
Expanding demonstration projects to provide Medicare
beneficiaries with a ``medical home'' in physician offices
that can help coordinate their care to improve quality and
efficiency while encouraging participation by reducing cost
sharing responsibilities.
Providing Health Coverage to More Low-income Children
The CHAMP Act strengthens the State Children's Health
Insurance Program
[[Page H9297]]
(SCHIP). SCHIP is vitally important to many grandparents
raising grandchildren. SCHIP also is a wise use of tax
dollars, given the substantial long-term benefits that
relatively low-cost children's coverage can provide. After
all, productive working years and healthy aging both require
an early start.
The legislation would allow states to cover more than 5
million uninsured low-income children who are currently
eligible but not enrolled in the program, as well as make
changes to help improve the quality of children's health
care. Those benefiting most are children in families with
working parents who do not earn enough to afford health care
coverage without assistance, and who represent more than half
of the estimated 9 million uninsured children in the country.
Increasing the federal tobacco tax to help offset SCHIP
reauthorization is both fiscally responsible and smart health
policy because it helps to reduce smoking rates, which yields
health benefits of its own.
Improving Quality and Efficiency
Finally, the CHAMP Act includes several additional
provisions that will help to increase the quality and
efficiency of our entire health care system. These include
provisions to:
Fund a broadly representative non-profit organization, such
as the National Quality Forum, to develop and promote use of
consensus-based quality measures and advance the use of
electronic health records.
Establish a Comparative Effectiveness commission to promote
objective research comparing various drugs and other
treatments for specific conditions to determine which are the
most effective. This will help improve quality of care while
reducing inappropriate, inefficient, and ineffective care.
Promote better understanding of racial and ethnic
disparities in health care so the issues can be addressed.
In short, this package of health care changes will help
both children and older Americans, as well as make positive
improvements to our health care system. We appreciate your
leadership and look forward to working with you to enact the
bill into law this year.
Our members have expressed strong interest in knowing how
their elected officials vote on key issues that affect older
Americans and their families. As part of our ongoing effort
to let our members know of action taken on key issues, we
will be informing them how their Representatives vote when
H.R. 3162, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act,
comes to the House floor.
Sincerely,
William D. Novelli,
Chief Executive Officer.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to my colleague from Florida
(Mr. Klein), who has been fighting in the trenches for Florida's
children and Florida's seniors and all of them across America.
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule
for the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007, CHAMP.
I have been a strong supporter of the State Children's Health
Insurance Program for many years, as many of our Members have. In
Florida, we call it Healthy Kids; and it provides much-needed health
care to hundreds of thousands of children who would otherwise not
receive it. Democrats, Republicans, business and community leaders
support this program because it empowers families to provide health
insurance for their children.
The CHAMP Act also addresses another important problem with our
health care system by providing a critical payment update for the
doctors. In south Florida, we are currently facing a severe shortage of
qualified physicians, in part because of the way physician payments
under Medicare are calculated.
I applaud Chairman Dingell and the other drafters of the CHAMP Act
for their immediate action to stave off the unreasonable cuts to
physician payments.
I am concerned, however, with the way the CHAMP Act addresses the
overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans. By scaling some payments back
to traditional Medicare fee-for-service rates over the course of 4
years, seniors in my district may be at risk for losing some benefits.
There may be some risk of losing some benefits, so I believe a more
prudent proposal is to soften the impact of these changes to Medicare
Advantage, and I look forward to working with the conferees to ensure
that our elderly and vulnerable populations are supported by any
changes to Medicare.
I ask my colleagues to support this rule and bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, most of my colleagues are
aware of the tragic fact that since 1973, approximately 49 million
innocent unborn babies have been brutally dismembered or chemically
poisoned to death in what is euphemistically called choice.
Abortion methods are extraordinarily cruel. They are painful and
violent. Indeed, abortion is an act of violence against children.
Unborn children in America today have less protection than most
animals, including fighting dogs and eagles.
It is dismaying and disappointing to me that H.R. 3162, a bill that
purports to assist sick and disabled children, explicitly fails to
acknowledge an entire class of children, unborn children. The
aggressive demands of the abortion culture distorts reality even here.
The impulse to deny unborn children any value or worth or dignity is so
extreme that the bill doesn't include and wouldn't even make in order
Mr. Pitts' amendment to include acknowledgment that these young and
vulnerable patients often need intervention, including microsurgery and
blood transfusion, just like any other patient.
Why the bias against the innocent unborn? The Bush administration's
policy promulgated in 2002 is put at risk. That was and is a
progressive policy--a policy of inclusion.. I am very disappointed in
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for failing to include all
kids under this administration.
By way of background the administration promulgated the Unborn Child
Rule to give states the option to explicitly include unborn children as
unique patients in their SCHIP programs. Eleven states, including
California, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Texas, Wisconsin, and Michigan
now include explicit coverage for unborn babies in their programs. H.R.
3162 puts that enlightened and progressive policy at risk.
It's worth noting that the Bush 2002 Unborn Child Rule was savaged by
the pro-abortion lobby. Planned Parenthood included it in their list of
actions they regard as a war on women. Which of course is absurd. I
guess when your organization kills 265,000 unborn children in Planned
Parenthood clinics each year, you find it hard to think or say anything
good about an unborn baby.
But, the underlying prejudice and bias that makes this vulnerable
class of humans expendable and persona non grata should not be endorsed
by this bill.
Vote ``no'' on the rule--give the Pitts amendment a chance to be
voted on.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the
Record a letter received just yesterday from the Catholic Health
Association, which states, in part, we believe the most important pro-
life thing that Congress can do right now is to ensure that the State
Children's Health Insurance Program is reauthorized. Children's lives
and the lives of unborn babies depend on a strong SCHIP
reauthorization. So we are standing up for these children and for
pregnant women.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I
wonder if my friend is aware of the fact that the letter she is
submitting to the Record or asking the House to allow for submission
into the Record has significant conflicts.
Madam Speaker, I am not certain that she recognizes that, in fact,
AARP, which is the letter that she provided earlier for the record, in
fact, AARP is in competition for health insurance policies with
Medicare Advantage. That's the dirty little secret that nobody wants
you to appreciate.
So when these letters are put in the Record, it may seem that there
are wonderful endorsements out there for this program. However, in
fact, that isn't the case. It isn't the case with the AARP letter that
was provided, and it likely isn't the case with the letter that has
been provided right here.
So I think it's incumbent upon all Members of this Chamber to
appreciate where people stand, and where we stand is to make certain
that Medicare recipients receive the Medicare policies that they
currently have. Under Medicare Advantage, we believe that those
individuals ought to be able to continue to receive those policies.
In fact, what the other side is trying to do is to cut Medicare.
That's exactly what they are doing, is cutting Medicare. They are doing
it under the guise of covering children. That's not we believe is
appropriate. We believe that individuals ought to have the flexibility
[[Page H9298]]
and choices in their health care policies, in their Medicare policies.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I object to the letter being introduced.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, we are not going to divide this country
over health care. We are going to bring them together and fight for
better health care for our children and our seniors and everyone.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas,
the distinguished member of the Health Subcommittee on the Committee on
Ways and Means, Mr. Doggett.
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, of course, that letter is one of many
endorsements of groups coming together because they know that today
they are improving health care for our oldest Americans and our
youngest Americans.
Unfortunately, my home State of Texas has the distinction of being
number one in children with no health insurance, largely due to the
indifference of then Governor George Bush who responded too late and
too little. His indifference to the health crisis now is hardly
surprising given his indifference then.
The Republican prescription drug plan, the largest entitlement
increase in recent history, is a study in how to let Medicare ``wither
on the vine'' at the time they inject waste, fraud and abuse into the
system.
Now Republicans are using every available obstructionist tactic to
block our reforms, to curb their own excesses, such as their lavishing
billions on big insurance companies. Despite their professed interest
in controlling entitlement spending, only two of their 21 committee
amendments would have reduced spending and the vast majority would have
increased spending on borrowed money.
Their sermons about Medicare insolvency are betrayed by their
insistence on undermining it, and their silly claims of ``socialized
medicine'' are belied by the bill's endorsement by the American Medical
Association and the AARP.
Approve this rule and afford seniors and children the health care
that Republican obstructionism would deny them.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes be
added to debate equally divided between both the majority and the
minority.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
Ms. CASTOR. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Welcome to the new Democrat-run House of
Representatives: No debate added time. No regular order hearings.
Closed rules. Welcome.
Mr. BUYER. It is disappointing that the objection was so loud and
clear.
I do remember coming here in the minority, and at the time it was
referred to as the Imperial Congress. It has not taken you very long to
get back to where you were. That is disappointing. When I look at what
is happening, you have the votes, you have the majority.
When I think about what just happened to the Commerce Committee, I
have such great respect for John Dingell.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is reminded to address his
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I have great respect for John Dingell and
how awkward he must feel that the leadership of this Congress took
jurisdiction from his committee. Now, this is the same man that has
respected the rules of process and procedure that has taught many of us
in this House.
I think about the intolerance right now that the majority has of
other people's views and opinions. That is very, very disheartening;
and the American people should know and recognize what is happening
here is wrong.
I just appeal to you once again, you have the votes. Do not turn
Congress into an undemocratic institution. Think about when you were in
the minority. There were times yet you didn't like what happened, but
you had your opportunity to be heard. Yes, you may have lost an
amendment or been voted down here or there. It is part of the
democratic process.
Do not shut down the democratic process. That's what you have done on
this bill. We should be reauthorizing the SCHIP program for children.
Republicans created this bill. Let's do a clean bill. That's what we
should be doing here on the floor.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are once again reminded to address
their remarks to the Chair.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Fossella).
(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOSSELLA. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding as we continue
the debate on ensuring children's health care.
Madam Speaker, let me bring up another point, and that is something
that has been debated. Despite all the things we talk about here, there
is nothing more important than protecting this country. Regrettably, I
lost more people in Staten Island in Brooklyn than any other district
in this country on 9/11. We should be doing everything possible to
ensure that our intelligence community is preventing terrorist attacks.
Right now, Congress, I believe, is abdicating its responsibility.
That's why I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule and urge my
colleagues to defeat the previous question on the rule.
If the previous question is defeated, we will immediately bring
legislation to the floor to solve an intelligence gap. Very simply
this, the American people need to know, if there is a foreigner on
foreign soil, if there is an area in Afghanistan where the intelligence
community knows for a fact that there are terrorists plotting attacks
to kill Americans, right now, without a court order, we can't listen to
those conversations. That's irresponsible.
If we want to help and protect the American people to the best of our
ability, we will allow our intelligence community to listen to
foreigners on foreign soils whose sole objective is to kill more
Americans and our allies without a court order or obtaining a warrant.
If we have another attack, God forbid, I would like to see Members in
this body rush to the floor and explain why they wouldn't allow our
intelligence community to listen to foreigners on foreign soil who want
to only do one thing, kill us.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, it's my understanding the gentlewoman
from Florida is indicating she has no additional speakers and that she
would choose to close?
Ms. CASTOR. That is correct, Madam Speaker. I will reserve until Mr.
Session closes.
____________________