[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.

                          ____________________