[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 125 (Wednesday, August 1, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H9471-H9503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H9471]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        House of Representatives

    CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND MEDICARE PROTECTION ACT OF 2007--Continued

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to recognize the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for 1 minute. Pending that, I 
would note that, as a former insurance commissioner, he understands 
that the endorsement of the National Association of Insurance 
Commissions is necessary to prevent fraud in the Medicare Advantage 
program.
  Mr. POMEROY. I cannot get out of my mind a picture that appeared in a 
newspaper a few months ago of a young boy with a toothache. The 
horrible story running alongside this picture was that this young 
fellow later contracted a brain infection from the tooth infection, and 
he later died. Because his family couldn't afford the tooth extraction, 
this young fellow lost his life. We don't have any more urgent national 
priority than making sure our children have access to the health care 
they need.
  There is another feature of this bill as well. It's rural health 
care. If we don't pass this bill, there are very steep cuts slated for 
doctors of hospitals practicing in our rural areas.
  It's hard keeping essential health services available for kids, for 
seniors, for everyone else in these rural areas. We have got to stop 
these cuts, help our kids, keep rural medicine thriving. Pass this 
bill.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished Member from New Jersey, Congressman Garrett.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate, we 
have heard a vote against this bill is a vote against the children, a 
vote against the poor, a vote against those who need the help most; and 
had this legislation merely reauthorized the current law, the arguments 
might have had an element of truth to them. But with this unconstrained 
growth in a welfare entitlement bill that this expansion has become, 
what we do know is that this bill now undermines the health care of 
millions of uninsured children and insured children and does so at the 
expense of American seniors.
  Supporters of this bill would say that by no means is this a back 
door to a mandatory, socialized, government-run health care system. I 
say, not the back door, but, as Paul Ryan might say, it's a front-door 
approach to a socialized, government-run health care system. Also, it 
opens the windows and the garage door as well.
  This bill does not set a cap on the annual income levels of the 
families it covers, it does not include an asset test to ensure that 
millionaires are not eligible, and it expands the program to cover 
childless adults.
  It is entirely conceivable, and, actually, it probably will occur, 
that the States can enroll as many people in this program as local 
politics will make expedient. A benchmark figure that has been bandied 
about is 300 percent. They want to enroll families up to 300 percent 
above the poverty level.
  Just what would that system look like? According to the Census 
Bureau, and I just got these numbers a little while ago, of the 300 
million or so people in this country, 48.3 percent, or roughly 145 
million people, live at or below the 300 percent of the Federal poverty 
level. So we're now considering a new entitlement program for nearly 
half of the entire population of this country. And if you add to that 
number the 44 million people who are currently enrolled in Medicare, 
what does that mean? That means, with this bill, almost two-thirds of 
the entire population of this country will be on a government-run, 
socialized health care system, two-thirds paid for by one-third.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. This proposal is a large step 
towards a single-payer, Washington-run State health care system.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, before I call up the next speaker, I would 
like to point out that this bill will save 12 million kids from losing 
their health insurance and that it will prevent New Jersey from having 
a $200 billion shortfall in their SCHIP program.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise very proudly in strong support 
of H.R. 3162, the CHAMP Act.
  As policymakers, we have an obligation to make sure that children who 
are in the program do not lose their coverage and that those who are 
eligible for coverage but are not enrolled receive that care.
  Millions of low-income children and seniors are depending on us to 
pass a bill so they can receive health care. The CHAMP Act will provide 
health care to 11 million poor children, reduce health care disparities 
in communities of color, and protect senior citizens who rightfully 
need access to their physicians.
  Insured children are more likely to receive cost-effective, 
preventative services and are healthier, which leads to greater success 
in school and later on in life.
  Although programs such as SCHIP and Medicaid have decreased the 
number of uninsured children, the lack of funding over the last 10 
years and outreach efforts have left millions of children who are 
eligible from receiving this care.
  More than 80 percent of uninsured African American and 70 percent of 
uninsured Latino children are eligible currently for public coverage 
but are not currently enrolled. In my district alone, 18,000 children 
go uninsured. The bill ensures that these children will receive that 
health care coverage.
  Some would argue that this bill is a vote on immigration. I'm sorry, 
but

[[Page H9472]]

they are absolutely wrong. The bill restores State's options to provide 
the coverage that they need; and the bill ensures that citizens who 
have lost their birth certificates and other identification are not 
immediately denied care, like the more than 11,000 children in Virginia 
and 14,000 children in Kansas who have lost their coverage.
  The bill helps one-third of Asian and Pacific Islander American 
seniors who live in linguistic isolation understand health care.
  The bill does not provide services, and I underscore, does not 
provide services to undocumented immigrants. Those who say that are 
blatantly wrong.
  I urge support of the bill. Let's move on. Let's do the right thing 
for our children. Vote for the CHAMP Act.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time 
I still control?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas controls 10\1/2\ 
minutes of time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to recapitulate the debate 
as I see it today and start off, as I've already said, with what the 
Republicans are for.
  We are for reauthorization of the SCHIP program. This program has 
been in existence for 10 years. It is a block grant program between the 
Federal Government and the States where we spend approximately $5 
billion each year to help States provide health care and health 
insurance for low-income and near-low-income children in their States. 
Some States have received waivers to provide health insurance for 
adults and for children that are not really in the low income.
  We, on the Republican side, support reauthorization of the 
straightforward SCHIP program.

                              {time}  1615

  We believe that SCHIP should be for children. A Republican 
substitute, which was not made in order at the Rules Committee last 
evening, would limit SCHIP to children; that is, individuals in this 
country that are under 19 years of age or under.
  We believe that SCHIP should be for low-income and near low-income 
children. The Republican substitute, again, allowed SCHIP eligibility 
for up to 200 percent of poverty. We believe that SCHIP should be for 
citizens of the United States and legal residents of the United States 
who have been here at least 5 years.
  We believe that SCHIP should be funded without cutting senior 
citizens' health care, so the Republican substitute had no cuts in 
Medicare for our senior citizens. We also believe that we should fund 
SCHIP without tax increases. The Republican substitute had no tax 
increases to fund our SCHIP reauthorization.
  The problems with the pending bill before us have become almost too 
numerous to mention. But just to go through some of them, first of all, 
the pending bill changes SCHIP from a block grant program for a limited 
duration of time to an open-ended entitlement. It has authorized such 
sums, and there is no time limit on the bill before us.
  It removes the limitation on income at the Federal level. If a State 
chose to certify that millionaires were eligible for SCHIP, as far as 
we can tell, there is no restriction on covering millionaires, if a 
State chooses to make that certification.
  There are tax increases in the Democratic-sponsored bill. There is a 
tobacco tax increase that CBO scores at least $52 billion. And there is 
a cut in Medicare that CBO scores over a 10-year period at $157 
billion.
  While there is disagreement among my friends on the majority side 
about this requirement, there are sections of the pending bill that 
removes the requirement that was put in place several years ago that 
States have to certify the citizenship of eligible citizens for SCHIP.
  Of the 465-page bill that was produced in the Energy and Commerce 
Committee last week, three-fourths of that bill does not deal with 
children. The Democratic bill is not just about the children. According 
to the CBO score that we just received today, the pending bill before 
us in the SCHIP program, by expanding eligibility requirements, would 
add an additional 1.1 million children, and by adding enrollment within 
existing eligibility, another 1 million.
  The SCHIP bill that the Democrats are putting before us, according to 
the CBO, adds 2.1 million children in the SCHIP categories, so that all 
the other money and all the other things that they are doing, it is not 
about the children. It is about a lot of other things.
  So, I have great respect for the people that are trying to 
reauthorize SCHIP. I know that at some time this fall, some time in 
September or maybe in October, we will have a bipartisan effort to 
reauthorize and send to the President an SCHIP bill that he will sign. 
But this is not that bill. This bill won't come up in the Senate. This 
bill won't come up in conference between the House and the Senate in 
all probability. This bill will be voted on one time, and that is 
sometime this evening. And then it will just sit there.
  So I would rather, as Chairman Dingell and I talked about back in 
November, the day after the election when I called to congratulate him 
on becoming the new chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I 
would have rather we spent this spring working on a bipartisan basis to 
come to an agreement on what we could agree on and bring before this 
body a bipartisan bill on SCHIP. That has not happened.
  This bill was presented to the Energy and Commerce Committee at 11:36 
last Tuesday evening and the markup was scheduled the next day at 10 
a.m. It was presented to the Rules Committee this morning at 12:30 a.m. 
It was reported out of the Rules Committee at approximately 2:30 a.m. 
this morning with no amendments and with self-executing changes that 
nobody had seen, until we had time to look at it this morning.
  There have been no amendments on either side; not just on our side, 
but on their side. So the only people that really know what is in the 
bill, and the only people that really have input into the bill, are 
those people on the majority side that are working behind the scenes in 
the dark of night to craft this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we vote ``no'' on the bill. I hope we vote 
``yes'' on the motion to recommit. I hope eventually we will get in a 
bipartisan mode, work with our friends on the other side of the body, 
work with the President of the United States, and send to the President 
some time this fall a bipartisan SCHIP reauthorization bill that is 
just about the children.
  Mr. Speaker, today the Democratic majority will make claims that they 
support reauthorizing the SCHIP program and, by implication, that 
Republicans do not. I, for one, fully support reauthorizing the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program. I also believe we should ensure 
that the program is covering the population it was intended to serve, 
and that's low-income children who don't have health insurance. It 
isn't for adults or for bureaucrats who think adults should pretend to 
be children. It isn't for men and women making $100,000 salaries. And 
it shouldn't be an incentive to pull families out of private health 
insurance coverage and into a public welfare program.
  States have used the gaping loopholes in the current SCHIP program to 
expand coverage to include adults and people with the kinds of salaries 
that are still a dream to most working people. Our friends on the 
majority think those are blessings, not problems, and that explains why 
they've written legislation that makes the list of blessings longer 
instead of shorter. Their bill is the first giant leap towards 
government-run, universal health care since Hillarycare collapsed under 
the weight of its own bureaucracy and deception. More bureaucracy? 
They're for it. More welfare? They're for it. Rationing health care? 
They're for it. A blank check? They're for it. In reality, the check 
isn't exactly blank. The CBO indicates that the cost of this Democratic 
welfare bill will top $200 billion, and that's only for Federal 
taxpayers. The States' share of SCHIP will cost the state taxpayers 
another $300 billion.
  The majority would spend hundreds of billions of dollars saying that 
they are trying to cover low-income children who don't have insurance. 
That's not what CBO says. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 
of the newly eligible individuals, 60 percent already had private 
health insurance coverage.
  Democrats say they are not raising the eligibility levels for SCHIP 
in this bill. They fail to mention that they allow states to determine 
income and they also do away with the block-

[[Page H9473]]

grant nature of the program by providing states swollen Federal 
matching funds, even for families making above $200,000 a year. Now, 
some will say I've got it all wrong, but if I'm wrong and they're 
right, show me. I challenge my friends on the majority to point to the 
place in the bill where that would be prohibited. Further evidence that 
this bill is not about low-income children is that their bill actually 
allows for bonus payments to states if they eliminate asset tests. It 
looks like they do want welfare for the rich, and the richer, the 
better. I ask, should a millionaire's child be on SCHIP or Medicaid? I 
don't think the American people believe so, but the majority's bill 
encourages it.
  Yesterday, on the floor some members spoke about how this bill would 
pay for services for illegal immigrants. With no true way to refute 
that assertion the majority, in the managers' amendment that was 
released after midnight this morning, added a new section that states 
that no Federal funding can go towards paying for care for illegal 
immigrants. That was a nice restatement of current law, but it does not 
change the fact that this bill eliminates the requirement that States 
verify a person's citizenship before they are enrolled. If we don't 
verify citizenship, this new section is meaningless. The bill even 
eliminates the 5-year waiting period that legal immigrants must wait 
before being enrolled in Medicaid, effectively inviting more illegal 
immigration.
  During the morning session, member after member of the majority rose 
to say that this bill is about children. I ask my colleagues to show me 
where in this bill limits this Children's Health Program to children. 
They can't, because the bill will continue the discredited practice of 
siphoning off money from children's health care to buy health care for 
adults. We had amendments filed at the Rules Committee to ensure that 
SCHIP dollars go toward children, not adults, but these amendments were 
banned.
  The majority also says this isn't kids versus senior citizens, but 
Democrats pay for their enormous expansion by cutting $200 billion from 
Medicare. The Democratic bill makes a particular target of the senior 
citizens who picked Medicare Advantage, and takes over $150 billion 
away from them. That means more than 8 million of our seniors will have 
their choice in health care coverage sharply restricted. This bill 
disproportionately harms rural and low-income Medicare beneficiaries in 
particular since it cuts payments in these areas so drastically that 
plans will be driven out of these markets.
  The draconian cuts that the Democrats expect the Medicare Advantage 
program to take will obliterate the benefit. Again, no wonder the 
Democrats kept this bill away from the public eye. It is hard to 
explain to seniors why you are cutting their benefits.
  These plans are an important option for low-income and minority 
beneficiaries--57 percent of enrolled beneficiaries have incomes less 
than $30,000. These plans can reduce cost-sharing relative to 
traditional Medicare. These plans also offer better access to care--
more than 80 percent of plans provide coverage for hospital stays 
beyond the traditional Medicare benefit, and more than 75 percent cover 
routine eye and hearing tests. Over 98 percent of beneficiaries can 
enroll in a plan offering preventive dental benefits.
  These are our most vulnerable seniors. Yes, the Democrats would cut 
their benefits to pay for the higher income children and adults. They 
made this decision with no legislative hearings and developing the bill 
behind closed doors. My friends on the majority claim that they have 
had seven hearings on this. I would like to set the record straight 
that the Energy and Commerce Committee held one hearing on SCHIP back 
in February to discuss the general program, and did not discuss 
anything that is incorporated in this bill. They did not even invite 
the people who administer SCHIP at the Department of Health and Human 
Services to testify.
  This bill was written in secret, delivered at midnight, and then 
rewritten from 1 to 3 a.m. this morning.
  We have had little time to examine this bill, and we have found 
glaring weaknesses, I urge all members to be very cautious about what 
you are voting for because the rhetoric of the authors of the bill 
doesn't match the substance. The majority adjourned the Full Committee 
markup without disposing of a single amendment or reporting the bill. 
The rules Committee allowed no amendments in order. We have had more 
Committee process in this Congress on bills naming post offices.
  It should come as no surprise that the majority wants to ram this 
through with no public process provided and no changes allowed. They 
don't want people to know what's in it, and they certainly don't want 
people to change it. They claim that they have to do this because the 
program will expire. They have had 8 months to reauthorize the program 
since the day that Chairman Dingell and I agreed that SCHIP was to be a 
high priority in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Where have the 
Democrats been? They claim that this is of the highest priority, but 
yet they sat on it until they could create an artificial crisis and 
then blame Republicans for daring to read their bill. I question why 
they would treat the reauthorization of SCHIP as a last-minute concern.
  I feel it's important to note that SCHIP is only part of the 
Democrats' bill, which also is laden with attacks on Medicare and 
Medicaid. The legislation pits children against the elderly. It was 
brought here today out of the night, when no one was looking.
  I urge Members to vote against this bad bill so we can reauthorize 
this program in a responsible, transparent, and open way that the 
powerful Democrat leadership promised to conduct the business of the 
Nation.

                        PRELIMINARY CBO ESTIMATE OF CHANGES SCHIP AND MEDICAID ENROLLMENT OF CHILDREN UNDER H.R. 3162, THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND MEDICARE PROTECTION ACT
                                 [All figures are average monthly enrollment, in millions of individuals. Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   SCHIPa                                        Medicaidb                            SCHIP/Medicaid total
                                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Enrollees    Reduction    Reduction             Enrollees    Reduction    Reduction             Reduction    Reduction
                                                                 moved to      in the      in other    Total     moved to      in the      in other    Total      in the      in other    Total
                                                                  SCHIP      uninsured    coveragec               SCHIP      uninsured    coveragec             uninsured    coveragec
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2012:
CBO's baseline projections...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........      3.3  ...........  ...........  ...........  .......  ...........  ...........     28.3
    Effect of providing funding to maintain current SCHIP              0.6          0.8          0.5      1.9         -0.6         n.a.         n.a.     -0.6          0.8          0.5      1.3
     programs................................................
    Effect of additional SCHIP funding and other provisions:
        Additional enrollment within existing eligibility             n.a.          0.6          0.4      1.1         n.a.          3.1          0.8      3.9          3.8          1.2      5.0
         groupsd.............................................
        Expansion of SCHIP and Medicaid eligibility to new            n.a.          0.5          0.5      1.0         n.a.            0          0.2      0.2          0.5          0.7      1.2
         populations.........................................
                                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal.............................................         n.a.          1.1          0.9      2.1         n.a.          3.1          1.0      4.1          4.2          1.9      6.2
                                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total proposed changes...................................          0.6          1.9          1.5      4.0         -0.6          3.1          1.0      3.5          5.0          2.4      7.5
Estimated enrollment under proposal..........................  ...........  ...........  ...........      7.3  ...........  ...........  ...........     28.4  ...........  ...........     35.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These estimates are based on the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on July 27, 2007, and modified by the amendments in the legislative language RULES--005,
  (dated August 1,2007, at 12:25 AM)
a The figures in this table include the program's adult enrollees, who account for less than 10 percent of total SCHIP enrollment.
b The figures in this table do not include children who receive Medicaid because they are disabled. The figures for ``additional enrollment within existing eligibility groups'' include about
  120,000 adults who would gain eligibility under section 801 of the bill.
c ``Other coverage'' is largely private coverage, but also includes about 200,000 legal immigrant children who now receive coverage under state-funded programs.
d For simplicity of display, the Medicaid figures in this line include the additional children enrolled as a side effect of expansions of SCHIP eligibility.
n.a. = not applicable

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that 
my 4 minutes be controlled by Mr. McCrery of Louisiana.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) 
now controls 49 minutes, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
controls 27.5 minutes, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) 
controls 29.5 minutes.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I will defer to my good friend from 
Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the ranking member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, said earlier this afternoon, we in the minority 
want to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program. Our motion 
to recommit, which we will offer later today, will do that.

[[Page H9474]]

  SCHIP should be about a bipartisan program. We think it should focus 
on low-income children. That was the concept when both parties agreed 
to create this program back in 1997. But the bill that is on the floor 
today loses sight of that focus, and, therefore, we cannot support it.
  We could support it with significant changes. Unfortunately, the 
Rules Committee did not allow us the opportunity to offer amendments to 
change the bill, so we are left to our only device as the minority, and 
that is a motion to recommit. So that motion will act as kind of a sum 
of our amendments that we would have offered and hoped to have passed, 
to put the bill in a form that we hope will pass in a bipartisan 
manner.
  The bill that is before us today, though, without amendment raises 
taxes by at least $54 billion. We believe it raises those taxes to fund 
a massive expansion of government-controlled health care. This is not 
just about helping low-income children. This bill today seems to be 
spending government funds to lower middle-class, upper middle-class, 
even wealthy, perhaps, families to opt out of private health coverage 
and go to government health coverage.
  I regret that we have not been able to work together in a bipartisan 
fashion on this issue. Perhaps when this motion to recommit comes up, 
we will have enough converts to adopt it, bring it right back to the 
floor of the House, and we will have a bipartisan bill. Or perhaps if 
this bill passes and something like it comes back to us in the form of 
a conference report and the President vetoes it and we sustain the 
veto, then we will have a chance to operate on a bipartisan basis and 
reauthorize this program in a timely manner. I hope so.
  But this bill before us today, in addition to having a substantial 
increase on the tobacco tax, they try to hide, at least it appeared 
that the majority tried to hide, a secret tax increase on health 
insurance plans.
  When it came before the Ways and Means Committee, we did have a 
markup. We did have the opportunity to explore this bill, at least the 
part that was in the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee. We 
discovered this tax increase. It wasn't in the Joint Tax score of the 
bill. It wasn't listed as a revenue raiser in their report. We asked 
CBO. They couldn't tell us about it, but we discovered it in the fine 
print. It is a tax on health insurance policies.
  Well, what is that going to do? It is going to raise the cost of 
private health insurance. Maybe that is what the majority wants, to 
raise the cost of private health insurance, to drive even more people 
from private insurance into government health care.
  This new tax is going to generate money sufficient to accumulate to 
about a $3 billion pot of money over the next 10 years. That is a 
substantial sum of money. And, as we have seen from past experience, a 
tax like this, while it may not be big at first, it is awfully hard to 
get rid of, and it is awfully easy to increase.
  This legislation also cuts Medicare funding by about $200 billion. It 
effectively eliminates the Medicare Advantage program. Now, I know the 
majority is going to say no, no, no, it doesn't cut Medicare by $20 
billion. We add back some Medicare benefits, so the net is not nearly 
that much.
  But for the people whose programs are going to be cut, they see it as 
a cut. They don't understand this ``net'' thing. Medicare Advantage is 
going to be cut substantially, and Medicare Advantage programs will go 
away in most rural parts of this country and in a great many inner-city 
areas serving low-income populations. This bill would effectively 
eliminate options for millions of seniors who have depended on Medicare 
Advantage to get better benefits and lower costs for their health care.
  In addition, the bill cuts $7.2 billion in home health care benefits 
and $6.5 billion in nursing home care benefits. These are cuts that are 
real. They are going to be felt by people utilizing those services.
  These cuts are not necessary. I want to stress, these cuts are not 
necessary to cover needy children. The majority has deliberately chosen 
to reduce Medicare funding for some of our neediest seniors in order to 
expand SCHIP to cover anyone up to the age of 21, including, I have 
heard here today, people up to 300 percent of poverty, 400 percent of 
poverty.
  I would tell my colleagues that have said that, they are wrong. This 
bill doesn't say you can go up to 300 percent or 400 percent of 
poverty. It says you can go anywhere you want to. You can cover 
anybody. If a State chooses under this bill, they can not only choose 
to cover people of unlimited income, $100,000, $150,000, $200,000. They 
are entitled to the money.
  There is also a bonus program in this bill that says if you get a new 
enrollee, a new child, maybe he comes from having private insurance, 
maybe he doesn't, but if he is new to this program, you are going to 
get a bonus, which means you are going to get an even higher Federal 
share to fund that new enrollee.
  The State can waive the income eligibility as high as they want. So 
we create a new entitlement program that guarantees States they can get 
as much money as they want to cover anybody they want under their 
government health care program. That is what this bill is all about. 
That is why the minority is intent on stopping its passage today and 
getting a better alternative for reauthorization for low-income 
children.
  This bill is about expanding government health care. Nothing more, 
nothing less. The minority's motion to recommit will reauthorize the 
SCHIP program in its bipartisan form. I urge all of us to wait until 
that motion comes up, vote for that, and then we will truly have a good 
program for low-income children in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond briefly to the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, just to suggest that AHIP, representing America's 
Health Insurance Plans, wrote to us recognizing ``the ambitious effort 
will require significant resources. We believe that comparative 
effective research should be carried out as a public-private 
partnership, with funding from public sources and support from private 
sources, including health insurance plans, employers and 
manufacturers.'' And also to suggest that any recognition of children 
above the previously stated levels had to be done with waivers from the 
Bush administration to Governors requesting it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, just in brief response to my good friend 
from California, our understanding of the provisions of this bill and 
provisions of the law would allow a State to present a State plan 
amendment to the administration that is not subject to approval. They 
have to approve it. So it is not up to the administration to approve 
that. The States can do that at their own will.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Hulshof).
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a lot of self-congratulations, at 
least on one side of this Chamber. Let me congratulate some who have 
spoken here for what appears to this Member to be a pretty breath-
taking lack of consistency. My good friend from Fremont Hills has 
pointed the finger to this side and said we Republicans, we don't care 
about children.
  I would remind my chairman, Mr. Speaker, that the children's health 
program was created by a Republican majority. The gentleman points out 
that this bill today is funded, as the gentleman is nodding, as that 
bill was funded. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago and 2 days 
on July 30, rollcall vote no. 345, on this floor, on the conference 
report creating the Children's Health Insurance Program, I was proud to 
be one of 346 ``aye'' votes. There were 85 ``no'' votes. The gentleman 
from California was a ``no'' vote. The chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee was a ``no'' vote. I find that a bit interesting. Because, 
today, the gentleman from California talks about this being the 
identical bill. This is not the identical bill.
  As my friend from Louisiana has said, we would love to reauthorize 
the

[[Page H9475]]

program for needy children. But should we allow a family in New York 
making $80,000 a year free health care, free to them, but paid for by 
15,000 constituents I am privileged to represent who would have their 
vision care or dental benefits or oxygen services cut, and the savings 
then given to that couple making $80,000 in New York City?
  One-half of the new enrollees under the majority's bill, those new 
enrollees would be people who already have health insurance coverage. 
There is, as the gentleman pointed out, a brand new, per capita tax on 
every health plan in America that raises $2 billion. There are rifle-
shot reimbursements for hospitals in order, presumably, to sway 
undecided Members from Michigan and New York and Tennessee.
  And can anyone really defend the children's health program for 
childless adults, childless adults now being able to qualify for the 
children's health insurance program?
  Needy children, absolutely. Well-to-do adults, I suggest no, 
certainly not at the expense of cuts to senior citizens. We can do 
better. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield myself 15 seconds to point out to my dear friend 
from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) that it is the administration which gives 
waivers to cover parents and adults. The States do not have the 
authority to do so, and they must get the authority from the Federal 
Government, and it is from the Department of HHS that these kinds of 
waivers come, not elsewhere.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, 9 million children in this country lack health insurance 
coverage, so it shouldn't come as a big surprise that 91 percent of 
voters support extending to SCHIP coverage to 5 million more children. 
That is 5 million more children according to the Congressional Budget 
Office, and that Governors from both sides of the aisle are supporting 
this legislation across the country.
  The real surprise is that our President has threatened to veto this 
bill, a bill to cover children and to improve Medicare for our Nation's 
seniors and for people with disabilities. My question is, why are the 
President and so many of our colleagues saying ``no'' to basic health 
care to children, for adequate payments to doctors, for protecting 
Medicare?
  In yesterday's New York Times, I think Paul Krugman hit the nail on 
the head when he said that President Bush must fear the intent of this 
bill, which is to cover more children, because he fears that it 
actually might work. That if America sees government helping children, 
they will wonder why we can't do the same for everyone.
  The President said he opposes expanding children's health care 
because it will hurt private insurance companies. Astounding. Forget 
uninsured kids. The President is the champion of insurance companies.
  And people across the aisle are saying it is really about seniors 
when they are talking about the Medicare Advantage programs. But let's 
be clear. The Medicare Advantage HMOs are reaping overpayments of up to 
40 percent. The overpayments are being subsidized by 80 percent of the 
seniors and disabled people who are not in Medicare Advantage plans 
through higher part B premiums.
  I want to urge the former Speaker of the House to cease giving 
patently false information about the Illinois SCHIP program which 
insures far more children than their parents.
  Let's be on the side of children.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Perhaps if we had had a hearing on this bill, we could have 
discovered what the truth is about this discussion of waivers and State 
plan amendments.
  But our appreciation of the law is that this is not a waiver. I'm not 
talking about a waiver so it does not have to be approved by the 
administration. I am talking about a State plan amendment that is 
simply presented to the administration and it can contain what is known 
as an income disregard. The attorneys with CMS tell us that the 
administration does not have the discretion to turn down an income 
disregard that is presented by a State.
  What an income disregard means, in essence, is a State can cover kids 
from families as rich as they want. And that is our understanding of 
the law. It is too bad we didn't have, or at least the Energy and 
Commerce Committee didn't have, a full-blown hearing on this provision 
or other provisions of the bill so we could have explored that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller), a member of the committee.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, in 1997, I voted ``yes'' to 
create the Children's Health Insurance Program. I was proud a 
Republican Congress put this plan into place, and I support 
reauthorization of this program, but I oppose this bill before us.
  Why? This bill contains big tax increases. What is interesting, when 
we want to make health insurance more affordable, they put a new $2 
billion tax, they call it a per capita tax, on health insurance 
policies, causing them to be more expensive.
  Then there are some big Medicare cuts, in fact, almost $200 billion 
in Medicare cuts, probably the biggest cut in Medicare in the history 
of the program. They want to expand the program, but they want to pay 
for it on the backs of senior citizens by cutting Medicare. So you 
wonder who gets hurt when you cut Medicare to pay for the expansion of 
this program.
  If you just take the $7.6 billion in cuts to home health care, you 
think of that elderly woman that many of us have met. We have been in 
her home. She is an elderly woman with an easy chair by the window, by 
the television. She has a tray or table there. It is filled with pill 
bottles. She is homebound. She watches the world go by. And if she is 
lucky, she has a cat or a dog for a pet and a companion. But, for her, 
home health care is important, because not only is it contact with the 
outside world, but home health care allows her to live in her home in 
dignity even though she is homebound.
  This plan today that is going to be voted on includes a $7.6 billion 
cut in home health care. So if you vote ``yes'' for this legislation, I 
hope you keep in mind that elderly woman stuck at home, homebound, who 
is dependent on home health care; and today she will suffer when this 
House passes this bill. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I just make a comment that not all committees 
are so blessed with ranking members who are so cooperative, and perhaps 
there might have been hearings in other committees if that were the 
case.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and 
Mr. Neal recognizes that the American Academy of Pediatrics has said in 
their letter that they want to stand with us on this important 
legislation, and they will work for its passage.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I think there is one 
acknowledgment that we all ought to come to very quickly, and it goes 
like this: The wealthy, the healthy and the strong have had a great run 
of it for the last 6 years.
  Think of that terror that overcomes that family with that child who 
needs health care. Think of that child who died because he had not 
gotten to a dentist in America in the year 2007. Think of what we are 
doing today, advancing an opportunity for health care for all members 
of the American family.
  My friend, Mr. McCrery, said if we had had an opportunity to vet this 
issue. Let me remind the audience, the Republicans required us to read 
the bill. The Ways and Means Committee spent 6 hours reading the bill. 
To argue that somehow there was not an opportunity to vet the issue 
when we read the bill is akin to setting the fire and calling the fire 
department. That is the argument we are being asked to embrace.
  This is a good piece of legislation. It ought to have bipartisan 
support. Use the model of the National Governors Association. That is a 
bipartisan organization.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, it is apparent to me from the 
misunderstandings apparent in this Chamber on this bill that perhaps we 
should have read the whole bill in greater detail. Maybe we would know 
more about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).

[[Page H9476]]

  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the 
millions of seniors who will be hurt by this bill. In my home State of 
Kentucky, over 73,000 seniors are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans, 
as well as all 19,000 of Kentucky's retired teachers. Each and every 
one of these seniors will have their benefits cut as a result of this 
bill, and some will find themselves without any Medicare Advantage 
options at all.
  It is unconscionable to me that this body would even consider robbing 
seniors by cutting $197 billion out of the Medicare trust fund to give 
to families making $80,000, or even more, free health insurance, many 
of whom already have coverage.
  This bill also cuts home health, hospitals, skilled nursing 
facilities and dialysis centers. It is clear that this bill harms many 
of our Nation's most vulnerable population. This bill should be about 
providing poor children with health care, but it rations our Nation's 
health care, taking from seniors and working-class families to shift 
Americans from private health insurance into a big, liberal, tax-and-
spend government program. Folks, they're back.
  I urge my colleagues to stand by their seniors and defeat this bill. 
Let's get back to helping poor children, not a Michael-Moore-endorsed 
health care system.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), I would like to point out, in 
spite of what has been said by some of my Republican colleagues, this 
is not an entitlement bill. It does, however, protect 11 million kids.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Michigan for 
yielding.
  This bill is important to children. It was important to our 
legislature. It was important to our governor. That is why they passed 
it this session.
  But I want to tell you why health insurance for children is so 
important by telling you about Katelyn, a 6-year-old from Corvallis. 
Katelyn's hardworking parents make too much money to qualify for SCHIP 
under current Oregon eligibility levels but far too little to afford 
the $520-a-month premium for insurance through her father's employer.

                              {time}  1645

  Katelyn was ill for several days and her parents had been trying all 
night to help her stop coughing. Without insurance, the couple had no 
doctor.
  However, the county health department offered pediatric services for 
low-income children every Monday at reduced costs. So Katelyn's parents 
decided to wait and take her to the clinic on Monday, 3 days later. By 
Sunday, Katelyn was worse. Through tears, Katelyn complained that her 
sides hurt.
  When she was able to get to the doctor on Monday, Katelyn was 
diagnosed with pneumonia. With insurance, Katelyn's parents could have 
taken her right away to the doctor. Instead, she suffered for days.
  This story could have had dire consequences. It is why SCHIP is 
critically important. The CHAMP Act will provide Oregon with the 
resources they need to expand health insurance coverage to more 
children, and hopefully, stories like Katelyn will rarely exist.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) who helped create the CHIP bill. 
I can't say he was a midwife for it, but he was there at its inception 
and was instrumental in negotiating it.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, in 2002 when I ran for Congress, I met 
Dolores Sweeney. She works full time in an insurance company, but for 
years she and her three children did not have health insurance until 
SCHIP. Her children are enrolled in the health care program.
  She did right by her family. She worked full-time, had three 
children. She's trying to be both a good worker and a good parent, and 
SCHIP allowed her to do both of those and do them well.
  I just talked to her the other day. She has a 19-year-old now and a 
14-year-old and a 12-year-old. This bill did right by her because her 
children are three success stories out of the 6 million who did right.
  So we stare at the 11 million children and ask, whose parents work 
full-time, that are too wealthy for Medicaid, yet cannot afford private 
insurance, are we just going to throw up our hands to them? Dolores 
Sweeney and the other parents, they will get the same health insurance 
that we ourselves will get and our children get. And the question 
before us will be, are we better than these 11 million children?
  You know, Dick Cheney gets a checkup every other day. Don't America's 
kids deserve a visit to the doctor, I ask you.
  And also I just want to say something to my colleagues who now say 
they're for SCHIP. I was there when President Clinton proposed it. 
Speaker Gingrich was against it. You were against it before you became 
for it. I appreciate your conversion, but you originally were opposed 
to it.
  When President Clinton said that, you said you opposed it. Then you 
said only pediatric care. Then you agreed to pediatric care, and then 
eye and dental visits which is what President Clinton proposed, and I 
do appreciate that you're for it.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are reminded that comments must 
be made through the Chair.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, Republicans were opposed to this bill 
before they were for this bill, and what has happened is that pediatric 
care and the eye and dental care that is in this bill was a principle 
that President Clinton had and there would be no agreement on a 
balanced budget until those kids had that bill.
  You said then it was an entitlement program. Now you have Governors, 
Senators of both parties, who are for this. The American Medical 
Association is for this. Pediatric care is for this. AARP is for this.
  And the ultimate question to those children who don't have health 
care, this time we leave no child behind and give these children the 
health care they deserve and the parents work full time and do right by 
their children.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, in a continuing dialogue with the 
distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, at least 
in the manager's amendment presented to the Ways and Means Committee 
during markup on page 10, this is under section 101 of our bill, it 
states: if a State's expenditures, under this title, exceed the total 
amount with allotments available, and if the average number of children 
enrolled under the State plan exceeds its target average number of such 
enrollees, the allotment under this section shall be increased. Not 
may, shall. That is an entitlement to the States for as much money as 
they want for this program. It is no wonder, I would say to my good 
friend from Illinois, that the Governors are for this. Duh.
  And with that, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of 
the committee, Mr. Cantor.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are again reminded their remarks 
should be addressed through the Chair.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I rise in opposition 
to this bill.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to some of the remarks that were 
just made about somehow the Republicans are against insuring poor 
children and offering them access to health care.
  I can tell you one thing, this Republican was not in this body when 
President Clinton was in office. So I could never have been against 
this program before I'm for it. So I take issue with that.
  I am for, as I believe most of my colleagues are for, a program that 
provides access to health care for poor children, but what we have here 
is a 400 percent increase in the SCHIP price tag because what the 
majority has done has increased eligibility to the 400 percent level 
over poverty. In many areas of this country, we're well in excess of 
families who are making $100,000 a year. These are children, 90 percent 
of whom already have health care coverage.
  So what that means is the price that we pay for this type of 
expansion is a dangerous lurch forward toward a Washington-based, 
bureaucratic-controlled health care system. Which

[[Page H9477]]

medicines will we get? Which surgeries will be available? And when? And 
when? Which disease is worth treating? These are the vital choices that 
right now American families are able to make, but frankly, the majority 
wants the government to make.
  But how do they pay for this? They pay for this largely by cutting 
Medicare. That's what we're about here, choosing to cut Medicare, cut 
seniors' ability to have a choice under the Medicare program so we can 
provide access to insurance for children whose parents make over 
$100,000 a year. That just doesn't make any sense.
  Now, secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would say as my colleagues before me, 
another way that this bill is funded is a brand-new tax on health 
insurance for all Americans that have health insurance policies.
  Again, the bill creates a health care competitiveness-affected 
research trust fund. That's another attempt basically to allow perhaps, 
if not run right, a government bureaucrat to dictate which therapies a 
physician can use.
  The bottom line, this bill is misguided. We need to take a much 
better look at this, and frankly, the last point I was going to make, 
Mr. Speaker, is this bill makes it up to the States, optional, whether 
to require documentation as to anyone who is legal who wants to receive 
benefits under this. This is another attempt, Mr. Speaker, at allowing 
our SCHIP benefits to go to illegal immigrants, something that I don't 
believe the American public is in favor of.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to an extremely valuable and 
respected member of the Commerce Committee, my good friend from Utah 
(Mr. Matheson) 2 minutes.
  Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My wife and I are very fortunate. We have two wonderful little boys. 
Their names are William and Harris, and they're really fortunate 
because they have access to health care because, as a Congressman, I 
have access to the Federal employee health insurance program. And 
that's how it is for all of us as Members of Congress. See, we have 
health insurance and our kids have health insurance.
  This debate isn't about us, and as we get caught up in these 
discussions, this rhetoric about process and concerns about the way 
this bill has come to the floor, I think we're losing sight about who 
this issue is really about because we've got 11 million kids in this 
country who are involved in households where they make enough money 
they don't qualify for Medicare. How do we get them access to health 
care?
  The CHIP program's done a great job in the past 10 years, and we've 
got about 6 million of them covered, but there are 5 million kids out 
there who still aren't.
  That's what this debate is about, and I think when you have something 
sometimes you take it for granted, and all of us take for granted the 
fact that we have health insurance.
  Now, let me tell you why I don't take this for granted because, in my 
household, my wife happens to be a pediatrician, and she works at a 
children's hospital in Salt Lake City. She tells me the stories about 
kids who come into that hospital who have not had access to preventive 
care, who have health problems that escalated into far more serious 
circumstances because they didn't have access to health care, and I 
hear those stories all the time.
  That's what we ought to be focused on in this debate. That's what 
this debate is about. Vote for this bill. Let's do the right thing for 
our country's children.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana has 30 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McCRERY. And what about the majority?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 25\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 21\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McCRERY. I think, Mr. Speaker, in order to kind of even out the 
remaining time, I will yield to my colleagues in the majority if that's 
okay.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and he's a gentleman who 
understands that most of us in Congress whose children are insured are 
insured by a government-run, taxpayer-funded health insurance plan 
which we like quite well.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, actually, I'm not. I rely on my wife.
  Mr. Speaker, the same framework that our friends have been 
complaining about on the other side of the aisle is a State block grant 
program has been retained. It's successful, but underfunded.
  Their complaints of enhanced programs ring hollow when you examine 
them. I heard my friend the distinguished minority whip come to the 
floor and talking about his opposition to higher income levels, and I 
find some irony in that because his State is one of them, Missouri 
where there was a request by his son, the Republican Governor, for a 
waiver from the Republican Bush administration which has been granted 
that allows a level 3 times higher than the poverty level.
  They don't feel comfortable with the requests that are coming from 
the State level for the innovation. However, that's what it was about 
in the first place.
  This program is not about putting Medicare Advantage at risk. It's 
being adjusted. This bill helps with reform. I am pleased that 157 
counties in 27 States are being rewarded with an efficiency bonus. My 
State's medical system is strengthened by helping kids.
  I urge all to vote for this bill.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) who understands that the National 
Rural Health Association has endorsed the 2007 CHAMP Act as critical to 
rural children and seniors across the Nation.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, last fall, my 8-year-old son Matt, while he was 
sleeping, fell off the top of his bunkbed, broke his clavicle. As Tawni 
and I were driving to the emergency room to get treatment to this kid 
in excruciating pain, I thought of the numerous parents throughout 
America who fear the financial consequences of taking care of their 
child in an emergency or if they had an ear infection or an abscessed 
tooth or an asthma attack because they didn't have adequate health care 
coverage for that child. That is wrong. That is unacceptable. And we 
change that today.
  The CHAMP Act expands health coverage to 5 million more children, and 
with the reforms we make under the Medicare system, we extend the 
solvency of Medicare for three additional years, unlike the Republican-
passed Medicare reform bill passed just a few years ago that called for 
the largest expansion of entitlement funding in over 40 years, with no 
ability to pay for it.
  We pay for this bill with a modest increase in the cigarette tax, 
which is also the best thing we can do to prevent these kids from being 
addicted to that poison and incurring smoking-related illness with 
associated life-long health costs.
  I ask my colleagues to support the bill.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time 
of the gentleman from Michigan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the CHAMP Act of 2007.
  I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues won't stand up to the 
HMOs and won't stand up for healthy children. In the words of Dr. 
Martin Luther King, ``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' The 
Republicans just don't get it. Delay is not debate. Health care delayed 
is health care denied.
  There is no power like the power of a made-up mind; and, early on, 
the Republicans in the Commerce Committee markup made up their mind to 
forestall health care for our children. Then, last night and this 
morning, on this very floor, they made up their mind to stall health 
care for 12 million uninsured children.
  Now it remains up to us, the Democrats in this House, to make up our 
minds and to install health care for

[[Page H9478]]

children, for those 11 million children and low-income pregnant women. 
Now is the time. There is no other time like this time, so now, most 
definitely, now is the right time.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill for America's babies. We 
must champion health care coverage for 11 million children. They need 
us. They depend on us. They need this health care coverage.
  We must pass the CHAMP Act of 2007. We must put our poor children in 
the winner's circle.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
majority whip, Mr. Clyburn.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3162, 
the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007.
  I want to commend Chairs Rangel, Dingell, Stark and Pallone for 
working with all of our caucuses in drafting this piece of legislation. 
I also rise to explain why I and many of my colleagues are unequivocal 
on the need for Congress to cover all eligible kids.
  There is an old judicial axiom that says ``Justice delayed is justice 
denied.'' The same is true for health care, and there is no better 
example on how health care delay is health care denied than the story 
of Devante Johnson from Houston, Texas. Thirteen-year-old Devante 
Johnson from Houston, Texas, had advanced kidney cancer and could not 
afford to be without health care coverage. But, last year, the Johnson 
family spent 4 desperate months uninsured while his mother tried to 
renew his Medicare coverage.
  For years, Devante and his two brothers were covered by Medicaid. 
Texas families who qualify for Medicaid or CHIP are required to renew 
their coverage every 6 months. Devante's mother, Tamika, had tried to 
get a head start by sending their paperwork 2 months before Medicaid 
was set to expire.
  That application sat for 6 weeks until it was processed and then 
transferred to CHIP, because an employee believed the family no longer 
qualified for Medicaid. At that point, the paperwork got lost in the 
system.
  For 4 months, Devante went without health insurance as employees 
unsuccessfully attempted to reinstate his coverage. As a result, he 
could no longer receive regular treatment and had to rely on clinical 
trials for care. Meanwhile, his tumors grew.
  It wasn't until the State representative intervened that Devante's 
coverage was immediately reinstated. But it was too late. Devante 
Johnson died on March 1, 2007.
  I want you to look at him. He has to mean something to you. For, in 
the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., ``There is nothing more dangerous 
than sincere ignorance and conscious stupidity.''
  We cannot allow this to continue. Support the Devantes of our great 
country and give health care to all of our children.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the committee.
  Mr. LINDER. Thank you for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, about 2 years ago, the Government Accountability Office 
brought before the Ways and Means Committee a study that said if we 
continue to tax at the current percentage of the economy and continue 
to spend in discretionary spending at the current percentage of the 
economy that just 33 years from today the entire Federal revenue stream 
will be insufficient to just pay the interest on the debt.
  I know the Democrats will say raise taxes. In 100 percent of the time 
in the last 60 times that we have raised taxes, we have slowed the 
economy and slowed revenues.
  This Congress will not reduce spending. So what is their solution to 
our dilemma? The problems are, as the GAO said, three entitlement 
programs, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. They propose to give 
us another one, with no caps, expanding coverage to illegal immigrants, 
by the language from the CBO, expanding coverage to adults with no 
children, by the definition of their act, and allowing the States to 
lift the ceiling on eligibility entirely.
  This is a back-door or front-door entrance for Hillary care, national 
health care. You will recall that in that program if a doctor treated a 
patient for free outside the system, they are liable for criminal 
fines. That isn't in this bill, yet.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding, also 
for his outstanding leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I operate from a very 
simple premise, and that is this, that if America is the greatest 
country in the world, then all of our children should have health 
insurance.
  It's that simple. This bill does that. It covers 5 million additional 
children of the working poor; and it gives them health care, dental 
care and access to mental care health services. That's what's needed in 
this country.
  It's amazing to listen to the scare tactics of Republicans. It's 
almost amusing.
  First, they start talking about illegal aliens. No, that's not what 
this bill is about. They said, well you are going to kill our private 
insurance. These are working poor people. They don't have insurance.
  They said, well, it's $100,000 families. No, it's the existing 
eligibility limit. Then they say, well, you are going to create a 
massive new entitlement program. No, it's a grant program with bonuses 
for States that do a good job of insuring more people.
  Finally, they resort to Hillary care. We are all supposed to be 
scared.
  We are taking this issue very seriously, because we understand that 
there are working poor people in America that work every day. Half of 
them are women. They work in the service industries, they work in labor 
jobs, and those jobs do not offer health insurance. That's why we are 
here.
  We are here because when they don't have health insurance. Their 
children don't get screenings. Their children don't get check-ups. They 
can't get treated for asthma. When their children are in severe pain, 
they go to the emergency room, and that costs more money.
  I will give you example from my district. Deamonte Driver, he had a 
toothache, tooth decay. It would have cost $80. He didn't get it. The 
tooth became infected. The infection traveled to his brain.
  Two surgeries costing $250,000 were attempted to save his life. They 
were unsuccessful. Deamonte Driver died. We need to prevent these types 
of tragedies in America.
  I am appalled when I think about it, that if a third-world Communist 
country like Cuba can offer health insurance to the families of factory 
workers, we have to be able to do it here in America, the greatest 
country in the world.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, before I recognize our next speaker, I want 
to point out two things. Number one, there has been a couple of 
references to this child who died because of a tooth problem. According 
to the Washington Post story, I don't know this, but according to the 
Washington Post story, this child was actually on Medicaid. He was 
covered by Medicaid. But because so few dentists in that State accepted 
Medicaid patients because of the poor quality of the Medicaid program, 
this child didn't get access. But he was covered.
  I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion we are having on 
SCHIP.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways 
and Means committee and the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. 
Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is really puzzling. If this was a status quo 
bill, if this was the same law that we already have in place, no new 
people, then why does it cost $130 billion in more money? Why does it 
cost so much more?
  This bill goes way beyond insuring low-income children. If this was 
all about just giving health insurance to uninsured low-income 
children, no problem. You would have a near unanimous vote out of here. 
That's not what this bill does.
  They say this bill doesn't have those income limits. This bill has no 
income limits. This bill says to the States, give it to whomever you 
want, no asset test, no income limits. That's why this test costs so 
much money.

[[Page H9479]]

  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office is saying in analyzing this 
bill that they will push 2.4 million kids off of private insurance onto 
government health care, not my statistics, the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  They are already acknowledging that this is more about insuring low-
income, uninsured kids. This is really about putting people on 
government health care, especially those who even have health insurance 
today.
  My friends, our constituents, the U.S. taxpayer, don't want to pay 
for health care that's already being paid for by someone else. But that 
is what this bill does. This bill creates an enormous budget mess.
  I find it kind of ironic that the majority that could not find $1 
worth of entitlement savings in their budget comes to this floor with 
$200 billion of cuts to Medicare to pay for expanding this new program. 
When it came time to reducing the deficit and keeping taxes low, no 
savings to be found. Now, hey, $200 billion in Medicare cuts, cut 3 
million seniors off the Medicare Advantage program to grow a new 
entitlement.
  Yes, this is a new entitlement program, a new entitlement for States. 
It gives them a never-ending spigot of new money. But what's so, so 
critical, what's so hypocritical about this bill is, after cranking up 
spending for 5 years, after putting 5 million children on health care, 
kicking 2.4 million off of private health insurance, what do they do to 
conform with their PAYGO rules? What do they do to shoehorn this huge 
program into their budget? They just kick everybody off. They just 
rescind the program. They just turn the spigot money off.
  Does anybody believe that after putting 5 million people on health 
insurance we are just going to take it away from them in 2014? No, 
we're not.
  So this whole thing really is a bug sham. What they are saying is, 
with this legislation, we want to give 5 million people health 
insurance for kids, no matter what income limit. But, in 2014, we are 
taking it away from them. That's crazy. That's not budgeting. That's 
creating a new program, a new entitlement, and not paying for it.
  This puts our fiscal house, which is already messed up, in serious 
jeopardy.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, one of the great falsehoods I have heard 
today, unfortunately, is this attempt by one side of the aisle who is 
against trying to get kids health insurance here keep saying somehow we 
are raising the eligibility to those folks who are hanging out at the 
country club. That is simply not true. That is bogus. We are 
maintaining the same levels of eligibility in America that exist today, 
yesterday and tomorrow in this bill.
  What we are doing is simply allowing our State governments, our local 
governments, the ones that I know many of my Republican friends believe 
are effective and more efficient than the Federal Government, to 
fulfill their desire to reach these kids who are eligible today, but 
the Federal Government is not actually reaching to provide this 
insurance.
  Now, where is the criminality in that in that? Where is the 
inefficiency in that? We have simply said federally that children of a 
certain income level should have health insurance, and we are simply 
saying those same children of the same exact economic considerations 
are now going to actually get it. That's all we are doing.
  I want to mention another thing we are doing here. We have 11 States 
that have really been ahead of the Federal Government in providing 
health insurance for their kids. As a result, for a decade now, they 
have been punished in that they haven't been able to use the same 
resources to reach the kid they have already insured.
  We fix that, 100 percent fix today. The States, if you are from the 
States of Washington, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Connecticut, Hawaii, Rhode 
Island, Minnesota, Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont and Tennessee, do 
not vote against this bill, because it finally, finally restores this 
inequity that finally we will be able to get fair treatment for your 
States and your children.
  So, today, we have got a fair bill all the way around.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the distinguished ranking member of 
the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, control the 
remainder of the time for the minority.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, a member of the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in reluctant 
opposition to H.R. 3162.
  Yesterday, I joined my colleague, the gentlelady from New Mexico 
(Mrs. Wilson) in the introduction of a bill which embodied the Senate 
version of SCHIP reauthorization. I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor; I fully support that legislation.
  Unlike the bill we are debating today, the Senate version is far less 
pernicious and does not raid low-income seniors to pay for an expansion 
of coverage for middle-class families.
  Proposed Medicare cuts in this legislation could have a devastating 
impact on access to Medicare Advantage plans. The seniors that use 
these plans, if they didn't experience an outright loss of coverage, 
would, at minimum, experience higher premiums, benefit cuts, or both.
  According to an April 2007 study by Emory University researchers Ken 
Thorpe and Adam Atherly, 3 million people would lose their access to MA 
coverage if Congress sets MA payments at the same level as payments for 
traditional Medicare.
  Moving from the macro numbers to the practical effects of seniors in 
my district, it causes even more concern. Over 15,000 seniors in Butler 
County, Pennsylvania would experience a 15 percent cut in their plan's 
reimbursement. Nearly 15,000 seniors in Erie County would experience a 
29 percent cut, and over 8,000 seniors in Mercer County would be 
impacted by a 17 percent cut in their plan's reimbursement should this 
bill be passed.
  This blatant raid on seniors' pocketbooks contained in this bill is 
enough to warrant a vote in opposition. But, Mr. Speaker, the most 
troubling factor in this bill is that this raid on seniors is being 
used to pay, in many cases, for families with incomes as high as over 
$82,000 a year. At a time when so many seniors are tightening their 
belts on fixed incomes, raiding their pocketbooks to pay for health 
care for middle-class households is simply not right.
  I have been a supporter of SCHIP from the beginning. I have trumpeted 
its success. But this SCHIP reauthorization has been hijacked by people 
who have a different agenda. We will have another vote on this when it 
comes back from the other Chamber and from conference. I am voting 
``no'' on this wrongheaded approach on a very important issue.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to recognize the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for 1\1/2\ minutes, and, 
pending that, point out that he recognizes that the hospitals and 
physicians in Pennsylvania overwhelmingly endorse this bill.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, we could certainly slow the aging process 
down if it had to work its way through Congress.
  This year, 6 million children will have access to quality affordable 
health insurance because of the program we know as the SCHIP. These 
children are in working families with parents who either can't afford 
insurance or hold jobs that lack health care benefits. We have an 
opportunity today.
  In New Jersey, we have over 100,000 of eligible kids who aren't 
enrolled in New Jersey alone. Are we going to do the same thing on 
health care that we did to those kids in Head Start? So many eligible, 
not enough resources, wrongheaded priorities?
  Contrary to what my friends on the other side said, the Ways and 
Means Committee has also worked to protect the integrity and solvency 
of Medicare and to approve the benefits for all beneficiaries within 
this bill.

[[Page H9480]]

  The fully paid for CHAMP Act protects Medicare from privatization, 
promotes fiscal responsibility, you have got to read the bill, by 
reducing overpayments to private plans. I see nothing wrong with that. 
Adding 3 years to the Medicare trust fund solvency, I think that is a 
home run. Limiting premium increases, two home runs, and improving 
access and benefits for all Medicare participants.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill needs everyone's support in here. It should be 
and will be bipartisan.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 22\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from California has 19 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from New Jersey has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1 minute to 
the distinguished lady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of the CHAMP Act, and I want to tell you why. This 
bill will ensure continued coverage for the 39,000 kids already covered 
by SCHIP in my State of Nevada, while providing resources to reach the 
70,000 children currently eligible but that remain uninsured because 
there is not enough money.
  This bill also makes needed updates and improvements to Medicare to 
ensure that our seniors receive preventative services, mental health 
care, and physical speech and occupational therapies that they need. 
Almost 98,000 low-income seniors in Nevada will benefit from 
improvements in Medicare savings programs and low-income subsidy 
programs as well.
  Passing this bill is also necessary to ensure access to physicians 
for Medicare patients. The CHAMP Act restores funding necessary to 
reimburse the doctors for their services.
  My district has the fastest growing senior population in the United 
States. It is essential that these seniors have access to their doctors 
under the Medicare program. This bill ensures they will.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished lady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), who understands 
that the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare 
has overwhelmingly endorsed the 2007 CHAMP Act.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise proudly in strong support of the 
Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act.
  As someone who helped to create one of the first CHIP programs in the 
country in Pennsylvania in 1992, I know what a difference it has made 
in the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of children in 
Pennsylvania. And since 1997, it has made a difference in the lives of 
6 million children across this country.
  Today, we build on the success of CHIP. It is a public-private, 
Federal-State partnership and secures access to coverage for 11 million 
children of hardworking American families.
  At a time of rising health care costs for working families and 
increasing numbers of uninsured children, today we have an answer for 
American families. The action we take today will sustain health 
coverage for 6 million children currently enrolled, and will make 
available affordable coverage for an additional 5 million American 
children.
  This is an extraordinary step forward in ensuring access to health 
coverage for American children. It is simply not good enough to say you 
support improving access to health coverage for children and then vote 
``no.'' Rather, vote with children of this country and their parents. I 
urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted at this time to recognize the 
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for 1 minute, who 
understands well how private health insurance companies have 
overprofited from their overpayment.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud Mr. Stark, 
Mr. Rangel, Mr. Dingell, and Mr. Pallone for their outstanding 
leadership in bringing this bill before us today.
  I turn to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and say to 
them, do not remain frozen in the ice of your own indifference towards 
the needs of children in this country.
  It is imperative that we pass this bill. It is imperative not because 
of the statistics and the numbers, but because these are our children 
and our kids. That you find the time and the money to blindly put 
forward into reconstruction efforts in Iraq, but not the time, not the 
effort to make sure that kids in our own country receive the necessary 
funding that they need.
  It is written that the difference between CHAMP and CHUMP is ``U.'' 
Do not become the vote that turns away the children in this country.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are reminded to address their 
remarks through the Chair.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to 
a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Tiberi.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this bill 
today.
  I support the Children's Health Insurance Program. The original goal 
was worthy, Mr. Speaker: Cover poor children. Unfortunately this bill 
does much more than that. It expands the program to more adults and to 
children of middle-class parents who may already have insurance, and 
funds this expansion through relying on tobacco taxes that are going to 
bring in less revenues through the years, including tax increases on 
private health care plans, cuts to community hospitals, nursing homes, 
home health care providers, and, yes, cuts to Medicare beneficiaries.
  Democrats are cutting Medicare, specifically the Medicare Advantage 
program. Seniors in my district have been writing and calling me, and I 
have been talking to them.
  One said to me, ``The quality of our health coverage is greatly 
improved through Medicare Advantage.'' Another said, ``I cannot afford 
higher out-of-pocket costs. I get preventative care. I also get some 
dental coverage and eye care that I would not be entitled to under 
original Medicare.'' And, lastly, ``Please, in the name of decency, do 
not vote to change my health care.''
  Mr. Speaker, over 13,000 of my constituents benefit from Medicare 
Advantage. I will not vote to cut their benefits today. I will not, Mr. 
Speaker, support this bill which pits grandparents versus their 
grandkids.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) 2 minutes.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the CHAMP Act, 
and our chairmen who have worked so hard to craft this bill deserve 
great credit. It is a very strong measure.
  There are many reasons to support this bill, but chief among them is 
the fact that this bill will provide health care coverage for an 
additional 5 million low income children, bringing the total to 11 
million insured infants and children covered under SCHIP. This 
represents real progress at reducing America's 46.6 million uninsured 
people, and I am proud to support this progress.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also proud to note that the CHAMP Act does not pit 
children against seniors, as has been suggested by many of the 
Republicans, but instead works to improve health care for both children 
and seniors.
  The bill includes many investments in Medicare that will directly 
benefit the health of our seniors. The bill includes a physician fix so 
that our doctors will not be subjected to the harsh 10 percent 
scheduled cut in reimbursement, and, providing this fix will ensure 
that beneficiaries have continued access to their physicians.
  In addition, this bill provides many more protections to Medicare 
beneficiaries by expanding and improving the programs which ensure that 
Medicare remains affordable to those with lower income. The CHAMP Act 
also expands access to preventative benefits and mental health benefits 
for all Medicare seniors.
  But back to my first point. If this Congress stands for anything, it 
should stand for children, for providing them with comprehensive health 
care, for giving them the support and care they need for a healthy 
life.

[[Page H9481]]

  I am reminded of the first day of this session when Speaker Pelosi 
invited all the children to join her at the podium. This Congress 
should be judged based on how we protect our Nation's children. That is 
this vote.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished lady from Ohio (Ms. Tubbs Jones). And, pending that, I 
suggest that she understands that the American Nurses Association has 
expressed their undying support for the Children's Health and Medicare 
Protection Act.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
3162, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. And for the 
Record, I want to compliment the Chair, Mr. Rangel; the ranking member, 
Mr. Stark; and the staff of the Ways and Means Committee for all of 
their hard work, because I was one of those at the table battling on 
behalf of a whole lot of people.
  This piece of legislation will be critically important to children. 
But while expanding access to health care for children is my key focus, 
I remain watchful of the provisions that could have adversely affected 
persons with end-stage renal disease. I'm pleased that there are 
provisions in the bill that will help measure and, hopefully, reduce 
racial and ethnic disparities in kidney care, bolster the health and 
health care of our low-income seniors and protect our Nation's 
hardworking health providers.
  As I have said many times before, the CHAMP Act is an example of a 
socially responsible and medically appropriate health policy that will 
improve the health and well-being of our Nation's most vulnerable 
residents.
  I call upon all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this 
legislation.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must observe that if Members 
yielding time in debate also include extensive comments, the Chair may 
have to charge the time consumed by such remarks against that Member's 
time for debate.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Chairmen Dingell, 
Rangel, Pallone and Stark for their bold leadership in bringing this 
legislation to the House floor. As Congressman for the 15th poorest 
district in the Nation, a district where 50 percent of the children 
qualify for SCHIP, I enthusiastically support passage.
  The CHAMP Act of 2007 reflects what should be our Nation's 
priorities. It is the duty of Congress to keep the promise of our 
Constitution, to provide for the general welfare of our people. What 
better way, Mr. Speaker, to keep that promise than to guarantee that 
our children are afforded adequate health insurance.
  The sad fact is that a majority of uninsured children are minority, 
including 1.4 million black children and 3.4 million Hispanic children. 
In my State of North Carolina, 195,000 children are eligible but not 
enrolled in the program. We have a moral obligation to ensure all 
children who are unable to afford insurance have that insurance. To do 
less would be shameful.
  Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by thanking the gentleman for giving me 
this time and also expressing disappointment with my Republican friends 
who have engaged in nothing but obstructionism and filibuster as we 
have struggled to bring this legislation to the floor.
  You insisted on reading a 495-page bill, consuming 18 hours of our 
committee time. You have made your adjournment motions this week, and 
you have wrongfully suggested that we want to insure illegal aliens. 
That's wrong. And then you accuse us of taking Medicare benefits from 
our seniors; and then you use that worn out phrase, ``tax increase''.
  The American people have figured it out. You are doing every 
conceivable thing to prevent giving insurance coverage to 5 million 
children of the working poor.
  My friends, you are wrong.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, as quickly as I can, I would like to 
recognize the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) for 1\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I've listened to a lot of allegations, Mr. 
Speaker, that the Democratic Party, the party that crafted Medicare and 
Social Security and Medicaid, is somehow cutting health care benefits. 
I don't want this debate to end without putting a few simple facts in 
perspective.
  There is one party in this Chamber that said to 13 million working 
class families on Medicaid for the first time, you have to make a co-
pay for your kids to go to the doctor.
  There is one party in this Chamber that, 4 years ago, in the Medicare 
Modernization Act, tucked in the fine print of the bill a requirement 
of guaranteed Medicare cuts in the next several years.
  There is one party in this Chamber that passed the prescription drug 
bill that contained a massive doughnut hole for seniors which allowed 
them to lose their coverage for a period of time.
  There's one party in this Chamber that has sent five budgets, just in 
my tenure, to the floor of the Congress cutting Medicaid benefits.
  There is one party in this Chamber that has proposed to cut, that has 
passed a guaranteed 10 percent cut for reimbursements for doctors, set 
to go into effect beginning on January 1.
  It is the Republican party.
  Let there be no debate, Mr. Speaker. There is one party that has its 
bona fides on the question of health care. It is the party that is 
moving today a bill that will provide universal coverage for all 
children who need it.
  It is shameful for this debate to have been twisted and distorted in 
the manner that it has.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 
21 minutes. The gentleman from California has 13\1/2\ minutes. The 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 11\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the CHAMP 
Act. The message of this bill is, Washington knows best.
  I recently received a letter from one of my over 4,500 seniors in my 
district who could lose their Medicare Advantage benefits under this 
bill. Kathleen Lopez of Marysville, California, writes, ``I chose a 
Medicare Advantage plan because I receive Social Security benefits less 
than $700 net per month. This plan encourages preventive care, has some 
vision and dental coverage. This type of plan eliminates costly monthly 
expenses for health coverage.''
  In addition to slashing Medicare Advantage, this bill contains 
massive expansion of SCHIP that takes kids from middle-class and even 
upper-class families off private insurance and puts them into a 
government-paid program.
  All of us support reauthorization of SCHIP. Everyone supports health 
care for low-income children. But what we are debating here today is 
whether to turn this successful anti-poverty program into an open-ended 
entitlement with effectively no limits on eligibility.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a choice. We can move towards a 21st century 
patient-centered health care system driven by competition and 
innovation, or we can go backwards towards a system of socialized 
medicine like the one that the Canadian doctors come here to escape.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill goes in the wrong direction. I urge my 
colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm delighted to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we all pay the price when 46 million 
Americans, 9 million of them children, have no health insurance. We all 
have a responsibility, a moral responsibility to make sure that our 
most vulnerable get the health care coverage they need.
  The State Children's Health Insurance Program is perhaps the best 
social policy success story of the last decade. At a time when most 
Americans want to see this program reach more of the 6 million children 
who are eligible but still uninsured, the administration's proposal 
would result in hundreds of thousands of children losing their 
coverage. That is the wrong direction and the wrong choice for our 
country.

[[Page H9482]]

  The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act will take us in the 
right direction, reaching children most in need, while improving 
Medicare for 44 million seniors and people with disabilities.
  This is about embracing our Nation's most serious challenge, a 
challenge the Federal government has the ability, the capacity, the 
resources and the moral obligation to help us meet.
  We all have a stake in solving this crisis. No one, not even the 
President, should be able to undermine the great promise of a healthy 
future for our kids.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 1 minute to my good 
friend and colleague from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Children's 
Health and Medicare Protection Act. This bill provides health care to 
those who most need it, our children. That's what this bill is about.
  The CHAMP Act means that the coverage of almost 50,000 children 
enrolled in Iowa's CHIP Program, called the Hawkeye program, will be 
secured. This bill also provides essential funding for the State to 
reach the almost 30,000 children who are eligible for the program but 
remain uninsured.
  In addition, the CHAMP Act would provide the State of Iowa with a new 
option to cover an additional 47,000 children who are aging out of 
Medicare and CHIP.
  No child should go without health care. No child should go without 
regular checkups, preventive care and treatment of illnesses. The CHAMP 
Act serves as a crucial health care safety net for low-income, 
uninsured children. That's what it's all about. And I urge my 
colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to 
a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, for the Record, there is only one 
party that fought hard to make sure our seniors had life-saving drugs, 
even though our colleagues across the aisle had 8 years of the White 
House and control of the Senate and never brought a bill to the floor 
to help our seniors with their medicines.
  And I'd point out that while many lobbyists in Washington support 
this bill, I've not heard from one hospital, not one nurse, not one 
physician, not one senior who supports this bill.
  380,000, that's how many Texas elderly will likely lose their 
personal Medicare plan as a result of this bill. 107,000, that's how 
many seniors in the Houston-Beaumont-Huntsville region will see serious 
cuts in their Medicare Advantage plan, or be forced into other plans 
with less health care coverage as a result of $50 billion of 
unnecessary and drastic Medicare cuts.
  This is kid care versus Medicare. And only in the poisonous 
environment of Washington do politicians pit children against their 
grandparents. It is a cynical and a false choice that will leave many 
seniors stranded without the health care plan that fits their needs.
  I, like others, support covering more children for health insurance, 
but not at the expense of elderly.
  I sit on the committee charged with preserving Medicare, keeping 
seniors healthy; and these Medicare Advantage plans are the preferred 
plan for many of our Texas elderly. They're especially critical to our 
rural and low-income and minority seniors because they provide a 
comprehensive plan with medicines and emphasis on prevention.
  I also believe that before Congress expands CHIP to higher-income 
families, it should first help the children of low-income families 
which the program was designed to serve. Maybe we should subsidize the 
coverage for the bank president's kids, but shouldn't we first help the 
health care for the bank teller's kids?
  Texas, like many States, barely covers half of the children already 
eligible for this; and, as a Congress, our goal should be to cover the 
children of working poor first.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm privileged to yield 1 
minute to the Delegate from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I'm proud to be here, Mr. Speaker, to stand in 
strong support of the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 
2007.
  We also have additional champs in Chairmen Dingell, Rangel, Stark and 
Pallone, as well as the Speaker and the Democratic leadership.
  Today, we're fulfilling a commitment we made on the first day of this 
Congress to take care of America's children. By passing H.R. 3162, we 
will take the first step to insuring the 6 million low-income, now 
uninsured children in this country, including many who are racial and 
ethnic minorities; and we'll be investing in a healthier future for 
them and our country by ensuring they get comprehensive care.

                              {time}  1745

  In CHAMP we also fulfill a commitment to our seniors and persons with 
disabilities, especially those of low income, to remove some of the 
remaining barriers to Medicare. This bill helps children and seniors.
  And we are beginning to help bring provider payments in line with the 
rising cost of providing medical care as well as to start the reform 
this country needs. This legislation is not only good for our children, 
our seniors, and our disabled, it is good for our country.
  If we only extended CHIP, as our Republican colleagues suggested, it 
would cause 800,000 children to lose coverage. We can't do that.
  Support this bill. Reject the motion to recommit.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have heard a lot of generosity on the floor today, Mr. Speaker. 
People can always be generous with other people's money. And it seems 
that the new majority back in power has already gone the way of the old 
Democratic majority and, in fairness, along the way of mistakes that we 
made.
  I was one of the Republicans that opposed our effort to vastly expand 
Medicare with the prescription drug entitlement. I think voters 
actually put some of us on the pavement because, with an $8 trillion 
national debt, they are tired of reckless and runaway spending in 
Washington, D.C.
  This bill is a massive increase in the government's role in health 
care. It makes millions of middle-class families eligible for 
government insurance, many of which are already covered under private 
plans. I don't think taxpayers should be required to pay for government 
insurance for the children of parents who earn up to $80,000 a year. 
And we do this at the expense of seniors, cutting into the Medicare 
Advantage program.
  And I would say to you American taxpayers should not have to support 
a system that provides health insurance coverage for illegal 
immigrants. This legislation allows funding of illegal immigrants in 
health care. It cuts health care for millions of senior citizens in the 
Medicare Advantage program. It provides government insurance for 
higher-income families, and it drastically expands the role of the 
government in America's health care system.
  It just seems to me this new majority does well when it reminds the 
American people that we have a moral obligation to come to terms with 
an $8 trillion national debt. The next time I hear one of those 
speeches on the floor, Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if I run to the 
floor to remind people of a $47 billion middle-class entitlement that 
passed the Congress today.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the CHAMP Act, to oppose middle-class 
entitlements.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute 
to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on the other hand unlike the 
minority, I rise to champion the CHAMP Act. Let me thank Chairman 
Stark, let me thank Mr. Dingell, and Mr. Rangel for providing the 
threesome who understood that our children are in need!
  Mr. Speaker, it is a crisis. The CHIPS is getting ready to expire. I 
am very glad that we did something monumental in 1997 by implementing a 
program to help America's children--

[[Page H9483]]

CHIP. Five million children will be added. It will make it a total of 
11 million children. Also seniors will have their choice of hospitals 
an doctors and they will be able to get all of their benefits under 
Medicare.
  We will follow the current immigration law so the argument regarding 
undocumented immigrants is unfounded. But a sick person is a sick 
person, a sick baby is a sick baby, and Texas needs dollars, and 
America needs this health coverage.
  At the same time, I look forward to working with the committee so 
that our doctor-owned hospitals in rural and underserved areas will be 
able to get a waiver so that they can continue to serve in those areas. 
But I am proud that we are providing more benefits, not fewer benefits, 
and we are providing more dollars for the State of Texas' most neediest 
residents--children and seniors--they need good health care now.
  I urge my colleagues to support the CHAMP Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Children's Health 
and Medicare Protection Act of 2007 (CHAMP Act). I would like to thank 
my colleague Mr. Dingell for introducing this legislation, and for his 
leadership, together with that of Mr. Rangel, in shepherding this 
legislation through both the Energy and Commerce and the Ways and Means 
Committees.
  This important legislation commits $50 billion to reauthorize and 
improve the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, and it 
also makes critical investments in Medicare to protect the health care 
available to our Nation's senior citizens. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this excellent bill.
  Mr. Speaker, SCHIP was created in 1997, with broad bipartisan 
support, to address the critical issue of the large numbers of children 
in our country without access to health care. It serves the children of 
working families who earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but 
who either are not able to afford health insurance or whose parents 
hold jobs without health care benefits.
  Children without health insurance often forgo crucial preventative 
treatment. They cannot go to the doctor for annual checkups or to 
receive treatment for relatively minor illnesses, allowing easily 
treatable ailments to become serious medical emergencies. They must 
instead rely on costly emergency care. This has serious health 
implications for these children, and it creates additional financial 
burdens on their families, communities, and the entire Nation.
  This year alone, 6 million children are receiving health care as a 
result of SCHIP. However, funding for this visionary program expires 
September 30. Congress must act now to ensure that these millions of 
children can continue to receive quality, affordable health insurance. 
President Bush has employed rhetoric in support of this program while 
on the campaign trail, stating in 2004 that ``In a new term, we will 
lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are 
eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs.'' 
Unfortunately, however, in practice both the Administration and my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle in Congress have proposed 
significant cuts in the program. If these are approved, millions of 
children will lose health coverage.
  As chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I can think of few 
goals more important than ensuring that our children have access to 
health coverage. It costs us less than $3.50 a day to cover a child 
through SCHIP. For this small sum, we can ensure that a child from a 
working family can receive crucial preventative care, allowing them to 
be more successful in school and in life. Without this program, 
millions of children will lose health coverage, further straining our 
already tenuous healthcare safety net.

  Additionally, through this legislation, we have an opportunity to 
make health care even more available to America's children. The 
majority of uninsured children are currently eligible for coverage, 
either through SCHIP or through Medicaid. We must demonstrate our 
commitment to identifying and enrolling these children, through both 
increased funding and a campaign of concerted outreach. This 
legislation provides States with the tools and incentives they need to 
reach these unenrolled children without expanding the program to make 
more children eligible.
  In my home State of Texas, as of June 2006, SCHIP was benefiting 
293,000 children. This is a decline of over 33,000 children from the 
previous year. We must continue to work to ensure that all eligible 
children can participate in this important program. To this end, Texas 
Governor Rick Perry signed legislation in June to, among other things, 
create a community outreach campaign for SCHIP.
  In addition to reauthorizing and improving the SCHIP program, this 
legislation also protects and improves Medicare. Due to a broken 
payment formula, access to medical services for senior citizens and 
people with disabilities is currently in jeopardy. Physicians who 
provide healthcare to Medicare beneficiaries face a 10 percent cut in 
their reimbursement rates next year, with the prospect of further 
reductions in years to come looming on the horizon. The budget proposed 
by the Bush administration does not help these doctors, or the patients 
that they serve.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that senior citizens and individuals with 
disabilities deserve access to quality and affordable healthcare. 
Currently, there are 35 million seniors without private health plans, 
and, at current rates, the Medicare Trust Fund will be depleted early 
because of excess payments to HMOs. This legislation reverses 
Republican efforts to privatize Medicare, and it ensures that seniors 
will have access to the doctor of their choice.
  This is extremely important legislation providing for the health 
coverage of 11 million low-income children, as well as protecting the 
health services available to senior citizens and persons with 
disabilities. I strongly support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to 
do the same.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I am astonished at what I have heard from the 
other side of the aisle: disingenuous talk about great deficit; the 
deficit caused by the Republican majority's work or lack of work over 
the last 12 years; giving tax breaks to the rich while sending our 
troops to a war that has cost us half a trillion dollars and 
approaching a trillion dollars. That is where the deficit has come 
from, and this disingenuous talk is shocking to hear.
  And the admission that they are against giving children of middle-
class families health care. The Republican party, Mr. Speaker, used to 
say they cared about the middle class. Now they say they don't want to 
give health benefits to their children. That is amazing. And doctors, 
who used to be one of their main interest groups, would get 
reimbursement that they are entitled so that they can continue to 
participate in Medicare under this plan, and they oppose that.
  I would ask you to look at the wall and Daniel Webster, who says, 
engraved in stone here: Do something of monumental proportions. Do 
something that generations will remember, something great.
  That is what this bill will do. I am happy to be here in support of 
the CHAMP bill. Hubert Humphrey was a champion of children, and I am 
happy to stand here for him.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a bill that should have 
bipartisan support, it is this SCHIP bill. All of us support health 
care for children.
  But the problem that we have in this process is that this is a bill 
that really did not receive the full vent of the Congress. And so here 
we find ourselves on the floor debating a bill that is going to be a 
dramatic change and expansion of government health care.
  The original SCHIP program was designed for 250 percent of the 
poverty level and above. This bill removes that limit so that States 
can do whatever they want to.
  Today there are 700,000 adults on the Children's Health Program. This 
bill is going to greatly expand the number of adults on the program. 
There even are incentives so that children will leave their parents' 
health plan and go to the government health plan, and in doing so, 
since children are generally a healthy group, the private health plan 
premiums are going to increase in cost. They are also imposing a fee on 
every private health plan in America, every self-insured health plan in 
America.
  In addition to that, they are going to lower the reimbursement for 
the Medicare Advantage program, which is particularly strong in rural 
areas, which will hurt the seniors on the Medicare Advantage program.
  So the bottom line, and philosophically we are not questioning 
anyone's motives, but there should be a full debate on this. This is 
dramatically expanding government health care and diminishing private 
health care. And that is what this debate is really all about.

[[Page H9484]]

  And I would say this: We need a strong private health system. That 
has been the tradition in America. And last year, for example, the MD 
Anderson Cancer Center in Texas spent more money on research and 
development in health care and health needs and curing diseases than 
all of the entities in the Canadian health plan. That is why we are 
upset about this program. Not that we don't want to cover children.
  I thank the gentleman for his generosity of time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield for the purpose of 
making a unanimous consent request to the distinguished gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  (Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the CHAMP Act and the 
reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or 
SCHIP.
  This bill will cover the nearly 11 million children who fall into the 
gap between Medicaid and private insurance.
  Not only will the CHAMP Act provide health insurance for millions of 
additional children, but also the peace of mind for millions of 
families who work hard to provide all of life's essentials for their 
families.
  For my state of Oregon the passage of the CHAMP Act means many of the 
107,000 uninsured children will have access to health care.
  And while the legislation before us today is a suitable and necessary 
short-term solution, the long-term need remains: America is falling 
short of our moral obligation to provide all children with access to 
health care.
  Access to health care is not only a struggle for those with the 
lowest incomes; it now also is a struggle for those we have 
traditionally considered middle-class, and therefore should be able to 
afford health insurance.
  Since 1965 Medicare has ensured our Nation's senior citizens have 
access to health care. That success should be extended to cover our 
youngest citizens. I am developing new legislation will do just that.
  My MediKids legislation would provide access to comprehensive health 
care for all children and expecting mothers. Every child would be 
automatically enrolled at birth. But parents would retain the right to 
choose to enroll their children in private plans or others such as 
SCHIP or Medicaid.
  MediKids also would act as a safety net. If parents have a lapse in 
other insurance, a common concern and constant worry among many 
families, MediKids would provide coverage.
  America has the best health care in the world, but fewer and fewer 
families can actually afford it. We should not make our children, and 
their parents, wait any longer.
  I urge my colleagues to support the legislation before us, but to 
continue to work toward a long-term solution for today's and tomorrow's 
youngest citizens.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am delighted to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to hear my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle say that this bill is a move towards 
government-run health care that will cause seniors to lose their 
Medicare.
  I would suggest to my colleagues who complain inaccurately that 
Medicare beneficiaries will lose coverage under this bill that, if my 
colleagues are so worried about that, they should consider the 
implications of doctors refusing to see Medicare patients, which is 
exactly what could happen if we don't pass this bill and fix physician 
reimbursement.
  SCHIP is a State block grant program and will remain so under this 
bill. Nearly every State contracts out the SCHIP program to private 
insurers. That is far from a government-run program.
  These are children who live in families where the head of household 
works but they don't make enough money to afford health insurance. 
These are families that work hard and play by the rules but still can't 
afford health care for their kids. That is what we are talking about 
here today, Mr. Speaker.
  This bill protects and strengthens the Medicare trust fund and 
invests in our children, and I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  First, I would like to make one point perfectly clear. Republicans 
support health care for low-income children. We support reauthorizing 
the program we passed in 1997. And that shouldn't come as a surprise to 
anyone. After all, it was the Republican majority that created the 
State Children's Health Insurance Program, and we did it in a 
bipartisan manner.
  Today, sadly, we do not have a bipartisan bill before us. When we 
talk about insuring the Nation's needy children, we should talk about 
it in a bipartisan way. And if the majority had crafted a bill that was 
just about helping low-income children, we would stand here today ready 
to overwhelmingly approve that legislation.
  Unfortunately, this bill doesn't focus on low-income children. 
Instead, it draws scarce resources away from these needy children in 
order to take a giant leap toward universal, government-controlled 
health care.
  Worst of all, this dramatic step comes at the expense of Medicare, 
seniors' health insurance, in order to give middle-class and even upper 
middle-class families a new Federal health benefit.
  These are not minor cuts in senior health care. The majority's bill 
cuts or eliminates many Medicare benefits and services: $157 billion in 
cuts to Medicare Advantage, which are health plans that offer 
additional benefits to low-income seniors like disease management, 
vision, dental, and hearing benefits, and improves the quality of care 
they receive; billions in cuts to hospitals; billions in cuts to home 
health care services, to wheelchairs, to patient rehab facilities, to 
nursing homes, to dialysis patients, and to oxygen treatment. And 
because of a new insurance tax on every insured American, health costs 
to seniors and all Americans will go up.
  I don't know about you, but I can't look a 75-year-old widow in the 
eye in my district and honestly ask her to give up her benefits so that 
a 45-year-old couple making $80,000 a year or more with a 21-year-old 
can receive government health care.
  This bill did not have to be this way. It should not be this way. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and I urge the majority 
to bring us back a bill that focuses on helping low-income children. 
That is a bill we can all support.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from 
California for yielding.
  We talked a lot about how this bill is great for kids. I want to join 
Mr. Altmire in talking about this bill is great for seniors as well.
  Four years ago this House passed an expansion of the Medicare program 
to cover drugs. It should have done it a long time ago. The problem was 
when you finally did it under Republican control, it ended up 
benefiting the drug companies and insurance companies and really being 
a burden for many senior citizens. That ends in large part today with 
the passage of this bill.
  The underlying CHAMP Act today is going to finally allow seniors to 
be able to switch their plans when the plans change the drugs that they 
cover. It is going to begin to remove the doughnut hole, especially for 
the most vulnerable Medicare recipients out there. And it is finally 
going to get rid of those burdensome late penalties for the lowest of 
income seniors.
  This bill is undoubtedly a great bill for kids. This bill is also 
going to be a great step forward for the millions of seniors around 
this country who have been struggling with the Medicare part D program 
for the last 4 years.
  I thank the gentleman for his work on this bill.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to a bill that is more about politics than 
children's health insurance. The so-called CHAMP Act represents a 
missed opportunity to expand SCHIP in a focused manner to help provide 
health care to our Nation's neediest kids.
  I'm extremely disappointed that this bill raises taxes and cuts 
Medicare to expand the program well beyond its original intent. This 
bill would cut Medicare benefits to more than 45,000 of my constituents 
who rely on their Medicare Advantage plans for services

[[Page H9485]]

and benefits they otherwise could not afford.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to, instead, support the motion to 
recommit, which will extend the SCHIP program and stop scheduled 
Medicare physician payment cuts without raising taxes or cutting 
Medicare.
  I will oppose this bill if the motion to recommit fails because I 
oppose politicizing an issue that should be above the partisan 
differences that too often divide us.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am delighted to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) and to 
note that he provided extraordinary leadership in the creation of a 
program of this type in Georgia. He is entitled to speak, I think, with 
real wisdom. We thank you.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I thank the distinguished gentleman, Mr. 
Dingell, for his courtesies.
  This is, indeed, our finest hour of opportunity, and I urge my 
Republican friends not to blow this.
  Now, I have come to this well because I come from Georgia, a State 
that is in dire need of this bill being passed. We have nearly 300,000 
children who are affected by this program. And I want to take just a 
minute because there is so much I want to say I have only a minute to 
say it.
  There are so many reasons that the Republicans have used to try to 
come up against this bill. I cannot for the life of me understand why 
you are not standing forefront in favor of getting health care for our 
children. But perhaps the most devious one of all that you use is to 
try to fight the immigration fight on this bill.
  In this law, it clearly states, ``No Federal funding for illegal 
aliens.'' Nothing in this act allows Federal payment for individuals 
who are not legal residents. Gentlemen, that is a false, false horse to 
ride.
  Vote for the children. Vote for this bill.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Yesterday, we passed lobby reform legislation that deals with 
earmarks, gives Members certain notice. You have to put your name next 
to it. There is certain transparency and accountability, some of which 
is good.
  I should note, with this legislation, in the middle of the night last 
night we did the equivalent of earmarking on an authorization bill. We, 
in the middle of the night, designated some 25 hospitals, giving them a 
different designation, which will save those hospitals millions and 
millions of dollars. That's the equivalent of appropriation earmarks in 
an authorization bill, done without debate, without notice. We're 
getting it now.
  And there is a process within the executive branch to deal with this. 
We have circumvented that process and said we're going to do it 
legislatively. That is simply not right and certainly not in keeping 
with the spirit of legislation that was passed just yesterday.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to my distinguished friend from Arizona.
  And I have to admit, in honesty, that there are earmarks in this 
bill. There are 11 million earmarks, six million children whose names 
we now have and five million children to be added to the bill. And I'm 
proud to say those earmarks are in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. I want to compliment my colleague on his concern about 
earmarks; and I hate to see your record and credibility shattered 
merely because many Members, Republicans and Democrats, did not want 
certain hospitals to suffer the cuts, as has been recommended by this 
administration. And where we could and where there appeared to be some 
doubt, I gave my word to the members of the Ways and Means Committee, 
as did Mr. McCrery, that Pete Stark and I would be taking a look at 
each and every one of them. But it would be a tremendous stretch of 
anyone's imagination to call that an earmark.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate, and I haven't heard 
of any way that this is going to be paid for, the 130 something billion 
dollars over 10 years, except for 45 cent a pack increase in the tax on 
tobacco. So while I heard some Members over there talking about this is 
going to be a deterrent to people smoking, you better hope a bunch of 
people start smoking because you're going to have to sell a ton of 
cigarettes to come up with $132 billion. But then the closer you look 
at it, you find out that this is, again, smoke and mirrors from this 
majority in Congress.
  What this is going to do in 2011 is actually cut doctors' pay 12 
percent. Now, if anybody really believes in this room that we're going 
to cut doctors' pay by 10 or 12 percent, they're kidding themselves. 
This is another gimmick, more smoke and mirrors, more illusion for the 
people of this country.
  The people of this country are smarter than that. When they recognize 
what this is, then I think that the majority is going to find out that 
they do not want the CHUMP bill passed.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute 
to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. It's been said that it is how we treat the least of these 
that we will be judged. I think about my own four children, Francis and 
Chip and Cameron and Chandler. I think about the night I spent at the 
Children's Hospital all night long with my daughter because she 
suffered from dehydration. It's wonderful that she has insurance and we 
can provide for the best coverage at the best Children's Hospital, I 
think, anywhere in the world. But this bill is about helping all of our 
children, the six million that will continue to have coverage and the 
five million that we're adding.
  The AMA, the AARP, the National Committee to Preserve and Protect 
Social Security, the Children's Defense Fund, all of these entities 
that represent these interests have lined up on behalf of this bill. 
And we need to line up this House on the right side of history.
  I want to commend the chairmen, Rangel and Dingell and Pallone and 
Stark, for their work and ask for a unanimous vote on behalf of the 
CHAMP Act.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, what a fascinating debate it is that we 
are having; and I thank the gentleman for yielding a few moments of 
time.
  You know, we're beginning to hear from some of the nearly 54,000 
Medicare beneficiaries that we have in our district because they have 
figured out that this is going to be financed on their back; and we 
have nearly 9,000 Medicare Advantage beneficiaries that are in our 
district. Our Congressional Budget Office estimates are telling us that 
this looks like it's going to end up costing us over $11 million in our 
district.
  Now, we know that we're going to see the tax on private insurance. 
We've heard from some of our individuals who are questioning why in the 
world are you putting a tax, you've got a tax on everything, why are 
you taxing our health insurance benefits?
  We're hearing from our tobacco farmers and our friends in the 
agriculture community that are quite upset about cigarette and cigar 
and tobacco taxes there. And as the gentleman from Georgia just said, 
this grand plan basically says, seniors, we need you to smoke more so 
that you can help pay for this plan to expand SCHIP to middle- and 
upper-income families.
  And being a mother, I can tell you that a 25-year-old probably is a 
little bit offended to be called a child, because 25-year-olds are 
adults. They are young adults, and they are working, and they do not 
need to be on those programs.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield as much 
time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Ways and 
Means Committee, Mr. Rangel.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Let me extend an olive leaf to my friends on the 
Republican

[[Page H9486]]

side, because it just wouldn't be fair for you to be going home 
thinking that people will be talking about politics and process when 
the bottom line is: Where were you when this government, as big as it 
is, wanted to protect 11 million kids in health insurance? That's going 
to really be the bottom line.
  And if you think that government is really so big that $50 billion is 
just too much money to invest in these little kids, then kind of think 
about what you're willing to invest in Afghanistan, in Baghdad, in 
improving its schools and its hospitals.
  And think of what we get back. Just think of what we get back in 
preventing these kids from getting diseases and illnesses that would 
not only cost us billions of dollars in health care, but the lost 
competition, the inability to learn and to be productive. What a heck 
of an investment this is, even for our United States Government, to be 
concerned with 11 million Americans becoming healthy, better educated 
and competitive.
  This is not a question of Democrats being so dumb, so stupid, so 
apolitical that we want to hurt our own folks. Unlike children, they 
vote. And every organization that has dedicated themselves to older 
Americans for health services have endorsed this: the hospitals, the 
doctors, the nurses, the Catholics, the Protestants, the Jews, the 
gentiles. People who are concerned about human lives are concerned that 
we do these things.
  What do you think we are? We were born yesterday? No. I don't know 
what the President intends to do, but you can't hurt this President 
anymore. You don't have to do this to yourselves. Just think about your 
explanations: The bill wasn't ready; it didn't come out of committee. I 
don't know. How are you going to pay for it in 2012? Or maybe some of 
you youngsters have to think about it. But just think about how many 
people are going to get health care between now and 2012 before we look 
at the President's tax cuts. Somehow they kind of broke it off at 2010. 
So it's not the first time people had these creative ideas.
  But let me suggest this to you: This bill expires on September 30. 
Now, I don't know whether they have town hall meetings on the other 
side or not, Steny, but I would hate to be at one of them when they 
explain why there is not going to be insurance for these six million, 
and additional five. I hate for them to say how they were reading the 
bill because they didn't participate.
  These are things that we can improve upon. And Mr. McCrery and I work 
every day to see whether we can do a better job on communication. But 
don't you let our lack of communication interfere with having coverage 
for 11 million kids who deserve better than what we've given them in 
terms of the debates and the discussion on this historical piece of 
legislation.
  So we have the opportunity to join with hundreds of Americans that 
are concerned about our young people, our old people, a better America. 
Our educators, our teachers want to do this. I cannot think of anything 
that's more important for our national security and our national 
defense than investing in these young people who carry the torch of 
freedom for the generations that follow us.
  But if you don't do this, if they find themselves without health 
care, if their parents cannot be productive on the job because they're 
worried about their kids and not being able to get to a clinic, if they 
can't enjoy the preventive care that you enjoy and I enjoy and our 
children and grandchildren enjoy, you explain it, that we weren't 
talking to each other, we didn't cooperate, and the program just 
expired.
  No. I don't want you to go that way. I don't even think the President 
wants to go that way. I want you to think about the bottom line: 11 
million kids, an improved Medicare system, $15 billion helping citizens 
or older that don't have the funds to get insurance, 5 billion for 
those in the rural areas that don't have access to health care. This is 
what we're doing.
  You may not have liked the roadmap, but you can't walk away from what 
we've done. You can never say anything that's wrong about helping 
children. So let us try to think about how we end this up, because come 
this November people will be asking the questions. I don't think it's 
going to be on process. I don't think it's going to be how long you 
kept us up at night. I don't think it's going to be how many 
parliamentary maneuvers we had. I don't think it's whether we missed 
our Easter recess. Did you let this program expire and were you there 
when the children called on you?
  I hope we can count on your vote.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, everyone who is about to vote for this 
bill needs to read it.
  Mr. Speaker, on page 3 of the bill, on the bottom of the page, each 
State is going to conduct its own audit of eligibility of people that 
they are providing federally funded health insurance for.
  Now, we know already the State of California has said they want to 
provide health insurance coverage to all children in the State, 
regardless of whether they are here legally or not. But they can't do 
that. California cannot extend health insurance to people who are 
undocumented, because Federal law currently requires that you must 
prove you are here legally or that you are a citizen under existing 
law. But this bill repeals that verification requirement. The bill 
specifically allows each State ``shall audit itself.''
  Under State law, States can use any verification method they wish to 
determine whether or not somebody is a citizen or they are here 
legally. Obviously, this law repeals the verification requirement and 
allows the State to provide health insurance coverage to people who are 
here illegally or undocumented aliens. In fact, there is no way to even 
verify their income level.
  This is an open-ended faucet that the States are going to be able to 
tap into the Federal treasury. This is a creation of ``HillaryCare'' 
where everyone in this Nation under the age of 25, we are going to kick 
seniors off of Medicaid and Medicare and allow States to sign up people 
who are undocumented aliens for the first time in this Nation's 
history, at a time of record debt, record deficit, and at a time the 
taxpayers cannot afford it.
  Mr. Speaker, this spendthrift majority is going to bankrupt this 
Nation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I take this opportunity before we have 
closing remarks to thank the ranking member of the Ways and Means 
Committee and the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee for their 
comity during all of our discussions and the hearings in the past.
  I also want to take the chance and take the time to thank our staff, 
Cybele Bjorklund; Debbie Curtis; Deb Mizeur; Jennifer Friedman; Chad 
Shearer; Dr. Gene Rich, one of the most overpaid physicians in the 
country; Drew Dawson; Dana Sun, our intern from the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology; Karen McAfee; Ed Grossman; Jessica Shapiro; 
Mark Miller and the MedPAC staff.
  I would also like to thank Chuck Clapton, Joelle Oishi and Dan Elling 
from the minority staff.
  I would like to thank also the staff of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee: Bridgett Taylor, Amy Hall, Yvette Fontenot, Heather Foster, 
and Christie Houlihan. All of these people contributed to work to see 
that we could be as fair and as equitable as we could in drafting this 
bill. I think they can all be proud of both the work and their efforts 
to see that this bill was fair and equitable.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time remains to the 
different Members?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds 
remaining, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 4\3/4\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
majority leader (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my extraordinarily generous 
friend from Michigan, for whom I have not only great respect but great 
affection as well. I want to thank him for his more than half a century 
of leadership on issues of health care in America, on extending health 
care and insurance to every American, to ensuring

[[Page H9487]]

that in this great country of ours every American has the opportunity 
to receive the extraordinary quality health care that we have available 
in this great country.
  I also want to thank my good friend, the chairman of the Ways and 
Means Committee, Charlie Rangel, who has for so many years fought the 
good fight. As he said on this floor, this is an opportunity for us to 
extend to children the benefits of health care. I want to mention the 
President's intent as well.
  I want to thank my friend from California, Pete Stark, who has been 
the Chair of this subcommittee and who has been so faithful.
  And I want to thank Mr. McCrery and the ranking member of this 
subcommittee. I understand we may have a difference of view, but we are 
working together now, as the American people expect us to do.
  I said on this floor last night that we would have a robust debate on 
this important legislation, the Children's Health and Medicare 
Protection Act. I think we have had that robust debate.
  While we may disagree on elements of this bill, I believe that 
virtually all of us agree that it is unacceptable and, indeed, immoral 
that millions of children in the wealthiest Nation on the face of the 
Earth do not have health insurance. That is unlike every industrialized 
nation in the world, other than ourselves.
  This historic legislation addresses this national challenge, building 
upon the successes of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, 
which received strong bipartisan support in the Republican-led Congress 
in 1997 and which was signed into law by a Democratic President, 
President Clinton.
  Under this bill, 11 million American children, six million who 
currently are covered under SCHIP and an additional five million 
children who currently lack health insurance, will have access to 
quality, affordable health insurance. It seems to me that is why so 
many of us serve in this body, to ensure that our people have that 
access.
  Let us be clear. Contrary to the claims of some, including, sadly, at 
this point in time, President Bush, this legislation does not expand 
the SCHIP program. Let me repeat that. This legislation does not expand 
the SCHIP program. Instead, this legislation provides the resources 
needed to enroll children who are eligible under existing law but who 
are currently not enrolled. Let me reiterate. The CHAMP Act maintains 
current law regarding eligibility for SCHIP.
  Furthermore, this legislation ensures seniors access to the doctors 
of their choice by stopping a scheduled 10 percent payment cut to 
doctors. It phases out overpayments to private plans.
  My friends on the other side, of course, want to make sure that the 
government is very careful in its expenditure of funds, and it urges us 
to adopt the practices of the private sector, which are driven by 
competition on price. However, in this case, we have mandated by law 
that the competitors receive 100 percent reimbursement while the 
competitors that are favored receive 111 to 130-plus percent. That is a 
little bit like the prescription drug bill where we can't negotiate for 
price.
  This bill maintains competition and access, and in so doing, the bill 
would extend Medicare solvency by 3 years, while protecting seniors and 
people from disabilities from having to pay higher monthly premiums. In 
addition, my friends, this bill improves Medicare by, among other 
things, providing new preventive benefits.
  I must note, Mr. Speaker, that nearly 3 years ago, in the middle of a 
presidential campaign, President Bush said the following, and I quote. 
And this, by the way, was at the 2004 Republican national convention 
when President Bush was seeking the votes of Americans throughout this 
country to be reelected President.
  This is what he said: ``America's children must have a healthy start 
in life,'' to which clearly all of us as we watched the television 
said, Amen. ``In a new term,'' he said, ``we will lead an aggressive 
effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not 
signed up for government health insurance programs.''
  Mr. President, that is what we are doing this afternoon.
  But now, unfortunately, a mere 36 months later, the President is 
threatening to veto legislation that does precisely what he said he 
wanted to do in 2004 as he was running for President and seeking the 
votes in that convention.
  Mr. Speaker, contrary to the claims of the President and other 
opponents of this bill, it does not constitute a government takeover of 
health care. That is a straw man. That is a shibboleth. That is not 
accurate. In fact, three-fourths of the children in the SCHIP program 
receive care today through private insurance plans that contract with 
the States.
  Nor is the bill fiscally irresponsible. A curious claim, I would say, 
coming from the President and congressional Republicans whose policies 
added more than $3 trillion to the debt. I got a letter just a few days 
ago, maybe you got it as well, Mr. McCrery, from Secretary Paulson. He 
said, ``you know, we are running up against the debt limit.''
  Does anybody here know in the 4 years preceding this Bush 
administration's policies how many times we raised the debt? Not once. 
But we have raised it five times in the last 6 years, if we raise it 
again.
  So when we talk about fiscal responsibility, it is fiscally 
responsible to invest in the health care of our children, because they 
will be healthier citizens, more productive citizens, and we will have 
a better, more economically viable country. In fact, the Democratic 
majority has taken pains to pay for this legislation and abide by pay-
as-you-go budget rules which provided for 4 years of surplus 
immediately preceding this administration.
  Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis, the question before the Members 
of this body really is this: Do you support reauthorizing this critical 
program and providing health insurance to eligible children, eligible 
children, eligible children, or not? I urge my colleagues, vote to 
provide health care for our children. Vote to improve and protect 
Medicare. Vote for the CHAMP Act.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of children and 
older Americans this afternoon because I have supported and initiated 
many legislative efforts in this House to provide health care benefits 
to both groups.
  Yet I must oppose this legislation today because the process under 
which we are considering it is a disservice to young and old alike. We 
have before us a major expansion of a Federal entitlement program, a 
$54 billion tax increase, and the largest cut in the history of the 
Medicare program under a procedure that allows no member--Republican or 
Democrat--to offer an amendment to improve this bill. This is the 
people's House, and yet only a handful of our 435 members have had a 
chance to write this legislation. Two major committees--Ways and Means 
and Energy and Commerce--had primary jurisdiction over this matter, but 
the Energy and Commerce Committee did not even hold public hearings on 
this important issue.
  The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was established 
with my support in 1997 through a bipartisan effort of this Congress. 
It has been an unqualified success in providing life-saving medical 
care to children throughout our Nation. The SCHIP program in Florida 
now covers children in families with annual incomes of up to 200 
percent of the poverty level. In the 10th Congressional District I have 
the privilege to represent, 21,779 families, or 34 percent of all 
families with children under the age of 18, are already eligible for 
Medicaid or SCHIP.
  While we could have extended the current, very successful program and 
modified it to make some program improvements in the coverage of those 
children who have no insurance, those who wrote this legislation seek 
to expand the program to include children who come from families that 
already have health insurance. Children from families with incomes as 
high as $82,000 could become eligible for health care benefits. And the 
authors of this legislation pay for this new coverage by cutting 
Medicare benefits upon which thousands of seniors in my district rely 
on for their health care needs. It is estimated that these cuts total 
upwards of $194 billion over the next 10 years.
  This would cut funding for the 42,843 seniors in my district who are 
currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Program.
  This legislation cuts payments for seniors' hospital and inpatient 
care by $2.7 billion.
  This legislation cuts payments for seniors' inpatient rehabilitation 
services by $6.6 billion.

[[Page H9488]]

  This legislation cuts payments for seniors' skilled nursing 
facilities by $6.5 billion.
  This legislation cuts payments for seniors' home health care services 
by $7.2 billion.
  This legislation cuts payments for those of all ages with End Stage 
Renal Disease by $3.6 billion.
  This legislation would impede the mobility of seniors by making them 
wait a full month to receive Medicare coverage for a motorized 
wheelchair.
  And this legislation would reduce the amount of time seniors can 
receive Medicare coverage of home oxygen equipment from 36 to 13 
months.
  Mr. Speaker, my district is home to All Children's Hospital in St. 
Petersburg, Florida. My wife Beverly and I have spent countless hours 
there with children and their families, as well as with their doctors 
and medical staff. You can be sure we understand the special needs of 
children, particularly those without health insurance coverage. The 
program we established 10 years ago was a major improvement in 
expanding the health care options of children. It also provided 
important reassurance for their parents.
  There is no doubt that we could have improved this legislation by 
working together. Republicans and Democrats alike support providing 
health care coverage for children and seniors. Instead, this 
reauthorization of what was a major bipartisan health care initiative 
has been rewritten with the input and ideas of just a select few 
members without the opportunity of amendment by all the members of this 
House.
  In fact, the last changes to this legislation were made at 3 this 
morning. Those changes even wrote into this bill specific program carve 
outs for 36 hospitals identified by name or location. None are in 
Florida. How were those hospitals selected?
  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to providing health care for young or old 
alike we should work together in a bipartisan manner to create the best 
program possible. The best ideas do not reside in just one committee or 
one political party. We should all have the opportunity to contribute 
to this legislation, to debate amendments, and to vote on those 
amendments. A majority of members, not a majority party, should 
determine what is best for the American people.
  While I will vote against this legislation today in large part 
because of the procedure under which it is being considered and my 
concern about the negative impact it will have on older Americans, it 
is my hope that when it returns from the Senate and a conference 
between the House and Senate, it will be something that I can support, 
that the majority of my colleagues can support, and most importantly 
that Americans of all ages can support.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear, the Democrat majority will soon ram through 
this Congress the single largest step in Washington-controlled, 
bureaucratized, rationed, socialized health care. And they are going to 
do it all under the guise of helping the neediest of our children. But 
by passing this bill, they are threatening the quality, the access and 
the choice of health care for all children in America. It is a sad day 
indeed for our children's physical health. It is a sad day for their 
fiscal health.
  We all know, Mr. Speaker, that Medicaid is the program for the 
neediest of our children, and we know that SCHIP today is providing for 
the health care of those low-income working parents.
  This is about something else. This is about taking adults off of 
private health care and putting them on public health care. It is about 
creating a new permanent entitlement, no matter what the majority may 
say. There will be no income limit on SCHIP eligibility, no sunset of 
the program, no annual allotment for the States. It shifts children 
participating in private insurance that their parents have chosen to 
that run by the government.
  In creating a new entitlement, we are on the verge of leaving the 
next generation with a lower standard of living. Defeat this program.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I believe here we have two remaining 
speakers. As I understand the practices of the House, it is, of course, 
the right of the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction to close.
  I am the only speaker other than our Speaker who wishes to speak and 
from whom we wish to hear. I would ask first my colleagues on the 
minority side how many more speakers they have.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I just have one speaker remaining, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize Members to close in 
the following order: the gentleman from California, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp), and then the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell).
  Mr. DINGELL. I would ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak 
but that our Speaker be able to close for this side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Reserving the right to object, if I can inquire 
of the gentleman, are there only two speakers?
  Mr. STARK. I will be glad to yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California may reserve 
the \1/2\ minute to recognize the Speaker if he wishes.
  Mr. STARK. I would like to do that if I may.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation is withdrawn.
  The Chair will note that the gentleman from California will yield his 
\1/2\ minute to the Speaker. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) 
has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman from Michigan so desires, I would defer 
to him and allow him to speak now, then I will have my remarks, and 
then the Speaker will close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California will be first 
recognized to close. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) will be 
next recognized to close. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
will be recognized to close. Mr. Dingell can reserve 1 minute at the 
end of his time to recognize the Speaker to close if he wishes.
  Mr. DINGELL. That is my unanimous consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In that case the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Stark) has 30 seconds.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the distinguished ranking 
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized 
for 3\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a good debate today. 
It has been a good debate in part because I believe a number of Members 
on both sides of the aisle have learned things about this legislation 
that they didn't know before this debate. I think there are enough 
questions that were raised today about exactly what is and is not in 
this bill to warrant this House taking more time to get it right.
  The motion to recommit that we will offer in just a few minutes will 
give this House that opportunity because we in the motion to recommit 
ask the committee to report back forthwith, which means that this House 
can today pass what is in our motion to recommit. And in that motion to 
recommit we will reauthorize the current SCHIP program for 1 year, and 
we will do a fix for the doctors' reimbursement for 1 year. That will 
allow this House to give the appropriate amount of time to discover 
what is and what is not in this legislation that the majority has 
presented us today and figure out, perhaps in a bipartisan way, the 
best manner in which to proceed on a long-term basis with the SCHIP 
program.
  I would ask those fiscal conservatives in the majority, some of whom 
have in good conscience complained about some of the actions of the 
former majority, there are signs in the hall talking about the national 
debt, and I ask those Members to think before they vote for this bill. 
Do they really want to establish a new entitlement program that is 
open-ended in this country, that is not properly funded? It is funded 
with a tobacco tax. That is going to be a decreasing source of revenue 
for this country, not increasing. It is funded with changes to the 
Medicare program, cuts to the Medicare Advantage program. That is not 
going to have long-

[[Page H9489]]

lasting consequences? So, really, I want those people who are concerned 
about the deficit and concerned about the debt to think before they 
vote for this bill.
  We are giving you an opportunity in the motion to recommit to sustain 
the SCHIP program, do what you've talked about doing, fix the doctors' 
reimbursement for a year, and give us more time to talk back and forth 
a little bit and explore the consequences of some of the provisions 
that are in this bill that we think would do injury to the fitness of 
this country, and we think that we can work together to provide a 
better way for insuring children in this country, not the way that is 
in this bill.
  I believe that this bill is fiscally irresponsible. It is too bad we 
didn't have fuller hearings and fuller opportunities in committees, in 
both the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, to explore some of the particulars that the majority decided 
to put into this bill and just informed the House about within the last 
24 hours or so.
  Had we had that opportunity, I believe Members with goodwill on both 
sides of the aisle could have worked out what I believe would have been 
a much, much better bill than what I perceive to be a hastily put 
together bill that is before us today.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that every Member 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the legislation now before us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes, and I yield the 
balance of the time to our distinguished Speaker for purposes of 
closing.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had a good debate. I believe the Members have 
become understanding of not only the situation but of the legislation 
before us.
  I want to particularly commend the staff of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee: Amy Hall, Yvette Fonteno, Christie Houlihan, Heather Foster, 
Jessica McNiece and Bridgett Taylor, who all did a superb job on behalf 
of the Congress.
  I also want to thank Cybele Bjorklund, Deb Mizeur, Jennifer Friedman, 
Chad Shearer, Brian Biles, Bobby Clark, Debbie Curtis, Ed Grossman and 
Jessica Shapiro from the Ways and Means Committee staff. Their really 
valuable contribution did much to make this possible.
  I want to commend my colleagues on the minority side, Mr. Camp and 
Mr. McCrery and Mr. Barton, and my special friend, Mr. Stark, and the 
distinguished Chairman Rangel for the superb job they have done. I also 
thank the subcommittee chairman in the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
Mr. Pallone, for his outstanding job.
  The legislation before us is really very simple. The issues before us 
are not procedure. Rather, they are: Are we going to take care of our 
kids?
  For this Congress, this is perhaps the greatest opportunity we will 
have. We have three responsibilities to the country and to our kids: 
See that they are properly nourished, see that they are properly 
educated, and see to it that they have the health that they need so 
they can be meaningful contributors to the future of this country. It 
is not only a humanitarian and compassionate concern of this country, 
it is the future of the country.
  I know the President has indicated that he thinks that this is bad 
legislation. I grieve that he has come to that conclusion. He has no 
reason to do so.
  First of all, we have the pay-fors. We have taken care of the cost of 
this. We are seeing to it that, first of all, a modest tax on tobacco 
comes into play.
  Second, we are seeing to it that HMOs that are getting as much as 30 
percent more than other HMOs are going to get 100 percent of what other 
HMOs get, no more, no less. We are not taking anything away from senior 
citizens. I think we are just taking it out of the pocket of a few 
people who have too much in the HMO business.
  Having said that, let's look to see who supports this legislation. I 
think that tells us as much or more as anything we can get. The NAACP, 
the AMA, the different health organizations, the hospital associations, 
the National Rural Health Association, the American Academy of 
Pediatrics, the March of Dimes, the Children's Defense Fund, and the 
National Governor's Association whose meeting I attended last weekend 
in Traverse City where a major concern was how are we going to provide 
them the means that they desperately need to provide for the health 
care for the children under CHIP? That was on the lips, the mind, and 
in the heart of every one of the governors who spoke there.
  I would observe that the Catholic Health Association also speaks to 
this because they have a concern that this is the best way we can take 
care of the children and we can see to it that we give a decent right 
to life to every American.
  I would offer to my colleagues, any or all of them, a list of those 
who do, the organizations who are supportive of this legislation; and I 
point out that you will find almost every organization that cares about 
kids or health or the well-being of our young people as supporters of 
this bill, including the great American labor organizations, the AFL-
CIO and the UAW. That should speak clearly to us of the needs.
  I would point out that there are a number of misunderstandings that 
have been stated here. It has been said this is going to raise costs 
and it is going to raise the amount that is paid to individual 
recipients. Not so. This is a program which is going to be governed by 
the costs which were fixed when the legislation was first offered and 
first introduced and first put into law under the leadership of, for 
example, Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. So it is not fiscally 
irresponsible.
  The legislation is going to do something else. It is not going to 
take care of illegals, nor is it going to engage in any weird 
practices. If there are waivers given, and they can be given, they will 
be given in the same fashion as they were given before, and that is by 
this administration saying this is something that is justified, 
justifiable and proper and which will help kids. I will note that they 
have not been overly generous in giving those particular waivers.
  So what we have a chance to do today, Mr. Speaker, and my friends and 
colleagues, is to take care of the kids, to support those who are least 
able to look to their own well-being and who are most defenseless and 
to suit them best for a healthy, growing adult life so they may 
contribute to a better, richer, stronger and safer America.
  We are doing something else. We are seeing to it that we are 
compassionate, and we may best be judged by that because, in doing 
that, we are best looked at by being those who really care for those 
who have the least.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the CHAMP legislation. It is good. 
It is in the public interest.
  I now yield to the distinguished Speaker. Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California, the 
distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as I rise here today, something after 6:30 
p.m., I was reminded as I listened to the presentations of a poem that 
most of us memorized when we were young by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:

     Between the dark and the daylight,
     When the night is beginning to lower,
     Comes a pause in the day's occupations,
     That is known as the Children's Hour.

  That's this time of day. This is the children's hour. Because of the 
leadership of so many of our colleagues, we are able to meet our moral 
obligation to our children. It isn't a pause in our occupation. It is 
our mission, this moral obligation that we have to the future.
  When I was sworn in as Speaker, I was surrounded by children. It was 
very exhilarating, and I called the House of Representatives to order 
on behalf of all of America's children, establishing this Chamber as 
the champion for our children and for the future.
  Our legislation is called CHAMP because it does just that. It 
champions quality health care for America's children and for our 
seniors, strengthening families. It is just one way in which this new 
direction Congress is putting health care and particularly the needs of 
our children at the top of the Nation's agenda.

[[Page H9490]]

  With the passage of this legislation, the new-direction Congress will 
ensure that 11 million of America's children receive health care 
coverage, and seniors will receive improved benefits under Medicare.
  I want to join those of my colleagues who have expressed their 
appreciation for the exceptional leadership of our chairmen of the full 
committees and the subcommittees and the ranking members of the full 
committees and the subcommittees for the honest debate that we are 
having about this legislation today.

                              {time}  1845

  I think it's important to note, because it's history, that our 
distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. 
Dingell, when he was a new Member of Congress gaveled down the Medicare 
bill. That's his family tradition, looking out for health care for all 
Americans. His father was a leader on that subject in this Congress, 
and imagine that he as a young Member, well still a young Member, but a 
younger Member of Congress, gaveled down Medicare. And today, he is in 
the lead on this legislation that will strengthen Medicare for 
America's seniors.
  And at the same time, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Rangel. Between 
the two of them, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Dingell, they had 22 hearings on 
the subject of SCHIP. So this Congress has had a thorough review of 
this subject, and this excellent legislation is the product of that.
  I was inspired by your speech, Mr. Rangel. You persuaded me, not 
persuaded me to vote for the bill. I always intended to do that, but 
persuaded me that it was possible that we might have a strong 
bipartisan support for this bill because it is so much the right thing 
to do.
  I thank Congressman Stark and Congressman Pallone, Chairs of the 
appropriate subcommittees of their committees, for their leadership, 
their intense knowledge of this subject, the judgment they were able to 
bring on decisions that we had to make about what would be in this 
bill. Thank you, Mr. Stark and Mr. Pallone, and thank you again, Mr. 
Rangel.
  And I thank again Mr. McCrery for his, again, comity and the dignity 
and the knowledge that he brings to this debate. Thank you, Mr. 
McCrery.
  And to all of the staff on both sides of the aisle, thank you for 
your hard work on this. Their efforts will help millions of American 
children and seniors live better lives.
  SCHIP, created by a Republican Congress and a Democratic President, 
signed into law by President Clinton, SCHIP has dramatically reduced 
the number of poor, uninsured children in America. The legislation 
before us today will improve SCHIP and the lives of millions of working 
families in America by improving coverage for all 6 million children 
currently insured under SCHIP and by extending that coverage to 5 
million additional children. Those children will receive dental care 
and, thanks to Congressman Patrick Kennedy, mental health services.
  Dental care, we so take it for granted for our own children, but 
after this legislation is passed, no more will we have the Demonte 
Driver where we have to have a situation like that where a child will 
die because he had an abscessed tooth that turned into a brain 
infection. We're all familiar with the details of that sad story. 
Today, we are doing something about it.
  Let us be clear, most SCHIP beneficiaries receive their coverage 
through private managed care plans, not through the government.
  And let us be clear, as the chairman just pointed out, this 
legislation is paid for; no new deficit spending, no heaping mountain 
of debt on these children to pay for the health care they so rightly 
deserve.
  In addition to providing coverage to children, the CHAMP Act also, as 
we know, strengthens and improves Medicare for every senior by 
eliminating coinsurance requirements and deductibles for preventive 
care. Imagine that, for preventive care, how important that is. The 
legislation reduces copayments and provides for mental health parity, 
and many more seniors will no longer face the doughnut hole. Remember 
our old friend, the doughnut hole. Well, many more seniors will no 
longer face the doughnut hole in the prescription drug benefit. We do 
all of this and more for seniors and, I repeat, with pay-as-you-go 
budget rules and extend the life of the Medicare trust fund by 3 years.
  By passing the CHAMP Act, the New Direction Congress is keeping our 
promise to seniors on Medicare and meeting our obligation to our 
future, our children. Again, and it is paid for. I can't say that 
enough.
  The distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee read 
a long list. There are pages and pages. I would submit them for the 
Record, except it would be very expensive to print. There are so many 
names that are endorsing this legislation. They range from the 
Children's Defense Fund, as was mentioned, the Catholic Hospitals 
Association, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
Medicare, the old, the young, everyone across the board, all the health 
organizations that administer to the needs of our children and our 
seniors.
  I just say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, as Pearl Buck said, ``If our 
American way of life fails the child, it fails us all.'' With this 
CHAMP Act, we are not going to fail America's children. We are 
championing them and their grandparents.
  This legislation has fiscal soundness. It has a values base, and it 
should have the support of everyone in this body.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the CHAMP 
Act, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act.
  The CHAMP Act reauthorizes and improves the very successful State 
Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. Created in 1997 by Congress 
with broad bipartisan support, the SCHIP program currently covers 6 
million children who otherwise would have no access to health 
insurance. Despite its many successes, there are still more than five 
million children who are eligible for SCHIP, but not yet enrolled in 
the program. This bill seeks to cover those vulnerable children.
  Unfortunately, President Bush's proposal seeks to turn back the clock 
and take us in the wrong direction. The President has proposed funding 
SCHIP at a rate that does not even take into account any increases for 
inflation or population growth. Under the President's proposal, more 
than 1.5 million children will lose SCHIP coverage and many States, 
including Maryland, will continue to face funding shortfalls. Indeed, 
the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, has confirmed that 
the President's proposal would be too little to keep covering the 
children who are currently enrolled in SCHIP.
  In contrast to President Bush's proposal, this bill will extend 
coverage to an additional 5 million children who are currently eligible 
for SCHIP but are not yet enrolled. I am also pleased that the bill 
provides for guaranteed dental coverage in SCHIP--good oral health care 
is integral to the health of children and no child should have to 
suffer because they cannot access adequate dental care. No family 
should have to suffer the loss of a child because they lack access to 
dental care, as happened in the tragic case of Deamonte Driver, a 12-
year old Marylander who died earlier this year when an infection from 
an untreated abscessed tooth spread to his brain. I am also pleased 
that this bill provides important mental health coverage for children.
  The reauthorization and improvement of SCHIP will benefit the 
approximately 136,000 children who are currently enrolled in Maryland's 
CHIP program and prevent Maryland from facing further funding 
shortfalls in its SCHIP allotment as has been the case in recent years. 
The CHAMP Act will also provide essential funding to Maryland to enroll 
68,000 children in families with incomes under 200 percent of the 
federal poverty level who remain uninsured. It will also provide 
Maryland with a new option to cover more than 65,000 children who are 
aging out of Medicaid and SCHIP. And because of the bill, Maryland will 
have an increase in its SCHIP allotment of $99.7 million from last 
year, allowing it room to reach additional eligible but uninsured 
children.
  Not so long ago, President Bush promised to expand coverage of SCHIP 
to include eligible children who are not yet enrolled. In his September 
2004 speech to the Republican National Convention, the President 
stated--and I am quoting here, ``America's children must also have a 
healthy start in life. In the new term, we will lead an aggressive 
effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not 
signed up for the government's health insurance programs. We will not 
allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these 
children and the health care they need.''
  Now, the President has reversed course. In his July 10, 2007, speech 
in Cleveland, Ohio, he forgot his 2004 pledge and stated, ``I mean, 
people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to 
an emergency room.''

[[Page H9491]]

  I hope the President will reconsider his position and help Congress 
provide health insurance to 11 million children who are one of the most 
vulnerable segments of our society.
  In addition to reauthorizing SCHIP, the CHAMP Act makes improvements 
in Medicare that will strengthen that important program. The 
legislation reduces overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, which are 
paid, according to non-partisan CBO and other independent entities 
analysis, on average, 12 percent more than the cost of care in 
traditional Medicare. This will increase Medicare's solvency by two 
years. In addition, the legislation prevents the impending physician 
reimbursement cuts and provides positive updates in 2008 and 2009. 
Also, the bill will increase Medicare beneficiaries' access to 
preventive services by eliminating co-payments and deductibles for 
current and future preventive benefits and authorizing Medicare to add 
additional preventive services.
  The CHAMP Act also increases the tobacco tax by 45 cents to a total 
of 84 cents. Increasing the tobacco tax will save billions in health 
costs and is one of the most effective ways to reduce tobacco use, 
especially among children. In short, raising the tobacco tax will 
prevent thousands of children from starting to smoke and the proceeds 
of the tax will be used to expand health coverage for children. That is 
a win-win result.
  Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking. I urge all of my colleagues to 
vote for this much needed legislation.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3162, the 
Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. I know that this was not 
an easy piece of legislation to put together and I appreciate the hard 
work of my colleagues on the Committees on Rules, Energy & Commerce and 
Ways & Means.
  This bill is an important step in addressing the health care crisis 
faced by millions of families. Access to affordable insurance and 
quality preventive care is critical to the well-being and security of 
all Americans. The CHAMP Act will ensure that all eligible children are 
afforded the opportunity to enroll in State Children's Health Insurance 
Programs and takes important steps to improve efficiency and secure the 
solvency of the Medicare program, relied on by so many of our seniors.
  The State Children's Health Insurance Program SCHIP, known as RIte 
Care in Rhode Island, has made health insurance a reality for over 
12,000 children in my home State this year--the majority of them in 
families where one or more adult is part of the workforce. It is a 
critical component of health care delivery in Rhode Island, as it is 
across the country. I am so honored to be part of a Congress that is 
taking steps to ensure that all children who are eligible for this 
program are able to participate. By reauthorizing the SCHIP program, we 
renew our national commitment to achieving the goal of insuring all 
children whose parents cannot afford private health insurance coverage.
  This bill also contains important components for Medicare 
beneficiaries. The elimination of overpayments to private plans that 
participate in Medicare delivery is a necessary step to increasing 
efficiency of this program. This action will go a long way in 
preventing premium increases for Medicare beneficiaries and will 
strengthen Medicare's finances for the future. While we still have work 
to do in improving certain aspects of the Medicare program--
particularly the prescription drug benefit--this bill will ease the 
process for seniors who wish to change their prescription drug plan, 
and it will increase access to preventive services, saving lives and 
money.
  Finally, I would also note that this legislation contains a fix to 
the scheduled 10 percent cut in physician payments under Medicare. I am 
pleased to support this fix and look forward to working with my 
colleagues to craft a permanent solution to the flawed funding formula 
that continues to recommend such cuts. We cannot offer high quality 
health care to our Nation's seniors if health care providers cannot 
afford to see Medicare patients.
  I am pleased that this Congress has made access to health care a 
priority, particularly for our Nation's children and seniors. I urge 
all my colleagues to vote in favor of the CHAMP Act.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3162, which 
represents the agreement between the House and Senate on the ``Honest 
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007,'' which the House passed in 
May 2007. With the adoption of this legislation, we begin to make good 
on our pledge to ``drain the swamp'' and end the ``culture of 
corruption'' that pervaded the 109th Congress.
  It is critically important that we adopt the reforms contained in 
H.R. 3162 because Americans are paying for the cost of corruption in 
Washington with skyrocketing prices at the pump, spiraling drug costs, 
and the waste, fraud and no-bid contracts in the Gulf Coast and Iraq 
for Administration cronies.
  The cozy relationship between Congress and special interests we saw 
during the 109th resulted in serious lobbying scandals, such as those 
involving Republican super lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In this scandal, 
several congressional staff members and a former congressman pleaded 
guilty to conspiring to commit fraud--accepting all-expense-paid trips 
to play golf in Scotland and accepting meals, sports and concert 
tickets, while providing legislative favors for Abramoff's clients.
  But that is not all. Under the previous Republican leadership of the 
House, lobbyists were permitted to write legislation, 15-minute votes 
were held open for hours, and entirely new legislation was sneaked into 
signed conference reports in the dead of night.
  The American people registered their disgust at this sordid way of 
running the Congress last November and voted for reform. Democrats 
picked up 30 seats held by Republicans and exit polls indicated that 74 
percent of voters cited corruption as an extremely important or a very 
important issue in their choice at the polls.
  Ending the culture of corruption and delivering ethics reform is one 
of the top priorities of the new majority of House Democrats. That is 
why, as our first responsibility in fulfilling the mandate given the 
new majority by the voters, Democrats are offering an aggressive ethics 
reform package. We seek to end the excesses we witnessed under the 
Republican leadership and to restore the public's trust in the Congress 
of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, Federal lobbying is a multi-billion dollar industry, and 
spending to influence members of Congress and executive branch 
officials has increased greatly in the last decade. While the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act of 1995, LDA, is one of the main laws to promote 
transparency and accountability in the federal lobbying industry and 
represents the most comprehensive overhaul of the laws regulating 
lobbying practices in 50 years prior to 1995, it falls far short of a 
complete solution, as even recognized by its staunchest supporters, 
during congressional hearings on the issue.
  The need for further reform was highlighted by a major study of the 
federal lobbying industry published in April 2006 by the Center for 
Public Integrity, which found that since 1998, lobbyists have spent 
nearly $13 billion to influence members of Congress and other federal 
officials on legislation and regulations. The same study found that in 
2003 alone, lobbyists spent $2.4 billion, with expenditures for 2004 
estimated to grow to at least $3 billion. This is roughly twice as much 
as the already vast amount that was spent on federal political 
campaigns in the same time period.

  The LDA contains a number of measures to help prevent inappropriate 
influence in the lobbying arena and promote sunshine on lobbying 
activities. However, according to the Center's study, compliance with 
these requirements has been less than exemplary.
  For example, the report found: during the last six years, 49 out of 
the top 50 lobbying firms have failed to file one or more of the 
required forms; nearly 14,000 documents that should have been filed are 
missing; almost 300 individuals, companies, or associates have lobbied 
without being registered; more than 2,000 initial registrations were 
filed after the legal deadline; and in more than 2,000 instances, 
lobbyists never filed the required termination documents at all.
  Under the LDA, the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House 
must notify in writing any lobbyist or lobbying firm of noncompliance 
with registration and reporting requirements, and they must also notify 
the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia of the noncompliance if 
the lobbyist or lobbying firm fails to respond within 60 days of its 
notification. It appears that until very recently, however, these cases 
of noncompliance were not being referred to the Department of Justice 
for enforcement. It is also clear that the infractions that are 
actually being investigated by the Secretary or the Clerk do not 
coincide with the extent of noncompliance, and it is entirely unknown 
whether enforcement actions are being effectively pursued by the 
Department of Justice. Clearly, further reform is needed.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and her team 
for the excellent work in preparing this lobbying reform package. The 
reforms contained in the package are tough but not nearly too tough for 
persons elected to represent the interests of the 600,000 constituents 
in their congressional districts. Indeed, similar bipartisan lobbying 
and government reform proposals were debated and passed by the House 
and Senate in 2006 but the Congress failed to reconcile the two 
versions.
  Mr Speaker, I support H.R. 3162 because it closes the ``Revolving 
Door,'' requires full public disclosure of lobbying activities, 
provides tougher enforcement of lobbying restrictions, and requires 
increased disclosure.
  H.R. 3162 closes the ``Revolving Door'' by retaining the current one-
year ban on lobbying by former members and senior staff and requires 
them to notify the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct within 
three days of

[[Page H9492]]

engaging in any negotiations or reaching any agreements regarding 
future employment or salary. The members' notification will be publicly 
disclosed.
  The bill also requires members and senior staff to recuse themselves 
during negotiations regarding future employment from any matter in 
which there is a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation also ends the ``K Street Project,'' 
made notorious during the 12 years of Republican control of Congress. 
Members and senior staff are prohibited from influencing employment 
decisions or practices of private entities for partisan political gain. 
Violators of this provision will be fined or imprisoned for a term of 
up to 15 years.

  Second, H.R. 3162 requires full public disclosure of lobbying 
activities by strengthening lobbying disclosure requirements. It does 
this by mandating quarterly, rather than semiannual, disclosure of 
lobbying reports. It covers more lobbyists by reducing the contribution 
thresholds from $5,000 to $2,500 in income from lobbying activities and 
from $20,000 to $10,000 in total lobbying expenses. It also reduces the 
contribution threshold of any organization other than client that 
contributes to lobbying activities to $5000, $10,000 under current law.
  Third, the legislation increases disclosure of lobbyists' 
contributions to lawmakers and entities controlled by lawmakers, 
including contributions to members' charities, to pay the cost of 
events or entities honoring members, contributions intended to pay the 
cost of a meeting or a retreat, and contributions disclosed under FECA 
relating to reports by conduits.
  Fourth, the bill requires the House Clerk to provide public Internet 
access to lobbying reports within 48 hours of electronic filing and 
requires that the lobbyist/employing firm provide a certification or 
disclosure report attesting that it did not violate House/Senate gift 
ban rules. And it makes it a violation of the LDA for a lobbyist to 
provide a gift or travel to a member/officer or employee of Congress 
with knowledge that the gift or travel is in violation of House/Senate 
rules.
  Transparency is increased by the requirements in the bill that 
lobbyists to disclose past Executive and Congressional employment and 
that lobbying reports be filed electronically and maintained in a 
searchable, downloadable database. For good reason, the bill also 
requires disclosure of lobbying activities by certain coalitions but 
expressly exempts 501(c) and 527 organizations.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3162 increases civil penalties for 
violation of the Lobby Disclosure Act from $50,000 to $200,000 and adds 
a criminal penalty of up to 5 years for knowing and corrupt failure to 
comply. Finally, the bill requires members to prohibit their staff from 
having any official contact with the member's spouse who is a 
registered lobbyist or is employed or retained by such an individual 
and establishes a public database of member Travel and Personal 
Financial Disclosure Forms.
  Mr. Speaker, it is wholly fitting and proper that at the beginning of 
this new 110th Congress, the Members of this House, along with all of 
the American people, paid fitting tribute to the late President Gerald 
R. ``Jerry'' Ford, a former leader in this House, who did so much to 
heal our Nation in the aftermath of Watergate. Upon assuming the 
Presidency, President Ford assured the Nation: ``My fellow Americans, 
our long national nightmare is over.'' By his words and deeds, 
President Ford helped turn the country back on the right track. He will 
be forever remembered for his integrity, good character, and commitment 
to the national interest.
  This House today faces a similar challenge. To restore public 
confidence in this institution we must commit ourselves to being the 
most honest, most ethical, most responsive, most transparent Congress 
in history. We can end the nightmare of the last 6 years by putting the 
needs of the American people before those of the lobbyists and special 
interests. To do that, we can start by adopting by H.R. 3162.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong 
support of the CHAMP Act. The CHAMP Act is another achievement that the 
Democratic Congress can point to that is fulfilling the needs of the 
American people.
  In my home State of Florida, KidCare--Florida's CHIP program--covered 
303,595 children in 2006, but 718,603 children remain uninsured. The 
CHAMP Act could provide Florida with approximately $2.54 billion in new 
federal funding and an opportunity to get more children covered. States 
like Florida need to step up to the plate and fund their CHIP program 
to the fullest extent.
  The CHAMP Act would provide continued health insurance to six million 
children already covered and add an additional five million children 
who currently lack health insurance nationwide. That alone should be 
enough to vote for this bill, but the Republicans continue to play 
political games.
  Fortunately, the Republicans have no ground to stand on this bill and 
they know it. They are trapped in a corner crying about tax increases 
instead of supporting health care for five million children. Let me 
tell you, this is why your party is no longer in control--you've 
stopped listening to the people.
  Opponents also say this is a fiscally irresponsible bill. Let me say 
that your party doesn't understand fiscal responsibility. The 
Republican party has run up the largest deficits in history and they 
call this bill fiscally irresponsible. We have spent over $600 billion 
on the President's war in Iraq and we can't spend less than $3.50 a day 
to cover a child through CHIP. Seventy-six percent of Americans believe 
that access to health insurance is more important than cutting taxes.
  This bill will be one of the most important healthcare issues this 
Congress will deal with and the American public will know who voted for 
it. The number of uninsured children in the country is an 
embarrassment. The Democrats are making the American public a priority 
again and I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill and 
vote for the children.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, today's CHAMP bill is one of the best pieces 
of legislation the house has considered in a decade. It illustrates the 
difference between how this Congress writes legislation and how the 
Republican Congress wrote bills; today's bill favors children, the 
Republican bill favored insurance companies.
  This bill will provide health care to 11 million kids--five million 
who currently lack health insurance and six million who are currently 
covered by the Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP--by 
reauthorizing and improving SCHIP. In Texas, more than 120,000 will 
benefit.
  This bill also reverses the Republican drive to privatize Medicare 
and strengthens Medicare to: ensure beneficiaries' access to their 
doctors; expand preventive benefits, mental health services and 
physical, occupational and speech therapies; reduce costs for seniors 
and people with disabilities with low incomes; protect consumers; and 
extend policies that protect access to health care in rural 
communities.
  Congress created SCHIP in 1997 with broad bipartisan support. This 
year, six million children have health care because of SCHIP. The 
program has worked well in Texas. This is an excellent investment for 
this Nation given that health care costs without insurance would be 
much more expensive.
  The funding for SCHIP expires September 30. If Congress does not act, 
these six million children will no longer have access to quality, 
affordable health insurance. These children are in working families 
with parents who either cannot afford insurance or hold jobs that lack 
health care benefits.
  The President highlighted his support for SCHIP while running for re-
election in 2004, yet the Bush Administration and our Republican 
colleagues propose underfunding the program significantly, which would 
cause millions of children to lose coverage.
  The CHAMP Act protects Medicare from privatization and promotes 
fiscal responsibility by reducing overpayments to private plans. 
Current overpayments to private plans cost taxpayers tens of billions 
of dollars. According to nonpartisan analysts, private plans are paid, 
on average, 12 percent more than traditional Medicare--and overpayments 
to certain plans exceed 50 percent.
  These overpayments are the result of a decade-long campaign by 
President Bush and Republicans in Congress to privatize Medicare by 
undermining traditional Medicare and promoting private insurance. 
Republicans believe that the greater the number of beneficiaries 
enrolled in private plans, the easier it will be to privatize Medicare.
  The CHAMP Act guarantees seniors and people with disabilities can 
continue to see their doctors by preventing scheduled physician payment 
cuts from taking place.
  The CHAMP Act extends expiring provisions that, if left unchanged, 
would negatively affect rural beneficiaries' access to physicians, 
hospitals, home health, ambulances, and lab services--all of which are 
important to south Texas.
  The bill also adds important consumer protections to Medicare. It 
provides States with the authority to regulate private plans' marketing 
abuses and increases penalties for violations, enables all 
beneficiaries to switch Part D plans if plans alter their formulas. 
This empowers low-income beneficiaries to change plans at any time. It 
also requires greater quality reporting to ensure patients are getting 
the best care available.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important bill--and I encourage 
the President to do the right thing and sign it, our children and their 
grandparents are waiting.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3162, the 
Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act (CHAMP Act). This 
legislation will reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program, ensuring

[[Page H9493]]

that millions of children receive the care they need, and will protect 
Medicare for America's seniors.
  Even though I support this legislation, I rise today with a heavy 
heart. It is nothing short of a disgrace that here, in the wealthiest 
country on earth, eight million children lack health insurance 
coverage. We ought to be ashamed that we are having this debate at all.
  I am absolutely stunned that Congressional Republicans and the 
President are opposing this legislation, particularly in light of the 
fact that the President used CHIP as part of his campaign platform in 
2004. Talk about shock and awe! I am shocked beyond belief that they 
can stand before the American people with straight faces and refuse 
health care for children. I am in awe of the gall required to base the 
denial of these vital, life-saving services on an ideological talking 
point. Madam Speaker, the ideology of my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle has not provided health care for these children yet. It is 
impossible for any serious person to believe that if this legislation 
is defeated the Republican ideology will suddenly start working its 
magic and provide health care for these children whose parents can't 
afford to buy it in the open market.
  In my years fighting for universal health care, we have often said, 
``Covering children is easy. How could anyone publicly refuse to 
support coverage for children?'' It was coverage for adults that was 
always perceived as the real challenge.
  But today, the Republicans have stooped lower than even I thought was 
possible. Not only are they saying ``We can't afford to give our 
children health care.'' This is the same party, by the way, that finds 
money for tax cuts for the rich, that finds money to fund a disaster of 
a war. Many times more money than what is needed to cover these 
children, in fact.
  Not only are the Republicans admitting that they prioritize tax cuts 
for the wealthy and feeding the military industrial complex over 
insuring our children. They are now standing before the American people 
and saying ``It is not our job to guarantee health insurance coverage 
for America's children.'' They are refusing to make that promise. 
Instead, they propose that our children's health should be subject to 
the ups and downs of the stock market, that it should depend on their 
parents' employment status, or how much they have in a bank account. It 
is utterly beyond conception how the Republicans can possibly think 
these ideas will be accepted by the American people. But I will leave 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to face the repercussions 
of this folly next November.
  Let me move on to a more positive subject: the bill under 
consideration today, which we will pass over these shameful objections. 
The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act, also known as the 
CHAMP Act, reauthorizes the State Children's Health Insurance Program 
(CHIP) and protects coverage for 6 million children, including 89,257 
in Michigan, while extending health care coverage to another 5 million 
low-income children. All told, this bill will ensure essential health 
care coverage for 11 million of our most vulnerable children.
  The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act also makes needed 
fixes to the Medicare program. It stops a 10 percent payment cut to 
doctors, thereby ensuring that I, we seniors will continue to have 
access to the doctors of their choice. It encourages seniors to seek 
preventive health benefits by eliminating co-payments and deductibles 
for these services. The bill protects low-income seniors by expanding 
and improving programs that help keep Medicare affordable for those 
with lower incomes. It stops overpayments to HMOs that are draining 
money away from health care and into their profit margins. And it also 
shores up Medicare's finances by extending the solvency of the Medicare 
Trust Fund by two years.
  Failing to pass this legislation would have real consequences for 
children and seniors. If the State Children's Health Insurance Program 
is not reauthorized by September 30th, 2007, millions of children could 
lose their health insurance. Seniors will lose access to their doctors 
and pay higher Medicare premiums to subsidize overpayments to HMOs. I 
find it quite interesting that we haven't heard these so-called 
fiscally responsible Republicans lamenting the fact that their friends 
in the HMO industry are overbilling our government to line their 
pockets. It seems that fiscal responsibility only applies when poor 
children are on the receiving end.
  Let's defeat the sham S-CHIP bill offered by Representatives Barton, 
Shimkus and Blackburn that would leave millions of children without 
health care while slashing Medicare and harming our seniors. Let's tell 
the White House and Congressional Republicans that it's time to stop 
playing political games. Let's tell them it's time to work together to 
ensure more children across the country have the high-quality medical 
care they deserve and strengthen Medicare for our seniors. They might 
not be able to understand that it's the right thing to do, but the 
American people certainly will.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
bill.
  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said ``of all the forms of inequality, 
injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' The CHAMP 
Act addresses many problems that we currently have in our health care 
system. It does not end health care inequality, but it will increase 
coverage for low income children, and it will stave off payment cuts 
for hardworking physicians, while increasing choices for seniors and 
strengthening traditional Medicare.
  I believe that health care should be a right, not a privilege, and 
this act is a step in the right direction. The Children's Health 
Insurance Program (CHIP) is set to expire on September 30, 2007. This 
year, six million children have health care because of CHIP. If 
Congress does not act, these six million will no longer have access to 
quality, affordable health insurance. This legislation also provides 
coverage for an additional 5 million children who currently qualify but 
who are not yet enrolled under CHIP. These children are in working 
families with parents who either can't afford insurance or have jobs 
that lack health care benefits.
  Despite claims by some, this bill does nothing to ``expand'' the CHIP 
program. Instead, it maintains current eligibility requirements for 
CHIP. The majority of uninsured children are currently eligible for 
coverage--but better outreach and adequate funding are needed to 
identify and enroll them. This bill gives states the tools and 
incentives necessary to reach millions of uninsured children who are 
eligible for, but not enrolled in, the program.
  It has been said that the CHAMP Act creates an entitlement for 
illegal immigrants. But in fact the CHAMP Act does not change existing 
law, which states that undocumented immigrants are not eligible for 
CHIP or regular Medicaid. And the CHAMP Act explicitly states that it 
provides no federal funding for Medicaid or CHIP for undocumented 
immigrants and requires audits of all State programs to ensure that 
federal funds are not being spent on undocumented children.
  The CHAMP Act will protect and improve Medicare by increasing fiscal 
responsibility and ensuring access to doctors for seniors and those 
with disabilities. Currently experts agree that Medicare Advantage (MA) 
plans receive, on average, 12 percent more than the cost of care in 
traditional Medicare. Overpayments to certain plans can exceed 50 
percent. By phasing out these overpayments over the next four years the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that billions of dollars will be 
saved each year. While, increasing the solvency of Medicare and 
simultaneously reversing the catastrophic 10% payment cuts to 
physicians who serve Medicare patients. By reducing overpayments to 
Medicare Advantage plans, wasteful spending will be reduced while 
increasing patient access to physicians.
  Medicare Advantage plans originally sought to give beneficiaries more 
choices at a lower cost. However, overpayments to MA plans do not 
increase benefits but rather pay for the administrative costs, 
marketing costs and profits for private plans. The CHAMP Act levels the 
playing field by decreasing premiums for those enrolled in traditional 
Medicare.
  By curbing the overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, this 
legislation decreases the cost for preventative health services for 
seniors, eliminating co-payments and deductibles for these vital 
services while saving lives and money. Further, this bill includes $3 
billion for the rural health care safety net. This ensures access to 
quality care for those in rural America.
  The health of our children is vital to the success of our society. 
The CHAMP act will raise the federal tobacco tax by 45 cents. According 
to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a 45-cent increase means that 
1,381,000 fewer children will take up smoking. Adults, too, would be 
less likely to smoke, which means fewer smoking-related illnesses and 
lower health costs. Estimates are that this tobacco tax increase will 
result in long-term health savings of $32.4 billion and 669,000 fewer 
smoking related deaths.
  The CHAMP Act has the support of the American Medical Association, 
American Association of Retired Persons, Catholic Health Association, 
National Rural Health Association, American Hospital Association, 
Federation of American Hospitals, American Nurses Association, Families 
USA, National Partnership for Women and Families, Children's Defense 
Fund, Child Welfare League of America, and the National Committee to 
Preserve Social Security & Medicare.
  I am proud to vote for this bill that seeks to protect those that are 
most vulnerable in our society by increasing health insurance coverage 
for low-income children and protecting and improving coverage for those 
enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid.
  Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule. 
Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe we must ensure access to

[[Page H9494]]

quality and affordable health care; this has been a top priority for me 
as eastern Washington's Representative in this House. I wholeheartedly 
support renewing the SCHIP program, which was originally created under 
Republican control of Congress in a bipartisan fashion. Ensuring health 
care for low income children who need it the most should be our 
priority.
  I also wholeheartedly support access to health care for seniors--but 
unfortunately, because of partisan politics, a vote for this proposal 
is a vote to kick over 157,000 seniors off their Medicare advantage 
plans in Washington state.
  Further, if this rule and this bill pass the House today, two 
hospitals in my district, North Valley Hospital in Tonasket and Mid-
Valley Hospital in Omak, would be forced to close their doors to our 
community.
  These hospitals were started by concerned physicians who banded 
together to provide health care in a remote region that is largely 
comprised of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. This bill forces 
these doctors to sell their ``share'' of the hospital--which is less 
than 1 percent a piece--because it incorrectly assumes they are 
unethically self-referring patients.
  That may be a problem in other parts of the country but not in 
Okanogan County. These two hospitals are the closest hospitals within 
5,000 square miles and serve the county's 40,000 residents. There has 
to be a better way to prohibit unethical practices. Shutting down the 
only vehicle for health care delivery is not the answer, which is why I 
cosponsored an amendment to this rule that would have allowed these 
hospitals to continue to serve all residents--from kids to seniors--in 
Okanogan County. Unfortunately, this amendment was not allowed under 
the Democratic leadership.
  Not only does this bill devastate the already delicate rural health 
care infrastructure in parts of eastern Washington, but it cuts deep in 
the pocket of seniors in order to pay for a runaway expansion of this 
children's health program that covers a 25-year-old adult.
  Proponents of this bill might argue that it is necessary to kick 
seniors off of their Medicare plans in order to cover poor children. I 
would then ask them: do you consider a family of four making $82,000 
dollars a year, a poor family? That is who we are covering here.
  In eastern Washington alone, over 10,000 seniors would lose their 
choice in Medicare coverage to pay for this reckless expansion. They 
will be forced to find and pay out of pocket for their own prescription 
drug plans, pay for rapidly increased premiums, lose direct senior 
services, and have a harder time finding a primary care doctor because 
most prefer the Medicare Advantage payment rate.
  Meanwhile, this rule and the underlying bill will make it easier for 
illegal immigrants to get health care--funded on the backs of middle 
class families and small businesses. Not only do this bill and the 
underlying rule slash $193 billion from seniors' health care, but its 
stealth tax increases will draw off money from every American with a 
health insurance plan. This rule endangers seniors in my community--Mr. 
Speaker, we can and must do better.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3162. Last 
night, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee that would require 
states to report their plan to target the lowest income families for 
enrollment first and to report their plan to avoid displacing private 
insurance coverage that families already enjoy. Unfortunately, the 
Majority does not want to encourage states to work to cover the 
neediest children first.
  Many low income families in hurricane damaged areas of my own 
district remain eligible but not enrolled in SCHIP. According to the 
State of Louisiana, more than 68,000 children in families that make 
less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level remained eligible 
but unenrolled in SCHIP as of May 2007.
  Instead of targeting sufficient outreach to low income families, the 
bill wastes scarce outreach dollars by encouraging states like New York 
to enroll families making more than $82,000 who already have insurance. 
Research by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that half of the 
children in families making 300 percent above the federal poverty level 
who currently have private insurance could be pushed out of that 
coverage and onto new government programs.
  The bill also harms rural seniors who will be harmed by cuts to 
Medicare Advantage. Don't forget that more than 2,000 seniors in 
Calcasieu Parish lost coverage after Washington's last cuts to that 
program, and now Washington is poised to do it again.
  Scarce federal tax dollars should be used to target the neediest 
children first. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr, Speaker, as co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional 
Diabetes Caucus, one of the largest House Caucuses-with over 250 
members, I want to highlight the increased investment in diabetes 
research included in the ``Children's Health and Medicare Protection 
Act,'' As the single most costly chronic disease in the United States, 
diabetes places a tremendous economic burden on our country, costing 
more than $132 billion annually and accounting for one out of every 
three Medicare dollars.
  Diabetes inflicts an enormous personal toll on individuals and their 
families. Individuals with diabetes have more than twice the prevalence 
of disability from amputation, loss of vision, and other serious 
complications such as stroke, kidney failure and heart disease. Even 
with continuous and vigilant management, patients are still susceptible 
to developing serious, long-term complications.
  Absent a significant federal investment in conquering this disease, 
the personal and economic toll of diabetes will continue to grow. It is 
estimated that one out of every three children who are born in the year 
2000 will develop diabetes during their lifetime.
  Despite this alarming trend, real advances are being made and 
tremendous research opportunities exist, in large part due to the 
Special Statutory Funding Program for Type 1 Diabetes Research which 
was originally created as a provision of the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program in 1997. This program has produced tangible results 
that are improving people's lives today as we continue towards our 
ultimate goal of a cure. However, unless this program is reauthorized, 
there will be a 35% reduction in federal support for type 1 diabetes 
research.
  Chairman Dingell, I want to thank you for including a one year 
extension at current funding levels for this program. I know that 
difficult choices had to be made to accomplish multiple goals within a 
tight budget, and his support for this critical program is greatly 
appreciated.
  It is important to note, however, that because the program has 
previously provided continuity of funding over multiple years, the 
National Institutes of Health has been able to support longer-term, 
innovative research projects that have led to significant advances. 
Such efforts would not be continued if the program was not extended for 
multiple years.
  I am committed to continuing my work with Chairman John Dingell and 
the rest of my colleagues on this issue to ensure that we can 
adequately fund this program in upcoming years.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 
H.R. 3162, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act.
  Texas has the highest rate of uninsured children in the nation. 
Twenty-five percent of Texas kids have no health insurance.
  The Texas state legislature has done a great disservice to these 
children, and they are working to remedy the problems but have a long 
way to go.
  The Federal Government can help by expanding SCHIP so that States can 
enroll more kids into the program. These are children of the working 
poor.
  I support generous expansion of this program.
  Children with health insurance are more likely to be up to date on 
immunizations and to receive treatment for sore throats, ear aches and 
other illnesses.
  Good health means fewer sick days and better school performance--and 
less burden on our emergency rooms.
  I urge my colleagues to avoid delay in passing this bill, that is 
critical for the health of so many children.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the House Ways and Means Democrats 
have put our nose to the grindstone and produced a well-balanced piece 
of legislation that will ultimately provide necessary and much improved 
care for both children and seniors.
  Along with providing health care to 11 million children, including 
five million who currently lack health insurance, it eliminates pending 
physician cuts in 2008 and 2009 and enacts a positive .5 percent 
increase in both years, providing for stability in reimbursement and 
ensuring that beneficiaries can continue to see the doctor of their 
choice. Additionally, the legislation expands preventive benefits 
including mental health services and physical, occupational and speech 
therapies, and reduces costs for seniors, people with disabilities and 
low incomes.
  Some of the most encouraging provisions of this legislation relate to 
health disparities. The legislation provides both incentives and 
instructions to our national health care providers on addressing the 
critical and debilitating phenomenon of health care disparities in the 
minority community. For the first time we identify, codify and target 
health care disparities with a goal toward eradicating these problems. 
Additionally, the bill proposes significant changes to the treatment of 
patients in End Stage Renal Disease and I have proposed a study on its 
impact on the African American community. Through this study we will 
learn how best to provide this most critical service to some of the 
nation's most vulnerable patients.
  I am pleased that we were able to secure a Medicare waiver for the 
Ireland Cancer Center of University Hospital Health Systems that will

[[Page H9495]]

allow them to provide immediate care to Medicare patients upon 
operation.
  While I do have some concerns regarding provisions regarding wheel-
chair access, oxygen and imaging services, I am confident that as we 
move toward enhancing our healthcare systems that these issues will be 
adequately addressed.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the CHAMP Act.
  I am a strong supporter of the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program--or SCHIP as it is commonly called. In my State of Illinois, 
there are approximately 167,000 low-income children who are enrolled in 
the program. Many of these children are in families where their parents 
work hard each month to make ends meet. And for many of these families, 
SCHIP is the safety net they need when they cannot afford private 
health insurance.
  I support reauthorization of the SCHIP Program when the goals of the 
reauthorization are to cover low- to moderate-income children that do 
not already have health insurance. However, I cannot support 
legislation that will provide government-sponsored insurance for 
higher-income families at the expense of seniors.
  The legislation we are considering today would allow States to cover 
children and adults well above the poverty level. A little-know 
provision in current law known as ``income disregard'' allows States to 
determine what is and is not income for the purposes of determining 
eligibility. This loophole allows States to provide SCHIP coverage to a 
family of four making more than $72,000 a year, or 350 percent of the 
Federal poverty level. While $72,000 a year may not get you on the 
cover of Forbes magazine, it is a level that most Americans would agree 
is above poverty.
  For families with private health insurance making $72,000 a year, 
this legislation would provide them with an incentive to shift from 
their private insurance to the Government program. And who can blame 
them? But I don't think that the taxpayers in my district would support 
a bill that shifts individuals from private insurance to Government 
programs.
  To expand coverage to middle-income families, the legislation would 
cut coverage to seniors in the Medicare Advantage program. In my 
district, there are more than 5,000 seniors who are enrolled in 
Medicare Advantage plans. I often hear about the additional benefits 
that these individuals enjoy that are otherwise unavailable or 
available at a much higher cost.
  We should not be forced to choose between seniors and children--
particularly when the majority does not allow the minority to properly 
review the legislation, debate it in the committee or on the floor, or 
allow amendments and alternative ideas to be considered.
  I support reauthorizing the SCHIP program when that legislation is 
focused on the most vulnerable population--the population the program 
was intended to help--poor children. But I cannot support legislation 
that will eliminate coverage for senior in order to provide coverage to 
middle-income adults and children--many of whom already have health 
insurance.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
children's Health and Medicare Protection Act.
  The United States has the highest gross domestic product in the 
world. We have the most advanced technology, the strongest research 
program, and for some, the best medicine in the world.
  But last year, 18,000 Americans died because they were uninsured and 
did not have access to health care. Many of them were children.
  Providing health care for poor children used to be a bipartisan 
issue. But today the Republicans say that they philosophically object 
to this bill claiming that it is a massive expansion of Government-run 
healthcare.
  But this bill does not change the structure of the program that the 
Republicans voted for in 1997. The only explanation is that they 
philosophically object to spending the $50 billion necessary to find 
and give healthcare to all 11 million poor, eligible children. What 
kind of philosophy is that?
  President Bush used to talk about compassionate conservatism, but 
this debate has exposed a Republican Party that is neither 
compassionate nor conservative.
  Instead, we are seeing some on the other side of the aisle choosing 
corporations over children. They demand that we continue Federal 
subsidies for their friends in the big, for-profit, insurance 
companies, while denying uninsured children the healthcare they need.
  If you kick these Republicans in the heart, you'll break your toe.
  I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this critical children's health bill.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have a good bill that will 
help provide needed health insurance for 5 million more low-income 
children, that helps us reduce health disparities, equalizes payments 
under Medicare to allied health professions, acknowleges the role of 
schools in health care service delivery and protects senior citizens 
from deceptive and aggressive marketing tactics by private Medicare 
sales people. I applaud the inclusion of health information technology 
in this bill. I have a draft bill in this area related to connecting 
medically underserved communities to reduce health disparities and I 
believe this bill could further that process.
  I applaud this bill for making a number of efforts to collect racial 
and ethnic health data. Numerous groups including the Rand Corporation, 
the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Kaiser Family Foundation and 
others have stressed that efforts to reduce and eliminate racial and 
ethnic health disparities cannot proceed without comprehensive data 
collection.
  I am pleased that this bill creates payment fixes under Medicare for 
a number of allied health professions, including midwives and marriage 
and family therapists. I had hoped a similar provision for physicians' 
assistants could have been included. However, this bill can address the 
ability of physicians to delegate hospice care to physicians' 
assistants without any further cost considerations.
  I am particularly pleased that the overall tone of the bill is to 
help children improve their lives and their health by offering a 
guaranteed dental benefit and helping States enroll and retain more 
eligible children, including the children of legal immigrants. I am 
fully supportive of the idea of allowing ``qualifying States'' to use 
their CHIP allotments for Medicaid if that will cover more kids.
  I believe that the attempt to categorize this bill as cutting 
Medicare is nothing more than a sham. Thousands of seniors who need 
part ``D'' assistance will benefit from easier enrollement procedures. 
Almost 550,000 seniors in my State will be protected on limitations to 
out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs. Companies have for 3 years 
overcharged Medicare from 19 to 70 percent and have told seniors that 
cutting these over payments will cut their benefits. That is simply not 
true. It is not necessary to choose between funding health care for 
children and health care for seniors. This legislation does both.
  Urban and rural districts will benefit from the proactive approach in 
this bill to reach out to ``hard-to-reach'' communities to spread the 
word about enrolling in SCHIP. That makes good sense and is supported 
by a wide range of groups in our community, including the National 
Medical Association.
  My city, State and many stakeholder groups are also fully supportive 
of simplifying the applications process and speeding up and 
streamlining eligibility determinations. In addition, States like New 
York that fund SCHIP beyond 200 percent of Federal poverty levels are 
appreciative of the ability to earn bonus payments available to States 
that have implemented 5 of 7 practices that would increase outreach, 
enrollment, and retention efforts.
  In addition, I am supportive of the option to enroll children who 
would otherwise age out of Medicaid or CHIP.
  The majority tried very hard to include all medically necessary 
services, but cost factors did not make that fully possible. Indeed, I 
am appreciative that you were able to include dental and mental health 
services in this bill as a State mandate because these services are 
predictors of good health status. In fact when these services are not 
readily available it can be tragic. We witnessed the unfortunate demise 
of young Deamonte Driver in Maryland from a tooth abscess this past 
winter, preventable by extracting a tooth at the cost of about $80. 
Instead, he suffered a brain infection that cost the system $250,000 in 
surgery bills and Deamonte his life because he could not receive 
treatment in time. This bill will help avoid these types of tragedies.
  I am very supportive of the creation of the Children's Access Payment 
and Equity Commission because I believe that with a good balance of 
commissioners, including those from medically underserved communities, 
we can more closely monitor access to care from these communities.
  Other features of this bill that I fully support include: coverage of 
pregnant women; the increase for allowable resources for asset testing; 
continuous enrollment and the encouragement of culturally appropriate 
enrollment and retention practices.
  I do, however, have a number of concerns. I am very concerned that 
New York's public hospital system stands to lose up to $350 million if 
the moratorium on intergovernment tax transfers is not extended. In 
addition, our State and city will lose even more than that if we 
eliminate graduate medical education payments. I hope that we can work 
together to prevent this tragedy, not rust for my own State and city, 
but for others as well.
  I am still concerned that we need to give a date certain to the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin an additional compendia 
to support coverage of off-label uses of cancer drugs.

[[Page H9496]]

  I am concerned that the freeze on payments to the home health 
industry will continue to have negative effects in my State and city.
  I am also concerned that Medicare beneficiaries will not receive all 
of the necessary treatments available to them. Further, I would prefer 
they have the broadest formulary coverage so that seniors are not 
forced to switch to other medications which are not rated as 
therapeutic equivalents.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I rise to express my opposition to the bill 
before us. As a physician who still sees patients I find this piece of 
legislation to be completely unacceptable and extremely irresponsible.
  The Democrat majority--under the guise of providing insurance to 
uninsured lower-income children--has chosen to expand the State 
Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) far beyond its original 
intent of insuring low-income children. What is worse, they've chosen 
to pay for it by cutting benefits for Seniors and other Medicare 
beneficiaries by more than $157 billion.
  They have rushed this 500-page bill to the House floor without first 
allowing the committees of jurisdiction to fully debate and amend the 
bill. They introduced their bill last night just before midnight. 
Shortly after midnight, they added a 45-page amendment. This morning 
they made this available to Members of the House. Now they have only 
allowed two hours of debate and denied Members of Congress any 
opportunity to offer amendments to the bill. In fact, they are brazenly 
complaining that by giving Members time to read the bill, it would 
unnecessarily delay moving this bill forward.
  What is so offensive about suggesting that Members of Congress have 
an opportunity to read the bill before being asked to vote on it? Why 
the rush? Why the secrecy? Why are they shutting down the legislative 
process and rushing this bill through before anyone can read it?
  It is because they don't want the American people to know what they 
are doing until it is too late. And they don't want Members of Congress 
to know what they are voting on and what the true effects of the 
legislation will be.
  They don't want the 780,000 seniors in the state of Florida--
including over 40,000 seniors in my congressional district--to know 
that their Medicare benefits will be cut in order to provide health 
insurance to non-U.S. citizens, including illegal immigrants, and 
millions of children who already have health coverage.
  They don't want 8 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage 
plans across this Nation to know that their benefits are being cut so 
that the SCHIP program can be expanded to subsidize health care 
benefits for adults in states like New Jersey, some with annual incomes 
of $80,000 per year.
  They want to hide from America's seniors the fact that Medicare 
benefits are being cut in order to subsidize health care benefits to a 
new group of ``children'' who happen to be between 18 and 25 years of 
age.
  They don't want seniors to know that budget experts in Congress 
estimate that nearly one-half of the children who will be signed up to 
the SCHIP program after this bill passes--using money that is being cut 
from Medicare--are simply dropping their private health care coverage 
in order to get the federal subsidy under the SCHIP program.
  Earlier this year, I was troubled by the fact that Democrats planned 
to significantly expand the SCHIP program and I offered an amendment in 
the House Appropriations Committee that would have focused the program 
so that states would first be required to ensure that all children in 
homes earning below 200 percent of the poverty level were covered. My 
amendment was rejected by the Democrat majority in that Committee who 
said they opposed it because my amendment would focus the program on 
serving uninsured children. They made it clear that they had no intent 
of focusing this program on lower income children, but rather planned 
to expand the program to those well above the poverty level and to 
include adults and non-citizens.
  What else is in this bill that they are trying to hide from the 
American people?
  They repeal the requirement that individuals must prove citizenship 
in order to enroll in Medicaid and SCHIP. This opens the program to 
fraud and the enrollment of illegal immigrants. In 2006, the Inspector 
General (IG) of the Department of Health and Human Services found that 
46 states allowed anyone seeking Medicaid or SCHIP to simply state they 
were citizens. The IG found that 27 states never sought to verify that 
enrollees were indeed citizens. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
estimates that repealing this requirement will cost $1.9 billion.
  The bill provides a bonus payment to states that choose not to 
implement an asset test for those enrolling in SCHIP. In other words, a 
family could hold assets of as much as $1 million (a house, car, mutual 
fund) but could still qualify for SCHIP if their income for that year 
fell within the amount allowed for SCHIP enrollment. For example, a 
family of four living in a $1 million home in New York with an annual 
income of $80,000 could qualify for enrollment in SCHIP. And if New 
York does this--they get a bonus!
  It is my understanding that this 500-plus-page bill imposes a tax on 
private health insurance. Certainly, they want to hide that from the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that they don't want the American people to 
know that they are creating a massive new entitlement program just at 
the time when the financial strains of the Social Security and Medicare 
entitlements are being stretched as Baby Boomers retire. They are 
putting this Nation on a path to bankruptcy by creating a huge new 
entitlement program that they have no way of sustaining long-term. This 
is the wrong time to be saddling the American taxpayers with a gigantic 
new program.
  Additionally, I am concerned that this bill fails to secure the 
senior's long-term access to quality physicians. The 1997 Budget Act (a 
bill I voted against) created a formula that has resulted in payment to 
doctors being cut. As a result, today some doctors (typically the best 
doctors with the busiest practices) are starting to refuse to see new 
Medicare patients. This SCHIP bill does not fix this problem. It 
provides doctors with a 1 percent increase over 2 years then cuts 
doctor reimbursement by 12 percent in 2010 and 12 percent in 2011, or 
23 percent over 2 years. The effect of these cuts could be devastating 
with many doctors facing the possibility of losing money when they see 
Medicare patients. The result will be seniors will not be able to see a 
doctor.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on about the additional cuts to Medicare, 
including cuts to the following Medicare benefits: home health, end 
stage renal disease, oxygen therapy, imaging services, dialysis, and 
skilled nursing facilities.
  By cutting Medicare and spending the money elsewhere, this bill will 
make the challenge of securing the long-term solvency of Medicare even 
more difficult.
  Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that the Democrat leaders have 
chosen to pit health care benefits for America's senior citizens 
against those of children. There is a better way. Had the Democrat 
leadership chosen to consider this bill under the regular legislative 
process, we could have worked through this in a bipartisan manner. 
Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi has chosen to put politics before 
prudence. This bill goes far beyond the bill passed by the Senate, and 
the President has vowed to veto the House bill. This bill should be 
sent back to committee and debated in regular order. America's seniors, 
uninsured children, and the American taxpayer deserve better.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly in opposition to the 
Children's Health and Medicare Preservation Act. I fully support the 
goals of this legislation--to provide healthcare to millions of 
uninsured children, to improve Medicare benefits for our seniors, and 
to help rural areas provide healthcare. Unfortunately, however, I 
cannot support legislation that unfairly impacts the second district 
and all of North Carolina with the burdens of this cost.
  I have been a long-time supporter of the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program, or SCHIP, and I am proud that the Budget Committee 
on which I serve authorized the increase reflected in this bill. I 
support reauthorizing and strengthening SCHIP, without which nearly six 
million children will lose access to healthcare. In North Carolina, NC 
Health Choice provides cost-effective and high-quality health services 
to 250,000 at-risk children. An additional 180,000 uninsured children 
in North Carolina are eligible for coverage, and the $50 billion in the 
budget I helped write would enable more of these children to be 
covered.
  It is also vital that we enable physicians to provide health 
services, in SCHIP, Medicaid, .and in Medicare. This legislation 
implements a 2-year fix that enables doctors to continue their 
participation in the program without going bankrupt. Without this fix, 
North Carolina physicians will lose $460 million for the care of 
elderly and disabled patients over the next 2 years, and face a 1.6 
percent geographic cut above the baseline reductions in other parts of 
the country. I appreciate Medicare physicians who have made many 
sacrifices to continue to cover the Medicare population, and without a 
fix this year doctors may start dropping out and refuse to see Medicare 
patients. We must maintain our commitment to universal coverage for our 
Nation's seniors and people with disabilities. This legislation takes a 
positive step in that direction.
  There are many other positive provisions in this legislation: fixes 
that strengthen the Medicare Trust Fund, provide more access to 
preventative care, and provide lower premiums for many seniors; 
extensions for important rural health care initiatives that ensure 
access to care for people across the country, especially in the second 
district of North Carolina; support for the Special Diabetes Programs, 
which provide essential funding for research and innovative diabetes 
prevention activities for thousands of children in communities 
throughout the country; provides parity for

[[Page H9497]]

mental health coverage under Medicare; the list goes on and on. I 
understand what these improvements mean to the people of North 
Carolina, and I wholeheartedly support them.

  These provisions have a cost, however, and as important as these 
priorities are we also must value the principle of fairness. I do not 
support smoking, and I have never smoked, but this bill is not fair to 
those who grow or use tobacco. The cigarette tax is regressive; falling 
hardest on those who can least afford it. Although it is a national 
tax, it also unevenly impacts the country, with North Carolina and a 
few other states footing the bill for the benefits the CHAMP Act seeks 
to deliver. North Carolina's citizens pay over four percent of the 
costs of this legislation while receiving about two percent of the 
benefit.
  Researchers at North Carolina State University estimate that North 
Carolina's economy would lose at least $540 million a year through the 
tax's indirect impact as well. North Carolina's tobacco farmers grow a 
legal crop. These hard working farm families have suffered greatly from 
transformations in the global economy. Because my district is the 
second largest tobacco producing district in the country, H.R. 3162 
disproportionately affects my constituents who work hard to be able to 
pay their bills and provide a better life for their children. This just 
doesn't pass the fairness test.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish I could support this bill for all of its laudable 
goals. I join with my colleagues in my desire to provide healthcare for 
children, strengthen Medicare and protect it from privatization, and 
improve health services for rural communities, diabetes patients, and 
others. When we are able to do so without placing undue burden on North 
Carolina's farmers and low-income families, I will gladly vote in favor 
of doing so. With the current funding mechanism, however, I cannot 
support this bill.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have attacked a 
provision in the CHAMP Act that would allow states flexibility in how 
they verify the citizenship of the American children applying for or 
renewing coverage under Medicaid, claiming that language in the 2005 
Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) that imposed harsher citizenship 
verification requirements on state Medicaid programs is the only 
barrier protecting taxpayer dollars from being spent on healthcare for 
illegal immigrants.
  Empirical evidence from the first nine months of the implementation 
of this rule demonstrates, in fact, that the new requirements have 
denied tens of thousands of American children access to health care.
  In my own state of Virginia, this draconian requirement has adversely 
affected thousands of U.S. citizen children, children who are among the 
most medically vulnerable in the state. In the first nine months of 
implementation, there was a net decline of more than 11,000 children 
enrolled in Medicaid. Had growth in enrollment continued at the same 
rate it had during the previous 2 years, the state would have seen a 
net increase of 9,000 poor children, suggesting that overall, at least 
20,000 have been denied access to health coverage.
  Among those who do receive coverage, the average wait time for 
processing has increased from sixteen days to four to six months.
  Twenty-one other states also reported declines in enrollment since 
the implementation of the DRA, including a net decline of 14,000 
children in Kansas.
  While the DRA's requirements have unfortunately limited access to 
care for so many low-income U.S. citizen children, they also have 
imposed enormous administrative costs on the states, our financial 
partners in this program. In Virginia, the number of ``pending'' cases 
awaiting further documentation skyrocketed from about 50 per month to 
4000. The DRA requirements have made measures to increase the 
efficiency of the Medicaid application process (including mail-in, 
phone and online applications) impossible.
  The DRA requirements don't seem to be succeeding in fulfilling its 
objective: in the first nine months of implementation, six states spent 
$17 million implementing the DRA requirements, but only identified 
eight undocumented immigrants out of a total of 3.6 million Medicaid 
beneficiaries.
  In addition, enrollment has fallen significantly in these states 
among white and African-American children, while enrollment among 
Latino children has increased--which would not be occurring if the 
provision were affecting undocumented immigrants, 78% of whom are from 
Mexico, Central America or South America, according to the Pew Hispanic 
Center.
  The DRA requirements imposed substantial bureaucratic costs on the 
states, but have produced almost no cost savings. Instead, millions of 
dollars spent implementing the DRA requirements have served only to 
deny care to tens of thousands of American children.
  The costs of care denied to low-income U.S. citizen children are 
passed on to taxpayers in the form of uncompensated emergency room 
visits and costs to treat the infectious diseases that these children 
may contract and unknowingly pass on while awaiting access to 
treatment.
  The debate about CHAMP should be about the public health and 
improving the health of our children. Attacks on this provision come 
from Members who are grasping at straws, trying to come up with reasons 
to oppose this bill, which takes monumental steps to improve the health 
of low-income children in this country.
  In a recent survey, 90 percent of parents applying for Medicaid for 
their children indicated that they have no other health coverage 
available. Allowing state flexibility in citizenship verification is 
sound public health policy that would enable thousands of American 
children access to vital health services to help them live better, 
healthier, and more productive lives. Because Medicaid is now the 
single largest cost to state taxpayers, we ought to make a concerted 
effort to support state flexibility.
  State flexibility is widely supported. Twenty-four Senators signed 
letters to Chairman Baucus asking him to include this measure in the 
Senate's bipartisan SCHIP bill, and fifty-one other House Members 
joined me in requesting that Chairman Dingell include this provision in 
the bill. I urge your support of this landmark legislation to protect 
the health of our most vulnerable low-income children, and your support 
of state flexibility in citizenship verification.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the ``CHAMP 
Act.'' I do support averting the 10 percent cut in physician payments 
scheduled for next year, and I am pleased that the bill reforms the 
Medicare geographic cost payments index for California and holds rural 
counties harmless through 2010--although I would have preferred to see 
a permanent fix so that the physicians I represent do not face the 
prospect of a 5 to 7 percent cut a few years down the road.
  However, I am very troubled by the overall thrust of the CHAMP Act, 
which is to expand big government health care at the expense of 
competition and consumer choice. This bill would effectively destroy 
the Medicare Advantage program, especially in rural areas like the 
district I represent.
  I would like to read to my colleagues from a letter I received just 
the other day from one of my constituents, Kathleen Lopez of 
Marysville, California. Kathleen writes, ``I chose a Medicare Advantage 
plan because I receive Social Security benefits less than $700 net per 
month; our annual income hovers around $20 thousand. This plan 
encourages preventive care, has Plan D Medicare, has some vision and 
dental coverage. . . . This type of plan eliminates costly monthly 
expenses for health coverage as well as prescription drug coverage.'' 
Over 4,500 other senior citizens in my district are receiving similar 
benefits. Most--if not all--of them will lose their benefits under this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, not only does this bill sharply reduce incentives for 
Medicare Advantage plans to offer coverage to low-income rural seniors 
like Kathleen Lopez, it also imposes new constraints and regulations to 
prevent Medicare Advantage plans from offering better deals. The 
message of this bill is ``Washington knows best.'' Instead of promoting 
competition and choice, we are going to push everybody into a one-size-
fits-all plan.
  That message is reinforced with the massive expansion of SCHIP that 
takes kids from middle-class and possibly even upper-class families off 
private insurance and puts them into a government program. Mr. Speaker, 
all of us support reauthorizing SCHIP. Everyone supports providing 
health care for low income children. But let us be clear: That is not 
the question we are discussing today. What we are debating is whether 
to turn SCHIP into a massive new entitlement under which every child in 
America--even if their families are well-off, even if they already have 
good health coverage--can become eligible for health care provided by 
the Federal Government.
  Don't be fooled--this bill is the first step toward the Federal 
Government taking over health care. Some members who were closely 
involved in writing this bill have even openly stated their support for 
creating a government-run health care system and literally banning 
market-driven health care providers. We have a decision before us: We 
can move toward a 21st-century, patient-centered health care system 
driven by competition, choice, and innovation. Or we can go backwards 
toward a system of socialized medicine, like the ones that are 
crumbling in Europe or the one that Canadian doctors come to our 
country to escape.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill goes in the wrong direction, and I urge my 
colleagues to reject it.
  Ms. Pryce of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this legislation wasted an 
opportunity to reauthorize a bipartisan health care program for low-
income children. I support SCHIP and would welcome its renewal and 
improvement. But this House is abandoning its mission of providing 
needed health care coverage for low-income children who otherwise would 
go without, and instead

[[Page H9498]]

enrolling millions of middle class families--even adults--with income 
upwards of $80,000, some who already have private insurance, in this 
government-run health care plan.
  Why are we pushing our middle class into government health care when 
there are so many low-income kids who still need help? And why are we 
asking seniors to pay for it? In Ohio, 70 percent of uninsured children 
who are currently eligible for SCHIP are not enrolled in the program. 
Congress should work to cover these children before it pursues this 
overly ambitious and costly entitlement expansion on the backs of our 
senior citizens.
  In my district, some 13,000 seniors would be dropped from their 
Medicare plan to pay for this bill. Additionally, many of the services 
seniors rely on most will be cut under this bill--from cuts to skilled 
nursing facilities, to oxygen, to wheelchairs, to home health care. 
This is simply unnecessary and unfair.
  I have devoted much of my career in the House to giving a voice to 
children and promoting programs to help them. It is therefore truly 
unfortunate and disappointing that the Democrat majority has rushed 
this bill to the floor, with no Republican input and no chance of 
improving it through the amendment process. And, I regret, that due to 
this unnecessary over-reaching, one-sided legislative process, I was 
compelled to oppose this irresponsible bill. We can do better. Our kids 
and our seniors deserve better.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that provides needed health 
care coverage to millions of children across this nation. It is vital 
to our nation's children and is in need of expansion in order to cover 
all eligible uninsured children.
  In fact, this February I joined many of my colleagues in sending a 
letter to the Budget Committee requesting that the fiscal year 2008 
budget include sufficient funding to maintain existing SCHIP caseloads, 
as well as make reauthorization of the program a high priority.
  Unfortunately, I believe that H.R. 3162 takes the wrong approach and 
goes beyond what is necessary to cover uninsured children in America. 
Furthermore, the legislation puts seniors in my district at risk by 
making cuts to the Medicare Program. By trying to do too much in this 
bill, we have shifted our focus from helping our nation's children and 
now have a bill that has become mired in controversy.
  I believe the Senate's stand-alone reauthorization legislation is a 
more reasonable approach. It focuses solely on strengthening SCHIP by 
implementing measures to expand the enrollment of low-income children 
as well as to improve the quality of health care that children in the 
program receive.
  House passage today is not the final step in the legislative process, 
of course. While I cannot support the bill before us today, I hope that 
when a conference report is brought before us, it will be a reasonable 
compromise that provides needed expansion of SCHIP without the 
troublesome provisions of this bill. We need to reauthorize and 
strengthen this important and necessary program.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 3162, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act (CHAMP 
Act).
  This important legislation will provide health care to 11 million 
children by reauthorizing and strengthening the Children's Health 
Insurance Program (CHIP).
  Insuring America's children is an affordable goal. It costs less than 
$3.50 a day--about the cost of a Starbucks Frappuccino--to cover a 
child through CHIP. Certainly we can all agree that this is an 
investment worth making.
  In addition to providing health coverage to children, this bill 
strengthens Medicare to ensure beneficiaries have access to their 
doctors and improves benefits to cover preventative and mental health 
services.
  This bill lays the groundwork for a long-term solution to the 
physician payment system.
  Medicare physician payment rates are set to be cut by 10 percent in 
2008 and a 5 percent cut each year thereafter under current law. This 
bill eliminates pending cuts and enacts a .5 percent increase in both 
2008 and 2009.
  Congress has a responsibility to protect our children's access to 
affordable health care and strengthen Medicare for patients and 
physicians.
  This bill accomplishes both these goals.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. Bishop of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, since its inception in 1997, I 
have been a steadfast proponent of SCHIP. This was perhaps most evident 
in January of this year when PeachCare, Georgia's SCHIP funded program, 
faced a $131 million shortfall. I hosted a bi-partisan delegation of 
Georgia lawmakers and public health officials who came to Washington to 
persuade the House leadership to fix the problem. In May, Congress 
approved and the President signed into law legislation which eliminated 
this shortfall faced by Georgia and other states.
  While my support of children's health care has never been in 
question, my vote today in favor of the bill was a difficult choice. 
I'm very uncomfortable with voting for any excise tax, especially one 
as regressive as a tobacco tax. The CHAMP Act presents a dilemma: 
improve access to health insurance for our youngest and most vulnerable 
citizens, or oppose the legislation to avoid causing harm to the many 
retailers and employees whose livelihoods depend upon the sale of 
tobacco, as well as the state and local governments that depend upon 
revenues generated from tobacco sales.
  This is not a perfect bill. But let us not let the ``perfect'' be the 
enemy of the ``good.'' This bill will ensure our children grow up 
healthy and strong, save millions of dollars for the taxpayers who pick 
up the tab for indigent care in emergency rooms, strengthen access to 
health care in rural America, and protect our nation's seniors by 
giving them the healthcare they deserve
  Mr. Latham. ``Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to R.R. 3162. 
First, I fully support reauthorizing the SCHIP program and preserving 
this important program intended to provide health insurance to low-
income children.
  Having said that, I cannot support a bill that robs America's seniors 
of their Medicare benefits in order to give taxpayer-financed health 
care to illegal immigrants. The bill before us eliminates requirements 
that applicants show proof of citizenship, potentially allowing 
millions of illegal immigrants access to Medicaid and SCHIP.
  Furthermore, there is no requirement to ensure that eligible children 
from low-income families are enrolled before expanding coverage to 
children from middle-class or wealthier families. No limits on income 
eligibility are included, allowing a virtually open-ended expansion of 
the program to children that already have private health insurance. 
Meanwhile, 70 percent of uninsured children are already eligible for 
Medicaid or SCHIP and most of these are in the low-income category. The 
original intent of SCHIP was to cover low-income children, and we need 
to give these kids priority.
  To pay for the expansion of SCHIP, Democrats are cutting over $157 
billion from Medicare Advantage, which provides enhanced benefits like 
prescription drug, vision and dental coverage, as well as lower out-of-
pocket costs, for almost 51,000 Iowa seniors. This will result in a 
reduction of benefits for seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage, and 
an increase in their costs. These drastic cuts will even force 3 
million current beneficiaries out of the program.
  Pitting grandparents against their grandchildren is simply wrong. I 
urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Let's go back to the drawing 
board to produce a more responsible bill focused on providing health 
insurance to children from low-income families.''
  Mrs. Bono. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support for 
the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, and the need 
for this program to be reauthorized. But, unfortunately, I must also 
state my opposition to the proposals that we have before us on the 
floor today.
  Since its enactment in 1997, SCHIP has been a tremendous success. 
SCHIP has been adopted in one form or another in every state across the 
nation. In my own state of California, we have enacted a combination of 
the SCHIP and Medicaid program to optimize coverage in the state. This 
program is better known as Healthy Families and currently provides 
coverage to more than 800,000 children. I strongly support the coverage 
that currently exists in California and voice my continued commitment 
to maintaining that coverage.
  I was heartened to see the bipartisan compromise that emerged from 
the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee 
earlier this month and that is currently being debated on the Senate 
floor. This legislation ensures that states will have adequate federal 
funding to continue their existing programs, while allowing others to 
expand coverage to more children. The bill also allows states to cover 
pregnant women and includes provisions to transition childless adults 
into Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 
this bill will lead to the coverage of three and a half million new 
children. And all this was done at $15 billion less than the SCHIP 
portion of the proposal that we have before us today. While I recognize 
that the Senate proposal is still a work in progress, I am supportive 
of many of the principles laid forth in this legislation and appreciate 
the flexibility with which states are allowed to continue operating 
this program.
  This CHAMP Act that is before us includes many provisions that are 
positive and attempt to address some very real and very serious 
problems facing the health care community. I know that my own state 
would benefit greatly from the Adult Day Health Care Services provision 
within the bill and would allow California and 7 other states to 
continue operating their long standing and successful programs. There

[[Page H9499]]

are provisions that will amend Medicare Part D to aid patients relying 
on the AIDS Drug Assistance Program or ADAP to pay for their drugs. 
Perhaps most importantly, this legislation also includes a two year 
update for payments to physicians under the Medicare fee schedule. If 
current law is allowed to move forward doctors will be forced to absorb 
a nearly 10% cut in reimbursements. As the daughter of a doctor, I am 
sympathetic to this cause and have been supportive of efforts to stave 
off devastating cuts that have been pending in years past. I strongly 
believe that the problems we face as a result of the Sustainable Growth 
Rate (SGR) deserve our full and careful attention. I do not, however, 
believe that this is the vehicle to do so.
  While I support many, if not most of the provisions in this bill, I 
have a responsibility to vote for programs and policies that are 
necessary for the public and affordable for the taxpayer. This bill is 
typical of what we have come to expect from a Congress that refuses to 
put limits on what they are willing to support and ask the taxpayers to 
fund.
  I joined with several of my colleagues in co-sponsoring H.R. 3269, 
the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, 
which was introduced by Representative Heather Wilson yesterday 
afternoon. I am proud to have co-sponsored this legislation that will 
do what needs to be done in an affordable and responsible manner. It 
would be a tragedy if this bill, that has bipartisan support in the 
Senate, were to lose and so many important projects pushed off track 
because this Congress refuses to deal with everyday realities of 
taxpayers struggling to make ends meet. I am deeply disappointed in the 
decision made by my colleagues on the Rules Committee to not only allow 
rejection of this amendment but every other amendment that may have 
helped to improve and reign in this irresponsible bill.
  To help pay for the obscene $90 billion price tag of this 
legislation, cuts have been proposed to hospital payments, inpatient 
rehabilitation services, skilled nursing facilities, and home health 
care services to name a few. I am very alarmed that a lion's share of 
these cutbacks will be felt by Medicare Advantage and the 8 million 
Medicare beneficiaries currently enrolled. In Riverside County alone, 
nearly 50 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have chosen to participate 
in a Medicare Advantage plan, more than 100,000 seniors. The bill that 
we have before us today will put each of us in the position of having 
to choose between children and seniors.
  As I have often stated, SCHIP must be reauthorized; 6.6 million 
children who are currently enrolled will find their coverage 
jeopardized if Congress does not act. We have long known that September 
30th was looming and instead of acting, the leadership of the various 
Committee's of jurisdiction have chosen to wait until the 11th hour, 
and not just act on SCHIP, but to create a veritable Christmas tree of 
major health care policy reforms with no legislative hearings. We can 
and should act on behalf of SCHIP. I encourage my colleagues in the 
House to follow the example of the Senate and consider a bill that is 
clean and focused and allows members to vote their conscience on 
coverage for children.
  I will not be voting for the CHAMP Act today for these reasons. I 
hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come together 
during Conference, put aside partisanship, put aside a grab bag of 
legislation and bring back a bill that is truly for our children.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of HR 3162, the 
Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. The CHAMP Act makes 
crucial investments in children's health, preventive care, rural 
providers, and improved services for Medicare beneficiaries. I urge all 
of my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Over the past several months, this Congress has debated how best to 
resolve serious problems facing this country's healthcare system: how 
do we provide responsible, reasonable healthcare coverage to children 
of working families? How do we modernize the benefits package provided 
to seniors under Medicare? How do we ensure that physicians and other 
providers caring for these seniors are paid fairly under Medicare? And 
finally, how do we accomplish all of these goals while at the same time 
adhering to the responsible budgeting rules this Congress has adopted 
for itself through pay-as-you-go budgeting rules?
  As a member of the Ways and Means Committee faced with these issues, 
I can tell you that it has not been easy. I do not believe, however, 
that our constituents elected us to come to Washington and make the 
easy decisions. We are here to govern, to balance competing and often 
equally deserving interests, and to arrive at a solution that we think 
is best for this country. I believe the CHAMP Act accomplishes all of 
these goals.
  This legislation will expand health care coverage to some 5 million 
new children across the country, allowing them to receive the vital 
preventive care that we know is essential for a healthy future. The 
CHAMP Act pays for this new investment through an increase in the 
federal tobacco tax, a move that itself will improve the health of our 
children by making cigarettes more expensive to buy. The forty-five 
cent tobacco tax increase included in this bill will reduce youth 
smoking rates by almost seven percent and will result in significant 
future savings in healthcare costs.
  The CHAMP Act also invests in this country's seniors by eliminating 
cost-sharing for preventive services under Medicare. This move will 
allow seniors to get essential services--such as check-ups, cancer and 
diabetes screenings, and flu and pneumonia vaccines--for no out-of-
pocket costs.
  We know that in order to improve seniors' quality of life and to 
prevent and detect life-threatening diseases, we must make this 
investment in prevention and primary care. I am proud of this important 
advance.
  Lastly, this legislation ensures that rural healthcare providers are 
paid fairly for the services they provide to seniors. The Medicare 
program provides a vital healthcare safety net for seniors living in 
rural areas. The CHAMP Act ensures that this level of care can continue 
by providing fair payments to physicians, ambulance providers, home 
health agencies, and other practitioners who care for the more than 9 
million seniors living in rural areas.
  The CHAMP Act is the right choice for Wisconsin and the right choice 
for this country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 594, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Ms. Granger

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. GRANGER. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order. After the 
motion is read, I will know whether to insist on the point of order or 
not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Granger moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3162, to the 
     Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendments:
       Amend title I to read as follows:

TITLE I--EXTENSION OF STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM (SCHIP)

     SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF SCHIP.

       Section 2104(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397dd(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (9);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (10); 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) for fiscal year 2008, $5,000,000,000.''.

     SEC. 102. ADDITIONAL ALLOTMENTS TO ADDRESS SCHIP FUNDING 
                   SHORTFALLS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008.

       Section 2104 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Amounts To Eliminate Fiscal Year 2008 Funding 
     Shortfalls.--
       ``(1) In general.--From the amounts appropriated under 
     paragraph (4), the Secretary shall allot to each shortfall 
     State described in paragraph (2) such amount as the Secretary 
     determines will eliminate the estimated shortfall described 
     in such paragraph for the State for fiscal year 2008.
       ``(2) Shortfall state described.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), a shortfall State described in this paragraph is a State 
     with a State child health plan approved under this title for 
     which the Secretary estimates, on the basis of the most 
     recent data available to the Secretary as of a date 
     (specified by the Secretary) during fiscal year 2008, that 
     the projected Federal expenditures under such plan for the 
     State for fiscal year 2008 will exceed the sum of--
       ``(A) the amount of the State's allotments for each of 
     fiscal years 2006 and 2007 that will not be expended by the 
     end of fiscal year 2007;
       ``(B) the amount of the State's allotment for fiscal year 
     2008; and
       ``(C) the amounts, if any, that are to be redistributed to 
     the State during fiscal year 2008 in accordance with 
     subsection (f).
       ``(3) Proration rule.--If the amount available under 
     paragraph (4) is less than the total amount of the estimated 
     shortfalls determined by the Secretary under paragraph (1), 
     the amount of the estimated shortfall for each shortfall 
     State determined under such paragraph shall be reduced 
     proportionally.
       ``(4) Appropriation; allotment authority.--For the purpose 
     of providing additional

[[Page H9500]]

     allotments to shortfall States under this subsection, there 
     is appropriated, out of any funds in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, such sums as are necessary for fiscal 
     year 2008, but not to exceed $1,500,000,000.''.

     SEC. 103. OPTION FOR QUALIFYING STATES TO RECEIVE THE 
                   ENHANCED PORTION OF THE CHIP MATCHING RATE FOR 
                   MEDICAID COVERAGE OF CERTAIN CHILDREN.

       Section 2105(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397ee(g)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``subject to 
     paragraph (4),'' after ``Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Option for allotments for fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012.--
       ``(A) Payment of enhanced portion of matching rate for 
     certain expenditures.--In the case of expenditures described 
     in subparagraph (B), a qualifying State (as defined in 
     paragraph (2)) may elect to be paid from the State's 
     allotment made under section 2104 for any of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2012 (insofar as the allotment is available to 
     the State under subsections (e) and (i) of such section) an 
     amount each quarter equal to the additional amount that would 
     have been paid to the State under title XIX with respect to 
     such expenditures if the enhanced FMAP (as determined under 
     subsection (b)) had been substituted for the Federal medical 
     assistance percentage (as defined in section 1905(b)).
       ``(B) Expenditures described.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the expenditures described in this subparagraph are 
     expenditures made after the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph and during the period in which funds are available 
     to the qualifying State for use under subparagraph (A), for 
     the provision of medical assistance to individuals residing 
     in the State who are eligible for medical assistance under 
     the State plan under title XIX or under a waiver of such plan 
     and who have not attained age 19, and whose family income 
     equals or exceeds 133 percent of the poverty line but does 
     not exceed the Medicaid applicable income level.''.

     SEC. 104. MAINTAINING LIMITATION ON ELIGIBILITY FOR ALIENS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed as changing the 
     limitations imposed under title IV of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 on eligibility of aliens for medical or child health 
     assistance benefits.

     SEC. 105. MAINTAINING CITIZENSHIP DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed as changing the 
     citizenship documentation requirements under the Medicaid 
     program under title XIX of the Social Security Act, as 
     originally provided under the amendments made by section 6036 
     of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and as subsequently 
     amended.

     SEC. 106. BIPARTISAN AND OPEN, TRANSPARENT PROCESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the State Children's 
     Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) under title XXI of the 
     Social Security Act should be reauthorized and reformed 
     through a bipartisan, open, fiscally responsible process.
       In title II, strike all section but sections 201 and 202.
       Amend title III to read as follows:

                  TITLE III--PHYSICIAN PAYMENT UPDATE

     SEC. 301. UPDATE FOR PHYSICIANS' SERVICES FOR 2008.

       (a) Update for 2006.--Section 1848(d) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)(B), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by striking ``and (6)'' and inserting ``, (6), and 
     (8)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Update for 2008.--The update to the single conversion 
     factor established in paragraph (1)(C) for 2008 is 0 
     percent.''.
       (b) Treatment.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
     not be treated as a change in law for purposes of applying 
     section 1848(f)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395w-4(f)(2)(D)) and, for purposes of calculating the per 
     capita rate of growth in expenditures under section 1853 of 
     such Act for 2009 and subsequent years, such rate of growth 
     in expenditures shall be calculated as if such amendments had 
     not been enacted. In carrying out the previous sentence, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall make such 
     calculation for 2009 in conjunction with the promulgation of 
     the physician fee schedule under section 1848 of such Act for 
     that year and shall use such calculation for subsequent years 
     in computing payment rates under part C of title XVIII of 
     such Act.

     SEC. 302. FIXING PHYSICIAN SGR PROBLEM.

       It is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
     Congress should permanently fix the problem of the physician 
     fee schedule update under section 1848 of the Social Security 
     Act being tied to a sustainable growth rate (SGR).
       In title IV, strike all sections but sections 431 and 432.
       In title V, strike all section but sections 504, 505, 508, 
     and 509.
       In the matter inserted by section 601(a), strike ``2009'' 
     and insert ``2008''.
       In subtitle A of title VI, strike all sections but sections 
     601, 605, and 611.
       In subtitle C of title VI, strike sections 635 through 639.
       Strike subtitle D of title VI.
       In title VII, strike all sections but sections 702, 705, 
     706, and 707.
       Strike title VIII.
       Strike title IX.
       Strike section 1002.
  Ms. GRANGER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  Mr. STARK. I object, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  Mr. DINGELL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  Mr. STARK. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  Mr. STARK (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan wish to 
maintain his reservation?
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
  Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit corrects a Democrat 
bill that will do great harm to America's seniors and working class. 
It's also the only chance that the minority's been given in this 
disappointing process to amend the bill before us today. This is not 
the House that was promised in November.
  My motion to recommit reauthorizes the SCHIP program for 1 year and 
provides States with the resources they need to be able to continue to 
provide needed health care coverage for children. The SCHIP program is 
a good program. It insures mental care is available to children who are 
needy but who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.

                              {time}  1900

  Currently, approximately 6.7 million children receive health care 
through the SCHIP program, which is broadly supported.
  Let there be no doubt, Republicans support SCHIP, because we were 
instrumental in its creation 10 years ago. We don't support the 
reckless underlying bill that raises taxes and cuts Medicare by $200 
billion, taking health care away from some of our neediest seniors.
  The underlying bill is the first step to government-controlled health 
care and takes America in the wrong direction. It's the most blatant 
attempt to expand government-run health care we have seen since 
HillaryCare. It takes a sensible, bipartisan program aimed at helping 
low-income children and turns it into a monster that will suck millions 
of middle-class Americans into government-run health care. The bill 
would create a massive new entitlement with totally inadequate funding. 
At a time when we already face a $40 trillion unfunded obligation for 
Medicare and Social Security over the next 75 years, that's the exact 
opposite of responsible public policy.
  The Democrat bill takes SCHIP far beyond what it was intended to do 
by reversing the existing status that does not allow adults to be 
enrolled. The Democrats not only allow States to enroll childless 
adults but also eliminates a requirement for illegal immigrants to wait 
5 years before receiving welfare benefits. The Republican motion to 
recommit continues current law enforcing the 5-year wait.
  The bill in its current form also eliminates verification of 
citizenship status. This means that persons who come here illegally 
could be provided SCHIP because we don't want to ask the right 
questions.
  Taking benefits from seniors to expand government-run health care to 
adults and illegal immigrants is unconscionable. Our motion to recommit 
keeps the 5-year wait for SCHIP. It also maintains the standards to 
verify citizenship. This motion requires citizenship documentation 
verification for

[[Page H9501]]

eligibility for SCHIP and welfare benefits.
  While taking care of our children, Republicans also value our seniors 
and have taken care in providing Medicare benefits. Medicare Advantage 
is a critical source of comprehensive medical coverage for over 8 
million individuals. It provides coverage for seniors, and a recent 
bipartisan poll this year found that 90 percent of enrollees are 
satisfied with their Medicare plans.
  The underlying bill cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans and 
cuts Medicare payments to Medicare providers, including hospitals, 
nursing homes and home health agencies.
  The cuts proposed by the Democrats in Medicare will result in nearly 
3.2 million seniors losing their Medicare Advantage coverage. We would 
be providing coverage for children whose parents make $100,000 a year 
on the backs of seniors and the Medicare coverage they chose. This 
would be the largest cut of Medicare in history.
  In my district, 17,279 Medicare Advantage enrollees will lose their 
benefits if the Democrat CHAMP Act passes. This motion to recommit 
protects our seniors by eliminating the Medicare cuts in the bill.
  Perhaps most alarming in this bill is the establishment of a new 
mandatory tax on private health insurance plans. While Republicans have 
been trying to level the playing field and eliminate the uninsured, 
this bill places a tax on health care plans, except those provided by 
the government.
  The Democrat bill raises taxes by $54 billion in an attempt to lure 
middle-class families to opt out of private coverage by establishing a 
new mandatory tax on private health insurance plans. Our motion to 
recommit eliminates the Democrats' new tax on America's health 
insurance plans.
  In addition to eliminating the Medicare cuts in the Democrat bill, 
the motion to recommit maintains Medicare changes that improve services 
for Medicare beneficiaries.
  These changes will ensure improved service in rural areas, an 
extension of the therapy cap, special needs plans, and demonstration 
projects on end stage renal disease services.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit that will 
protect our seniors, prevent massive tax increases, and reauthorize the 
current SCHIP program.
  If the motion to recommit passes, the House will be able to vote on a 
bill that protects America's seniors and hard working citizens while 
also providing health care for our neediest children.
  If the motion fails, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against 
the Democrat CHAMP Act.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 11 million children in our 
Nation and their families, I rise in opposition to this ill-advised 
motion to recommit.
  Unbelievably, this motion would only reauthorize the children's 
health insurance program for only 1 year, only 1 year. So what we have 
here is the same Members of Congress who fought passionately to 
guarantee a permanent $220,000 tax break for people making over $1 
million a year are saying right now we should only guarantee health 
care for children from low-income working families for 1 year.
  What's fair about that? Think about it. Permanent tax breaks for the 
wealthiest 1 percent, but only a 1-year extension of health care for 
children of low-income working families. Is that the new face of 
passionate conservatism?
  If my Republican colleagues actually think for one moment that this 
proposal to cut millions of children short reflects American family 
values, it is clear proof just how out of touch they have become with 
the values and priorities of hard-working American families.
  Let me clear up one myth, the myth that this motion is somehow about 
keeping illegal immigrants from receiving SCHIP insurance. The truth is 
that under present law and in this reauthorization, illegal immigrants 
do not qualify for SCHIP benefits, period.
  This is nothing more than an overused, worn-out, divisive fear-driven 
tactic with no basis in fact. It's a transparent fig leaf to hide the 
real purpose of this motion, which is to take care of the powerful 
special interests who put their profits above the interest of 11 
million American children.
  We have a very clear choice before us right now. The motion to 
recommit continued the sound bite politics of the past, the politics of 
fear, and the politics of catering to powerful special interests. In 
contrast, we can vote for a new day, a new politics. We can vote to put 
the interests of the 11 million children and the families who love them 
above the special interest of the powerful insurance companies, who 
sometimes care more about their huge profits at taxpayers' expense and 
helping so many children.
  The choice is clear: Either vote for our children, 11 million of 
them, or vote to take care of a handful of well-heeled special 
interests who support this motion to recommit.
  This choice is about real people, people such as Jamie Jones. Listen 
to her words with me spoken 3 years ago after the Texas legislature had 
cut off CHIP insurance for her child.
  ``I am Jamie Jones. I am 28 years old.
  ``I live in Teague, Texas. I have a little girl that's three, Bailey.
  ``Two years ago in March, my husband was killed in a house fire. She 
was put on CHIPS, and I knew no matter what happened, she was going to 
be ok.
  ``And then about 6 months ago she was denied. I haven't changed, I 
haven't gotten a raise at work--she was just denied.
  ``There are so many people out there who work so hard. I do not want 
Welfare, I just want good insurance for my child.
  ``And I am working hard. Yeah, I could quit my job tomorrow and she 
would be set--but I am not going to do that.
  ``And there are a lot of people out there who are not going to do 
that. And why that group has to get hurt--I don't know.
  ``Look at my little girl, look into her eyes and tell her why she is 
not good enough to be taken care of.''
  Tonight we have a chance to do something right and good. We can say 
to Jamie Jones and her little daughter Bailey that we value them and 
millions of other working Americans like them.
  By opposing this motion to recommit and by voting for this bill, we 
can turn the politics of the past into the politics of hope, hope for 
11 million American children. Let us at long last put the interest of 
our children above the politics of special interests. It is the right 
thing to do. The time is now. Our children are waiting.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 202, 
nays 226, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 786]

                               YEAS--202

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     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
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     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

[[Page H9502]]


     Hill
     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
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     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 (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     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)

                               NAYS--226

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     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
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     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
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     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
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Clarke
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Johnson, Sam
     Sessions


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2 
minutes are remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1929

  Ms. HOOLEY changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. GOODE, GALLEGLY, FRELINGHUYSEN, JOHNSON of Illinois, and 
MARSHALL changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 204, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 787]

                               YEAS--225

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     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
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     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--204

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     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
     Hill
     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)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     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 (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher

[[Page H9503]]


     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     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--4

     Clarke
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Johnson, Sam


                      Announcement by the Speaker

  The SPEAKER (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1937

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________