[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 142 (Monday, September 24, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H10739-H10747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CBC DISCUSSES SCHIP AND THE JENA SIX
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
General Leave
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on the subjects of the Congressional
Black Caucus Special Order message hour today that will focus on SCHIP
as well as the Jena Six.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today 50 million Americans have no
health insurance, including more than 8 million children. Eight out of
10 uninsured Americans either work or are in working families. Sadly,
many of those uninsured and underinsured are African American.
Being uninsured means going without needed care. It means minor
illnesses become major ones because care is delayed. Tragically, it
means that one significant medical expense can wipe out a family's life
savings. There are millions of working uninsured Americans who go to
bed every night worrying about what will happen to them and their
families if a major illness or injury strikes.
In my home State of Ohio, there are currently 1,362,000 uninsured, an
increase of 18,000 people since 2003. We have also seen the strain on
many of the local hospitals in my district when people are forced to
use emergency rooms as their source of primary care.
The problem is getting worse. As the price of health care continues
to rise, fewer individuals and families can afford to pay for coverage.
Fewer small businesses are able to provide coverage for their
employees, and those that do are struggling to hold on to the coverage
they offer. It is a problem that affects all of us, and we cannot sit
idly by while the people of this country continue to go without health
insurance.
Tomorrow, we will have an opportunity to expand one of the most
effective government programs implemented in the last decade, the State
Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. SCHIP is a joint State-
Federal program created in order to provide health insurance to
children in low-income households whose income, although meager, was
still above Medicaid eligibility.
{time} 1945
Currently, the program allows for States to provide health insurance
to families whose household income is up to 200 percent of the poverty
level. In 2006, SCHIP provided coverage to over 6.7 million children,
and although it has been successful since its inception, there are
still 9 million children without any health insurance, many of whom are
minorities. Currently, more than 80 percent of the uninsured African
American children and 70 percent of the Hispanic children are eligible
for SCHIP but not enrolled.
It gives me great pleasure to lead this special hour this evening on
behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, and I'm pleased at this time
to yield time to my colleague and good friend Barbara Lee from
California.
[[Page H10740]]
Ms. LEE. First, Mr. Speaker, let me just thank my colleagues from the
Congressional Black Caucus for their leadership, especially our Chair,
Congresswoman Carolyn Kilpatrick, who has done such a wonderful job
keeping us focused on ``Changing Course, Confronting Crises and
Continuing the Legacy.''
I also want to thank the Chair of our Ethics Committee, Congresswoman
Stephanie Tubbs Jones for her leadership on so many issues and also for
her service on the House Ways and Means Committee. She has truly made
history as the first African American woman serving on that committee,
and as we heard tonight, her commitment to children's health care is
remarkable, and she has done so much on behalf of our children, and so
I thank Mrs. Jones for her leadership and for this Special Order.
Let me first rise in solidarity with the tens of thousands of people
around our Nation who took to the streets last week to protest the
miscarriage of justice that has taken place in Jena, Louisiana.
Students in my district are as outraged as students throughout the
country. The case of the Jena Six is yet another example of the
institutional racism in our criminal justice system, and it is
unacceptable.
We have come so far from the days of Jim Crow, but incidents like
this one should serve as a solemn reminder of just how much further we
must go in seeking liberty and justice for all.
Just with Katrina, the Jena Six demonstrates in a glaring and tragic
manner the unfinished business of America. Unfortunately, these are
issues in many instances of black and white.
If we are ever to overcome the tragic legacy of racism in this
Nation, we have a duty to our young people to see to it that the
principle of equal justice is upheld. If we truly believe in our
Nation's principle of equality under the law, then we must make sure
that everyone, regardless of race, is held equal under the law.
There are Jenas everywhere in America, and it's not just where nooses
are hung from trees. Just look at the injustice and the ramifications
of mandatory minimum sentences and three strikes laws. Young black men
have received sentences under these laws totally disproportionate to
the crime committed. It's time for America to wake up and begin to
complete this unfinished business.
Now, let me just briefly talk about children's health care and say in
no uncertain terms that it's really incredibly irresponsible and
downright shameful that the President really does not support
children's health care.
SCHIP is one of the most successful programs in our Nation,
facilitating coverage for 6 million children. When I was in the State
legislature, along with Congresswoman Hilda Solis and now-Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa, we wrote the Healthy Families program, which was the
California SCHIP initiative. We were then and continue to be committed
to extending the reach of the program as much as possible with the
available resources, and now Healthy Families in California provides
low-cost access to health care for over 800,000 children, more than any
other State.
The flexibility built into SCHIP has allowed California to provide
access to health, dental and vision coverage for the children that it
serves, and we must continue to support that vital mission.
Providing health care coverage for our children is one of the most
cost-effective investments that America can make. Children are the
least costly to provide coverage for, and giving children access to
adequate primary health care will create a generation of healthier,
better educated and, in the end, more productive adults.
Under the Bush administration, the number of uninsured Americans has
continued to grow. Employers continue to cut coverage and shift more of
the burden to employees as costs continue to rise, but the SCHIP
program has slowed the growth for our Nation's children.
Additionally, comprehensive health coverage for children is an
important step towards eliminating the growing, continuing, huge health
disparities that plague minority populations, including 800,000 Asian
Pacific Americans, 1.4 million African Americans, and 3.4 million
Latinos.
Minority children make up more than 5 million of the 9 million
uninsured children. These children are more than twice as likely as
white children to die before their first birthday, and these mortality
rates are a direct result of these children being uninsured.
So, quite frankly, I think it's two months of the funding for this
occupation of Iraq, this funding would cover every child in America for
a year. It is a tragedy that children's health care has not been funded
at the level that we're funding the occupation of Iraq.
Now, unfortunately, I have to say it seems like the President is
waging war against our children, and I hope that the American people
hold him accountable.
I thank you for organizing this Special Order tonight.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from the
great State of California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee.
It gives me great pleasure at this time to yield time to my good
friend from the great State of New Jersey. He is a leader in
international relations and is now the Chair of a new subcommittee
called Global Health as part of the International Relations Committee.
I give you my good friend and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Donald
Payne).
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by also expressing my accolades
to the gentlewoman who is chairing this Special Order tonight from the
great city of Cleveland in Ohio.
As you know, she has served with distinction in the past in the
judicial system as a judge. She is a former prosecutor, of course, and
esteemed attorney, and she now heads the very difficult Ethics
Committee, which really says that of all of the people in this body, it
was deemed that she was the most qualified and suitable, in addition to
qualifications you need to be suited for a position, and so I commend
you for that.
Also, as I previously mentioned, we're very pleased with the
Congressional Black Caucus as it continues to be the conscience of the
Congress. Our chairperson from the great city of Detroit,
Representative Kilpatrick, is doing an outstanding job.
Today, I rise to speak briefly on two subjects. First of all, I rise
to speak about my support for the reauthorization of the
State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, which
expands and increases health insurance coverage for low-
income children and improves the quality of health care
that our children receive. But we need to pass a bill that
fully funds and covers all eligible children. How could
the richest Nation in the world do less than to provide
for its young? It is critical and important because they
are our future.
Today, our Nation is facing a health care crisis. Existing private
insurance options are becoming increasingly less affordable for
families, and 45 million individuals remain uninsured in our country, 9
million of whom are children. The State Children's Health Insurance
Program and Medicaid have been successful in providing 6 million
children with health care coverage.
In considering the reauthorization of SCHIP, we must build on past
bipartisan success and work together to ensure coverage for the 9
million children who remain uninsured.
I am proud to say that New Jersey has made significant progress in
providing health insurance for its children. However, the progress
cannot be maintained unless we reauthorize legislation which meets the
real needs of children and for children's health coverage, including
addressing the unique needs of children with disabilities.
According to a study released by Families USA, the number of
uninsured children in my home State of New Jersey could be reduced by
100,000 Statewide if SCHIP is fully reauthorized.
Without this legislation, New Jersey has more to lose than most
States, unfortunately. Why? Because New Jersey did the right thing by
increasing SCHIP eligibility to 3.5 times the Federal poverty level
because of the cost of living, which is higher in New Jersey,
especially housing costs. Similarly, New Jersey enrolled low-income
parents in part because research has shown that this results in more
low-income children being enrolled in the program.
[[Page H10741]]
However, instead of being rewarded for these actions, under the Bush
administration's proposal, over 28,000 children and 80,000 parents
Statewide could lose their health care coverage. In addition, thousands
more children who are eligible now but not participating would never be
able to enroll in the program.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government must be a responsible partner in
terms of State health coverage initiatives. Forty years ago, Medicare
eliminated the problem of the uninsured among the elderly. I believe we
have an opportunity to take steps to do the same now with our children
by fully reauthorizing this vital health care program.
Mr. Speaker, my commitment to children's health care is solid, and I
urge that we support a bill that fully reauthorizes, not half, not a
quarter, not three-quarters, but fully authorizes, and I hope that the
bill that comes before us will do just that.
Now, if I may speak for a few minutes on the Jena Six.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Absolutely, please proceed.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Because we stand here on the 50th
anniversary of school desegregation in the South and 43 years ago after
the signing of the civil rights bill of 1964.
However, recent events, particularly in the last 2 years, give
credence to the saying that all that glitters is not gold. Although we
thought we were making tremendous progress, still many problems remain.
Two years ago, New Orleans washed away, exposing undertones of class
and race that did not go away with the signing of those two momentous
decrees, Brown v. the Board of Ed and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In Jena, Louisiana, the issue of race, which had been simmering below
the surface, had reached the boiling point late last year. Can you
imagine that an act of sitting under the unspoken white only tree will
garner the reaction of nooses? Not only nooses, but nooses decorated in
the school colors being hung from that same tree? There's no mistake
the symbolism that nooses hanging from a tree means in the not-so-
distant history of America.
As a matter of fact, the NAACP was founded in 1909 not for full
employment, not for equal accommodation. The simple, original goal was
simply to try to stop lynchings, just try to stop lynchings, and here
we have nooses put under a tree that is the tree for whites only, to
send a message that if you sit here, you don't know what might happen
to you in the future.
While I find what those students did to be egregious, hanging the
nooses on the tree, I am just as disgusted and dumbfounded by the
reaction of the school administrators. Chalking up those actions to be
a youthful stunt shows a dereliction of duty by the Jena school
administrators. Have you no sense of history? Have you have no sense of
common decency? Three days of in-school suspension for the culprits of
this prank equates to a slap on the wrist. That punishment says shame
on you but really means no harm, no foul.
{time} 2000
Yet, after almost 4 months of underwhelming reactions from the school
administration who are supposed to protect and advocate for the
students under their care, the school imploded.
While I do not condone violence as a solution, couldn't something
have happened before we even arrived at this point? Yes, one student
was injured, and thankfully he has recovered. But attempted second
degree murder, second degree aggravated battery and conspiracy?
The Jena school administration and the local legal system cannot run
hot and cold while doling out punishments. They have the responsibility
to be objective and fair, and not play with the people's lives like
they are pawns in a chess game. The punishment must fit the crime. We
are dealing with lives here, especially the lives of young people who
still have a lot ahead of them. Threatening to take their lives away at
the stroke of a pen does not ring of the necessary objectivity and
fairness befitting a district attorney who looked at the black students
and said, by the stroke of this pen I can have your future of your
life.
And so as I conclude, Martin Luther King said, injustice anywhere is
a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network
of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one
directly, affects all indirectly.
As Members of Congress elected by the people to represent them and to
promulgate laws on their behalf, we have to speak out against these
types of injustices that threaten the very foundation upon which this
Nation stands, equal treatment under the law. If we fail to speak up
for these young men, we will be abdicating our roles for which we were
elected. What is to say that my grandchildren or your child will not be
the next? Let us not sheepishly accept this type of behavior, not in
the 21st century.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I would like to thank the gentleman from New
Jersey for his comments.
Today, as I said previously, under the leadership of our Chair of the
Congressional Black Caucus, Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick,
this is the CBC's special message hour. Today our message is on the
SCHIP program and the Jena Six.
It gives me great pleasure to yield time to my colleague and good
friend from the Virgin Islands. She is a medical doctor. Prior to
coming to Congress, she practiced medicine right here in Washington,
DC. She is the leader of the Congressional Black Caucus health brain
trust. It gives me great pleasure to yield such time as she may consume
to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Donna Christensen.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you for yielding, Congresswoman, and for
leading this Special Order so we can speak of these issues of
importance to our constituents. And let me join my other colleagues in
applauding our chairwoman, Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, for
setting aside this hour, and let you know again how proud we are, how
proud you make all Americans as the first black woman on the Ways and
Means Committee and also as Chair of the Ethics Committee.
Tonight, this hour is devoted to two topics, the Jena Six case and
the Children's Health Insurance Program. As I tried to decide which one
of these compelling and imminent issues to speak on, it occurred to me
that there is a connection between the two. Both deal with the well-
being of our children and this Nation's responsibility to provide equal
opportunity for them for a life of quality and of achievement.
With the case of Michael Bell, who remains locked up with no bail, as
well as the other five Jena High School students, this country is
witnessing firsthand the kind of injustice perpetrated on far too many
African American children which results in the destroying their dreams,
their hopes, and their lives. It is time for the good people of this
country to rise up and say, no more. So I want to thank the leadership
of the CBC and all of our members for answering the call of these young
people. I thank the Reverend Jesse Jackson, the Reverend Al Sharpton,
the others of the faith leadership, the NAACP, and the thousands who
marched in protest, for standing up and standing with the Jena Six and
for justice.
These young people and Genarlo Wilson of Georgia are just seven of
the countless others who have faced and continue to face the same fate,
and we must never stop the work of protecting our children.
That applies also to the issue of the Children's Health Insurance
Program. Regardless of what one hears on TV and radio, there are about
6 million children now in the program, 800,000 of whom would lose their
insurance if we reauthorize it at the level the President says he will
accept. There are now almost 9 million children who are uninsured, 6
million of whom are eligible for SCHIP, the children's insurance. The
bill the Senate Republicans are holding us at will only add about 2
million. I believe that every eligible child must be covered, even if
that means a shortened reauthorization to stay within the funding
limits set in the Senate.
And the White House and Republican talking heads need to stop
misinforming and distorting the truth about what we are proposing in
the House bill and even proposing in the watered down version that the
Senate has reached agreement on. There are no
[[Page H10742]]
upper middle class, even middle class children who would be covered
under either the House original version or the current proposal.
Coverage is provided for only up to 200 percent of poverty, which is
where it has always been. The House SCHIP I still support would just
finally provide adequate funding to get those already eligible, but not
signed up, covered.
Our children need access to health care that includes dental care,
mental health care; and it needs to begin at the very beginning by
including prenatal care for their mothers. The Territories need to have
State-like treatment, and we must also include immigrant children who
are legally here.
The American people want us to provide health care to everyone. If we
cannot begin with poor children, what kind of country are we? Do we not
understand that, in keeping our children healthy, we save money by
preventing more serious chronic illness later and that we build a
stronger country by enabling them as healthier adults to contribute to
everyone's well-being and our Nation's strength?
We in the House have built consensus around the better bill, and that
was not easy. We need our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol
to join us on the side of right. Come on, colleagues, let's give our
children what they need. Let's do the right thing. Let's send the
President a bill that is truly observing of the wonderful human beings
full of potential that are America's children. If he vetoes it, let it
be on him, not on us.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands.
It gives me great pleasure at this time to yield for comment to my
good friend from the great State of California, former ambassador to
Micronesia, a now Member of Congress, such time as she may consumer. We
are glad to have her here. She is in her third term, the gentlewoman
from California, Congresswoman Diane Watson.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to give a special thanks to
Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones for coordinating this. She
certainly has shown her leadership ability in everything that becomes
her responsibility. And I thank you for the time.
I want to very quickly add my remarks to those of my colleagues
referencing the Jena Six. I was horrified to see us take a step
backwards into a period of time when there was fear and hatred
displayed on people's faces and in their actions. And certainly we know
that with every crime committed there is a punishment.
But the symbol of justice in this country of ours, the United States
of America, is a symbol that has a scale and a blindfold, because
justice should be blind. And in a country that uses the rule of law as
its guide post, how is it that we become so unjust when we are dealing
with our young people?
Certainly, things happen and anger builds up and children do things
that are illegal and sometimes foolish. But rather than looking at them
as adults, let's apply the law to them as young people and apply it
equally so they can learn their lesson.
With a stroke of the pen and destroying the lives of six young men, I
think that sends the wrong message to the world. We are asking other
countries to model their forms of government after ours here in
America. And I would give a caution. We have made too many mistakes,
and I would say don't take our mistakes as part of our Western-style
democracy. They are truly mistakes of man, not mistakes of law. And so
I would hope that, after the demonstrations, after the fury, justice
will take place and people will be treated fairly.
Mr. Speaker, our American health care system is failing. According to
the Census Bureau, the number of American children who lack health
insurance has reached a new high, 8.7 million. Worst of all, that
number has actually increased by 1 million just over the previous 2
years. Meanwhile, our gross domestic product during that same period
increased by $1.5 trillion. So at the same time our economy was growing
by that amount, 1 million more children were losing their health
insurance.
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely shameful that, in a Nation as wealthy
as ours, we leave so many children sick and vulnerable. It is shameful
that the richest Nation in the world has an infant mortality rate that
ranks 35th, higher than any other rich nation. It is shameful that
while we vote for tax giveaways for the richest Americans, the poorest,
most vulnerable Americans are left in the lurch.
I believe we were sent here to do more than just apply Band-Aids to
this situation. I think we have the responsibility to make sure that
every American, and certainly every child, can see a doctor when they
are injured or fall ill. Politics is often about compromise, but which
children should we decide not to allow the deserving health coverage?
Which of us would be willing to choose between our own children, saying
one can be healthy but another must be ill? I think this is a false,
immoral choice; and I do not believe we should accept anything less
than full coverage for every American child.
In my district, the economics range from the dangerously poor to the
superrich. And I say ``dangerously poor'' to describe the impact of
poverty on children's health. Poor children are at risk from disease,
from crime, from poor education, and many other negative influences
that stem from a poverty environment. This list goes on.
When we talk about homeland security, we really mean the people on
the land. So providing a health delivery system for all our children is
the only way to guarantee a strong Nation of future Americans. So let's
invest in our children rather than in war that can take their lives too
early, so regardless of income levels, our children have a birth right
to grow up healthy and strong to face the challenges of a rapidly
changing world.
Thank you, Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Mr. Speaker, for the time
allowed.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I am about to yield some time to a really good
friend of mine who in fact was the Chair of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission when I was a trial lawyer at the EEOC with my
earlier career. But before I do that, I want to make a statement with
regard to Jena Six.
I have been blessed in my lifetime to have a lot of opportunities in
the law. I was an assistant county prosecutor, criminal division for
2\1/2\ years; I was a municipal court judge for 2 years; I was a
general jurisdiction judge for 8 years; and I also was the Cuyahoga
County prosecutor for 8 years before I came to Congress. And I give
that statement, my background, so you understand the breadth and the
experience that I have.
The prosecutor in Jena, as I have come to understand, as with every
other prosecutor in this country, has an ethical obligation, and it is
very difficult when the light is shone on you. Here we have a young man
who has been in jail more than a year, a juvenile. Now a court has said
to them that his trial should be overturned. That prosecutor, the
prosecutor in Jena, should be saying to himself, duh, should I be
rethinking the position I have taken? Should I not encourage the judge
to do justice? Should I not say to that judge, grant this young man
bail until we work this out?
{time} 2015
I'm confident it's tough on him because he's got all these other
people saying, hold your ground; do what you've been doing. It's a lot
easier to hold your ground than to do what's right. And I'm calling
upon that prosecutor, the prosecutor in Jena to rethink, go back in a
corner in his office all by himself without all the pressure, and
contemplate why he was put in office.
Prosecutors are some of the most powerful people in this country, and
I'm going to encourage young people who are listening to me to become
an assistant county prosecutor. When you are the prosecutor, you are
vested with so much discretion that you would have the opportunity to
reconsider what's happened with this Jena Six.
But as I move forward, I want to say to this prosecutor, all of us
talk about justice and what's happened in our judicial process, in the
judicial system. Young people need to see in judicial officers and
prosecutors justice so that they will have faith in the system.
Again I'm calling upon this prosecutor to rethink what he did. You
know, it's very easy to overcharge. When you overcharge, then you can
say to the people, well, I charged him with this, but I was able to get
a plea bargain. Justice requires, ethics require that the prosecutor
apply the law to
[[Page H10743]]
the facts and then make a decision with regard to what the charge
should be.
In this instance, again, I call upon this prosecutor to take a look
at the circumstances. High school kids. And we've seen fights among
high school kids where the fights get rough and damage occurs and
injury occurs. And I'm not saying by any stretch of the imagination
that there should not be some question or responsibility for the
conduct that was engaged in.
But I call upon the prosecutor again, you do justice. Don't wait for
the judge to do justice. Don't wait for God to do justice. It's in your
hand to do justice, to use the power that you have, that you've been
vested with, that the people of America expect you to do your job; and
your job will be to rethink the decisions you've made in this case and
make sure that justice applies. And it's in your power to do so.
It gives me great pleasure, at this time, to call upon my good
friend, one of the great lawyers in the Congressional Black Caucus
who's shown leadership in every area that I can think of, my good
friend, the Delegate from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes
Norton, for such time as she may consume.
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlelady for her very gracious remarks and
kind words. To the gentlelady who remarked that I first knew her when I
was Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I must say to
her that it gave me special personal pride to see her elected to the
Congress, much more to see her become the first African American woman
on the Ways and Means Committee, and she just did us proud again.
The gentlelady from Ohio has applied her distinguished career in the
law to reminding the prosecutor what his first obligation is, and that
is to do justice. That's why the prosecutor is given such discretion.
He often doesn't prosecute, or he thinks of other things that should be
done. The onus is on him.
And I found your remarks especially important in light of the fact
that after what we've seen in Jena has left us to just get to one side
or the other, and that's not solving the problem either.
I want to thank the gentlelady from Michigan, who is the Chair of our
caucus, for delegating to you this responsibility and for her great
leadership, especially in this week of the Congressional Black Caucus
events where we will be discussing public policy and trying, as a group
of African Americans, to contribute not only to the Congress, but to
our Nation.
If the lady will, I would like to comment on both issues. I decided
that the issue, the consciousness on the issue, had been raised and no
words that I could say could further raise them.
But my consciousness was raised when 50,000 people went to Jena, led
by young people. Now understand, yes, there were civil rights leaders
here, but not since I was a kid in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating
Committee did I see a demonstration that was generally led by young
people. The organized Civil Rights Movement played its part. But nobody
who looked at those television pictures can have any doubt about who
organized this extraordinary demonstration. And look what it was. It
was a peaceful protest in the tradition of the peaceful nonviolent
protests of the 1960s and '70s.
These kids, mostly college and high school youngsters, who identified
clearly with the Jena Six of their age, came to Louisiana essentially
to say that adults had lost control of their town and of their society.
I went and looked for what has happened, and I want to say a few words
about what has happened that makes me say that adults lost control.
This event that we all know about under the tree began almost a year
ago. Well, in August. Well, August 2006, as a matter of fact. Now we're
already in, so that's more than a year ago. Where, interestingly, these
students went and asked permission to sit under a tree. Everything
thereafter, it seems to me, falls squarely on the shoulders of the
adults. Here the children are asking for permission. What do kids
usually do when they see a shady spot? And that's what it was,
apparently, one of the few shady spots close to the school has been
preempted by people of a certain color. Well, you know, the way in
which children go to school and college today, tragically, in separate
groups, instead of going over and simply starting a fight or simply
sitting under the tree, they asked permission.
Mr. Speaker, the noose, one can argue about whether the three nooses
should have resulted in expulsion or not. For myself, particularly if
there's only one high school, I'm not for expelling anybody. I'm for
using the good offices of the adults to try to keep from doing that.
And I doubt if there was more than one high school in Jena.
But the fact is that, whether or not the kids knew what the three
nooses meant, once that word reached adults, white and black, they knew
for sure. And without recounting all of the events, it appears that
many opportunities to try to solve this issue were lost because those
in charge of the town refused to listen.
How could a prosecutor, the prosecutor of which the gentlelady spoke,
have essentially used the threatening language about the stroke of a
pen and making your lives disappear after a school assembly? The school
assembly was the right thing to do.
But I say to the Chair of tonight's event, where is the civil rights
unit of the Justice Department?
After more than a year with this thing heating up, they still have,
so far as I know, this unit that does not engage in law enforcement but
does help troubled communities. This is a small town. They perhaps
don't have the resources or the expertise to know what to do. But this
school has gone through four lockdowns over this event; the local
newspaper suggesting that the parents who tried to raise the issue at a
school board meeting soon thereafter and were denied were the cause of
the unrest. And there has been unrest.
The expulsion hearing for hanging the nooses becomes an issue not
simply because that was not considered enough of a punishment. That's
arguable. I don't want to stand here and say what was the proper
punishment. It's because people look at the fact that that was
mitigated to a few days and compare it to the almost instant expulsion
of the black kids following a fight.
I don't regard these two things as the same. But I say to you that
the reason that this appearance of unequal justice heated up is because
after the expulsion was overturned to a few days' suspension, the
adults did not, in fact, react to the mounting tension in the school,
and it has mounted for over a year.
When the parents of the black students weren't allowed to speak at
the school board meeting, they apparently went a second time and were
allowed to speak, but, quote, not about the noose issue. There's nobody
in Jena, and I can forgive them that, they're small-town folks, who
understood that this was mounting, and if you don't get to talk it out,
if you don't have small groups, if you don't have somebody helping you,
it's just going to continue to mount.
Disciplinary issues continue all around this separate incident. We
have incidents of young blacks being attacked by whites in the town,
all around this incident without anybody, months later, heating up,
incident after incident, all going back to the nooses; gun pulled on
some black kids, not because they were involved with the whites who
pulled the gun, but in retaliation for a prior incident. So here you
have retaliation going and people going after whoever is not of their
color.
And the teachers begging for somebody to do something over and over
again. The recounting of what happened for a full year says the
teachers are saying, for goodness sakes, help us out. We see mounting
tension in this school. We had, a few months ago, a dozen teachers
threatening a ``sick out'' if discipline was not restored in the
school. And that's when the prosecutor comes forward and ups the
charges of the six boys to attempted second-degree murder. That was his
response to mounting racial tension in a school.
The prosecutor, I want to suggest to the gentlelady from Ohio, I
believe, is in violation of Louisiana rules of professional conduct,
just as the prosecutor was in violation of the North Carolina rules in
the infamous case involving the woman who accused the Duke players of
rape. This prosecutor has done the very same thing. He has gone before
the press and spoken in
[[Page H10744]]
such a way that I believe he should be investigated by his own under
Louisiana rules of professional conduct. And I believe and call upon
the Louisiana Bar Association to do so.
But above all, I'm calling this evening on the Justice Department to
lend its mediation resources to this poor little town where both the
blacks and the whites are greatly in need of outside assistance. This
kind of racial tension has built up over time, not only in this
community, but I think young people around the country see Jena as
emblematic of the abuses, overcharging in the criminal justice system.
Just as this young man who's being held in jail without bail may have
been, and indeed did, if, in fact, he is found guilty now, and I do not
know if he has yet been found guilty as a juvenile. The matter was
thrown out when they wanted to prosecute him as adult.
If he has engaged in that violence, you will not find anybody in the
Congressional Black Caucus or in this Congress saying violence was the
appropriate response, given the fact that you have not been
appropriately responded to on the three nooses. That, you won't find us
saying.
What you'll find us saying is that every adult knew what maybe kids
do not know, what three nooses have to have meant to these kids'
parents and to these kids. And, Mr. Speaker, the adults in Jena allowed
this to build up; beyond the adults, the Justice Department, who would
have been in touch with these incidents.
{time} 2030
They are charged to be in touch with these incidents over the last
year. They did not move in and I call upon them to do so now.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. If I could reclaim my time for a moment, in my
notes with regard to Jena Six, after the new situation where the white
students or whoever hung the nooses from the tree, the African American
students decided to protest. So here, then, the district attorney,
accompanied by the police, comes to the high school and says to them, I
can be your best friend or your worst enemy. I can take away your lives
with the stroke of a pen.
My position would have been, again, and I say this very clearly, that
this prosecutor knows that he has power and people know that he has
power. But there is this piece of poetry that says that when you are
talking to young people, in essence, what they say to you is, I would
rather see a sermon than hear one every day. And this district attorney
should be setting the example by engaging in conduct and setting
justice as his point of entree with these students versus sitting down
and saying to them, along with the police, cut down what you are doing
because I can be your worst enemy or your best friend. And he truly
can, but being someone's worst enemy or best friend is not the gauge by
which we would hope that prosecutors in this Nation engage in their
conduct and official responsibilities.
I yield to the gentlewoman.
Ms. NORTON. Just to respond to that and just say a few words about
SCHIP, what you say is so important. Also, the power of the prosecutor,
we have seen him send Members of Congress to jail. You don't need to
tell him much. But above all, what the prosecutor needs to know is this
is not decades ago when a prosecutor approaching black people got them
to fear and trembling. These are kids. This is 2007. That was seen as a
threat, and it didn't do the job. In fact, it upped the ante, and it
was irresponsible conduct because he should have been aware of how his
words would have been perceived. And if anything, he needed to cool it
down, perhaps to say the law is here to do his job if you don't do
yours, but certainly that kind of threat had the opposite effect on
teens.
Maybe on you and me, we might have said, well, wait a minute, we had
better stop here. But these are kids who had spent a full year fighting
each other anyway. And, again, where is it going to come to an end? The
youngster who remains in jail remains there. We don't know what is
going to happen to him. It seems to me the only way to bring it to an
end is to bring in outside forces to try to mediate this situation.
I want to say a word about SCHIP in light of the allegation that many
of us simply want to give high earners access to this bill to provide
health benefits for children above the normal poverty line. And the
figure has been cited in some jurisdictions you can make $60,000 or
$80,000 a year. This needs to be explained to the American people. Yes,
there may be some of us who see it as a way to get universal health
care, but I will tell you most of us don't see it that way. The reason
we have gone to children is because we have failed utterly and know we
will continue to fail in the foreseeable future to get universal child
care. And so the whole point of the State health bill was to say at
least let's do it for children. And the notion of doing it for people
with high income needs to be explained.
Poverty benefits are not adjusted for the cost of living in
particular places. That has enormous hardship. But its hardship when it
comes to health costs cannot be overemphasized because of differences
in the cost of living and inflationary rise of health care in
particular. Health care inflation is far greater than any other kind of
inflation in the society. So you are faced in large cities, for
example, with people who can't possibly afford even health care
provided by their employer because the cost of living in the high-cost
place where they live is such that they can barely afford to live
there. So what is $61,000 in one place is not nearly what it is in a
small town someplace else.
I want to point that out because these high-cost-of-living regions
are faced with a terrible dilemma, that those children who will be
without health care are in a large number and the salaries as seen
nationwide do not explain why.
I looked at what were these places. These places in order of highest,
the top three, to lowest are Hawaii, number one; California, number
two; and the District of Columbia region, the national capital region,
number three.
Is anybody surprised? People can't even afford to live in the
District of Columbia anymore because of the cost of living.
New York must be here coming up. I am just looking down the list.
But essentially when you consider, yes, there is some enhanced
benefit from the Federal Government, but what these jurisdictions have
said is that the situation has become so bad after our investigations
for certain people who are, yes, above the Federal limit that we
believe that hundreds of thousands of children will, in fact, be
without health care unless we move. And I am astounded by the number of
States that believe this, and I am chagrinned that we see a preemptive
strike by the Bush administration to, in fact, despite what we have
passed, keep States from bringing in, up to a certain limit, certain
families who have been priced out of health care in their communities.
So I call upon Americans, as they read about what we are trying to do
here, to understand what we are really trying to do here, to make sure
that when we say we are covering all children who need health care and
could not otherwise get it, we mean that and no more.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much, Congresswoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia. And I want you to
know, and the people of the District of Columbia to know, we are for
your having representation and a vote in the Congress, and we are going
to be vigilant and keep working on that very issue.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am currently serving on the Ways
and Means Committee. As many people have said this evening, I am
blessed to be the first African American woman in the history of this
country to serve on this committee. I am pleased this year to work my
way to the Health Subcommittee. And on that committee, as a part of
that committee, I have had the opportunity to work on the recent
legislation passed by the House on August 1 that took a vital step
towards ensuring the future health of America by approving the
Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. It was called the CHAMP
Act of 2007.
On the Health Subcommittee, I have had the opportunity to talk with
my colleagues and listen to testimony
[[Page H10745]]
from doctors and those in health care and those who provide kidney
dialysis, et cetera, to help me begin to formulate my position on many
issues.
One of the things that has been clear to me, however, is if we don't
provide health care to our children, we are writing our future. I
recently had the opportunity to go to university hospitals in my
congressional district to participate with some young people in what's
called the Healthy Children program and their focus on obesity, one of
the biggest problems that faces children in our country and
particularly minority children whose diet tends to be not as healthy,
low-income folks, as folks who are able to choose fresh vegetables,
fruit, et cetera. And as I was playing with these children, and we were
doing exercises and we were rolling around the floor with these
exercise balls and these various types of strings to help us lift and
move our arms, I noticed that these young people were motivated,
motivated, to change their eating habits as well as their life-style.
Obesity has claimed so many of our children. Back in the day when I
was in school, I remember there was this President's requirement that
you had to do so many sit-ups, you had to run so many laps, and you had
to be involved in activity. And somehow we have to get our children
back to that activity.
We have children with high blood pressure. We have children with
diabetes. We have children who are working their way to kidney failure
as a result of the lack of health care and the lack of preventative
health care.
So there should be no surprise on the face of any person in the
United States of America that we need to have health care coverage for
all of our children.
Now, the controversy becomes how do you pay for it. And right now we
are in this Congress where we are saying we want to be concerned about
pay-fors. We want to be fiscally sound. So we either have to come up
with a way to tax and change it, or we have to be able to reduce
expenditures in other areas. I am one of those who believes that it is
time to expend the money that we need to expend for health care, health
care for all Americans, because I know we are spending much more than
that as we fight this war in Iraq and we provide health care to the
people of Iraq and still question whether we provide adequate health
care to the veterans of our country who have been injured and maimed
over there.
But today on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, it has been my
pleasure to host this message hour. We have had an opportunity to bring
to the attention of the American public our concerns about the State
Children's Health Insurance Program, which will be debated on the floor
of this House tomorrow.
I encourage America to tune in, listen in, and call in and raise your
complaints, raise your concerns, and let Members of Congress and
Members of the Senate understand how important you know that health
care for children is.
And, lastly, I will focus back one more time on the Jena Six. It was
great to have an opportunity with my colleagues to address that
particular issue. And on behalf of our great Chair, Congresswoman
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of the State of Michigan, I thank the Speaker
for granting us this Special Order for today.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in the 21st century, there are some things
that I had hoped we would have put behind us as a society. As we move
to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the ``Little Rock Nine,'' there
are things that I had hoped today's children would not need to suffer.
But as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I know that we are
still in search of equal justice across this Nation. There are still
places where the progress of the civil rights era have not fully taken
hold.
The tragedy of the Jena-6, which is unfolding right now before the
eyes of the Nation, shows us that we still have some distance to travel
before putting the demons of the past behind us. The controversy dates
back to August 2006 when black students at Jena High School attempted
to sit under a tree where white students socialized exclusively. The
following day, three white students, who would later be punished only
with suspensions, hung nooses from the tree. A series of racially
charged episodes involving off-campus violence soon followed the noose
incident. In one instance, black student Robert Bailey would be
attacked in a white part of town at gun-point. The white student who
attacked Bailey would face only simple battery and probation. The white
man who pulled the gun on Bailey, however, would face no consequence.
Ultimately, Bailey would be charged with theft of a firearm for
wrestling the gun away.
Later, racial taunting directed at black students in the high school
cafeteria would lead to a fight in which a white student would be
injured and sent to the hospital. These injuries, however, would not
prevent the student from attending a high school event that same
evening. The five of the Black teens involved in the fight--Mychal
Bell, Robert Bailey, Carwin Jones, Bryant Purvis, and Theo Shaw were
charged as adults with attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy to
commit murder, sentences that carry up to 80 years in prison. The sixth
teen will be tried as a juvenile and faces undisclosed charges.
One would have hoped that the elders of Jena would have intervened in
a way that led to healing in the community. Sadly, this was not the
case. Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct have been directed at
LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters, who told Black students
at a school assembly in response to the noose incident that ``I can be
your best friend or your worst enemy. With a stroke of my pen, I can
make your lives disappear.'' This statement was proven true when Mychal
Bell was convicted in June of aggravated second-degree battery and
conspiracy by an all-white jury. The court-appointed attorney who
represented Bell called no witnesses and presented no evidence in his
defense.
The families of Jena have not, however, faced this struggle alone.
Just as happened in the 1960's, students, activists, and other
concerned citizens from across the Nation have organized, rallied, and
raised money on behalf of the Jena-6. Most recently, on September 9,
2007, Reverend Jesse Jackson met with families of the Jena-6 and called
upon Jena officials to reconsider the charges. Major rallies were held
in Jena and around the country on September 20, the day Bell's
sentencing was scheduled to occur. Tens of thousands traveled to Jena
from across the country to show their support.
This show of activism has had some effect. This month, charges
against Jones, Shaw and Bailey were reduced to aggravated second-degree
battery and conspiracy, although Purvis still faces charges of
attempted murder and conspiracy. A judge also granted a motion to
overturn Bell's conspiracy conviction, stating that the case should
have been tried in juvenile court. In addition, the 3rd Circuit Court
of Appeals overturned Bell's remaining aggravated second-degree battery
conviction, also on the grounds that it should have been tried in
juvenile court.
At the Federal, we cannot remain silent. Indeed, the Community
Relations Service of the Department of Justice has been in Jena for
months to assist with conciliation efforts. Investigation units of the
Department have also apparently reviewed the situation. It is important
for members of Congress to maintain careful oversight of Federal
actions to ensure that all the resources of the Justice Department are
employed to protect the rights of the local community.
To that end, I will convene a panel at the Congressional Black Caucus
Annual Legislative Conference to address, the plight of the Jena-6. The
forum will be held on Friday, September 28, at 3 p.m. in Room 209c of
the Washington Convention Center. The panel will feature: Prof Charles
Ogletree, Harvard University Law School; Tory Pegram, Louisiana
Affiliate, ACLU; Family Members of Robert Bailey--Jena 6; Rep. Elijah
Cummings (MD-7th); Michael Baisden, Radio Personality; Louis Granderson
Scott, Attorney of Michael Bell (Jena-6); and Rev. Al Sharpton, Civil
Rights Activist.
Ultimately, I believe that a Judiciary Committee oversight hearing
may be warranted, as the Department of Justice has intervened with
little success. The Department investigated the noose incident, but
concluded that a hate crime had not been committed. However, we should
explore whether the apparently hostile racial climate at the local high
school opens federal jurisdiction under other civil rights statutes.
Similarly, the activities of CRS should be reviewed to determine their
effectiveness at dispute resolution.
We have reached a point in history where this kind of situation is no
longer tolerable. I commend everyone across the country for
participating in rallies, sending your support and letting these
students and the rest of the country know that we, as a Nation, will
not stand for this kind of injustice.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bipartisan, bicameral
plan to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program,
SCHIP, which the House will consider later this week. This crucial
legislation will ensure that millions of our children receive the vital
health services they need.
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
[[Page H10746]]
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 some Congressional Republicans and the
President continue to oppose this legislation, particularly in light of
the fact that the President used SCHIP 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 our 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 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 concepts 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 compromise SCHIP bill,
which we will pass over these shameful objections. While I would have
preferred the original House-passed bill to the more modest bicameral
compromise, the House-Senate agreement is a major improvement over the
President's proposal, which would result in 840,000 children currently
enrolled in SCHIP losing their coverage.
The House-Senate agreement invests $35 billion in new funding for
SCHIP over five years to strengthen the program's financing, increase
health insurance coverage for low-income children, and improve the
quality of health care children receive. It will provide health
coverage to millions of low-income children who are currently uninsured
and ensures that the 6.6 million children who currently participate in
CHIP continue to receive health coverage. Pending final Congressional
Budget Office estimates, the reduction in the number of uninsured
children will approach 4 million children.
Under the agreement, quality dental coverage will be provided to all
children enrolled in CHIP. The agreement also ensures states will offer
mental health services on par with medical and surgical benefits
covered under CHIP. The agreement provides states with incentives to
lower the rate of uninsured low income children. It replaces the flawed
CMS August 17th letter to states with a more thoughtful and appropriate
approach. In place of the CMS letter, the agreement gives states time
and assistance in developing and implementing their own best practices
to address crowd-out.
The compromise proposal improves outreach tools to simplify and
streamline enrollment of eligible children, providing $100 million in
grants for new outreach activities to states, local governments,
schools, community-based organizations, safety-net providers and
others. It also establishes a new quality child health initiative to
develop and implement quality measures and improve state reporting of
quality data. These measures are critical to ensuring that all our
nation's children get the health care they need.
Mr. Speaker, let's tell the White House and the Congressional
Republicans still standing with it 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. The President might not be able to understand that it's
the right thing to do, but the American people certainly will.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my dear friend,
Ms. Tubbs Jones of Ohio, for organizing this special order on the very
importance subject of SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance
Program. I am particularly pleased that we are having this discussion
tonight because I have very serious concerns about the SCHIP
legislation that comes before the House tomorrow. My major concern is
that the version of the legislation that will come before the House
tomorrow is less expansive than the version the House voted on
previously.
This is extremely important because reauthorization of SCHIP is
crucial to closing the racial and ethnic health disparities in this
country. Narrowing health care coverage of our children, as this newly
agreed upon version does, clearly falls far short of the goal that we
had hoped for in our efforts to decrease health disparities. It is
crucial that this Congress continue to bring awareness to the many
health concerns facing minority communities and to acknowledge that we
need to find solutions to address these concerns. My colleagues in the
Congressional Black Caucus and I understand the very difficult
challenges facing us in the form of huge health disparities among our
community and other minority communities. We will continue to seek
solutions to those challenges.
Reauthorization of the SCHIP is crucial to realizing those solutions.
However, we must not compromise away the health of millions of children
who will under this new SCHIP version go without health care coverage.
It is imperative for us to improve the prospects for living long and
healthy lives and fostering an ethic of wellness in African-American
and other minority communities.
I thank all of my CBC colleagues who have been toiling in the
vineyards for years developing effective public policies and securing
the resources needed to eradicate racial and gender disparities in
health and wellness.
We know that the lack of healthcare contributes greatly to the racial
and ethnic health disparities in this country, so we must provide our
children with the health insurance coverage to remain healthy. SCHIP,
established in 1997 to serve as the healthcare safety net for low-
income uninsured children, has decreased the number of uninsured low-
income children in the United States by more than one-third. The
reduction in the number of uninsured children is even more striking for
minority children.
In 2006, SCHIP provided insurance to 6.7 million children. Of these,
6.2 million were in families whose income was less than $33,200 a year
for a family of three. SCHIP works in conjunction with the Medicaid
safety net that serves the lowest income children and ones with
disabilities. Together, these programs provide necessary preventative,
primary and acute healthcare services to more than 30 million children.
Eighty-six percent of these children are in working families that are
unable to obtain or afford private health insurance for their
Meanwhile, health care through SCHIP is cost effective: it costs a mere
$3.34 a day or $100 a month to cover a child under SCHIP, according to
the Congressional Budget Office. There are significant benefits of the
State Children's Health Insurance Program when looking at specific
populations served by this program.
Minority Children
SCHIP has had a dramatic effect in reducing the number of uninsured
minority children and providing them access to care:
Between 1996 and 2005, the percentage of low-income African American
and Hispanic children without insurance decreased substantially.
In 1998, roughly 30 percent of Latino children, 20 percent of African
American children, and 18 percent of Asian American and Pacific
Islander children were uninsured. After enactment, those numbers had
dropped by 2004 to about 12 percent, and 8 percent, respectively.
Half of all African American and Hispanic children are already
covered by SCHIP or Medicaid.
More than 80 percent of uninsured African American children and 70
percent of uninsured Hispanic children are eligible but not enrolled in
Medicaid and SCHIP, so reauthorizing and increasing support for SCHIP
will be crucial to insuring this population.
Prior to enrolling in SCHIP, African American and Hispanic children
were much less likely than non-Hispanic White children to have a usual
source of care. After they enrolled in SCHIP, these racial and ethnic
disparities largely disappeared. In addition, SCHIP eliminated racial
and ethnic disparities in unmet medical needs for African American and
Hispanic children, putting them on par with White children. SCHIP is
also important to children living in urban areas of the country. In
urban areas: One in four children has healthcare coverage through
SCRIP. More than half of all children whose family income is $32,180
received healthcare coverage through SCHIP.
Children in Urban Areas
SCHIP is also important to children living in urban areas of the
country. In urban areas:
[[Page H10747]]
One in four children has healthcare coverage through SCHIP. More than
half of all children whose family income is $32,180 received healthcare
coverage through SCHIP.
Children in Rural Communities
SCHIP is significantly important to children living in our country's
rural areas. In rural areas: One in three children has healthcare
coverage through SCHIP or more than half of all children whose family
income is under $32,180 received healthcare coverage through Medicaid
or SCHIP. Seventeen percent of children continue to be of the 50
counties with the highest rates of uninsured children, 44 are rural
counties, with many located in the most remote and isolated parts of
the country. Because the goal is to reduce the number of uninsured
children, reauthorizing and increasing support for SCHIP will be
crucial to helping the uninsured in these counties and reducing the 17
percent of uninsured.
Mr. Speaker, I would much rather we extend the deadline for
reauthorization of SCHIP, while we diligently and reasonably consider
the unsettled issues in this debate so that millions of the most
vulnerable population, including many African American and other
minority children can receive the health care coverage they need to
remain healthy and develop into productive citizens of this great
country. It is not as important to reauthorize an inferior bill under
pressure of fast-approaching deadlines as it is to ensure that we
provide health care to those children who remain vulnerable to health
disparities. I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring health care
coverage for millions of children and reducing health disparities among
the most vulnerable populations.
____________________