[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 143 (Tuesday, September 25, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H10803-H10815]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1530
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 976,
CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 675 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 675
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall
be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
976) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
tax relief for small businesses, and for other purposes, with
Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the House,
without intervention of any point of order except those
arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a single motion offered
by the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or
his designee that the House concur in each of the Senate
amendments with the respective amendment printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one
hour equally divided among and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce and the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
Point of Order
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentleman will state his
point of order.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise for a point of order
against consideration of the resolution because it violates clause 9(b)
of House rule XXI for failure to disclose a taxpayer-funded earmark
contained in the bill.
Section 618 of the Democrats' SCHIP bill contains an undisclosed
earmark directing taxpayer funding to a facility located in Memphis,
Tennessee, specifically in the district of the gentleman from
Tennessee.
Under House rules, all earmarks are supposed to be disclosed, and the
Member requesting the earmark is required to certify that he has no
financial interest in this earmark.
The earmark contained in this bill has not been disclosed anywhere.
In fact, at the Rules Committee last night, my friends in the
Democratic leadership certified this bill as ``earmark-free,'' despite
the fact that this bill includes an earmark for the gentleman from
Tennessee.
The requirements of full disclosure and certification that there is
no financial interest have not been met here.
This earmark was not in the House-passed bill, H.R. 976. It was not
in the Senate amendment to H.R. 976. I would point out it was in the
House-passed H.R. 3192, but it was never disclosed there either.
This bill threatens the important programs that protect the health of
seniors and children, and that debate should happen.
This bill spends billions in taxpayer dollars on health insurance for
families who make $83,000 a year and on illegal immigrants. This bill
ignores House earmark rules to buy votes for its passage.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are entitled to know how their tax
dollars are being used. This is why the Republican leadership for
months has been requesting a vote on House Resolution 479, legislation
that would clarify the rules of our Chamber to ensure all earmarks are
publicly disclosed and subject to challenge and debate here on the
floor. The majority leadership has unfortunately refused to allow H.
Res. 479 to come to the floor for vote. And this is why Republicans had
no choice but to file a discharge petition last week that will force H.
Res. 479 to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that the American people hold us in
lower regard than a twice-convicted used car salesmen. It is because we
continue to, in a slap of the face of every American taxpayer who gets
up in the morning and plays by the rules, to play politics and slip
things into bills that are not only against the rules, but against the
integrity and well-standing of this House.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman please state his point
of order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan must confine his
remarks to his point of order.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that this
bill is in violation of 9(b) of House rule XXI for failure to disclose
a taxpayer-funded earmark contained in the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
[[Page H10804]]
The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of order under clause 9(b)
of rule XXI that the resolution waives the application of clause 9(a)
of rule XXI. It is correct that clause 9(b) of rule XXI provides a
point of order against a rule that waives the application of the clause
9(a) point of order.
In pertinent part, clause 9(a) of rule XXI provides a point of order
against a bill, a joint resolution, or a so-called ``manager's
amendment'' thereto unless certain information on congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits and limited tariff benefits is
disclosed. But this point of order does not lie against an amendment
between the Houses.
House Resolution 675 makes in order a motion to concur in Senate
amendments with amendment. Because clause 9(a) of rule XXI does not
apply to amendments between the Houses, House Resolution 675 has no
tendency to waive its application. The point of order is overruled.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is: Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. McGovern
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling
of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 190, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 902]
AYES--224
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
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
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
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
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
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
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--190
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
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
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
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Carson
Cubin
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Delahunt
English (PA)
Fortenberry
Herger
Hunter
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
McDermott
Poe
Ross
Snyder
{time} 1557
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days
within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert
extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 675 provides a rule for consideration of the
Senate amendments to H.R. 976, the Children's Health Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act.
The rule permits the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
to move that the House concur in the Senate amendments with the
amendments printed in the Rules Committee report.
The rule waives all points of order against the motion except those
arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
Finally, the rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided among and
controlled by the chairmen and ranking minority members of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today represents a defining historic
moment for this House. Members of this body will be faced with the
simple choice: Will you vote to provide health insurance to millions of
children, or will you vote to take health insurance away from the
children who currently have it?
Today, over 45 million people living in this country woke up without
health care. Millions of them are children whose families make too much
to be eligible for Medicaid but not enough to purchase their own
insurance.
Studies have shown that the number of uninsured children jumped by
710,000
[[Page H10805]]
last year. That is unconscionable; and under the leadership of Speaker
Pelosi and the new Democratic Congress, we have begun to change it.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, currently
provides health care to over 6 million children; but the program will
expire in just 6 days unless we act to reauthorize it.
Historically, the SCHIP program has enjoyed bipartisan support. The
bill before us today represents a careful, bipartisan compromise that
enjoys the support of people like Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Orrin
Hatch, Congressman Ray LaHood, and Congresswoman Heather Wilson.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us does not go as far as I
would like. I prefer the bill this House passed a few weeks ago. The
House-passed bill not only expanded the SCHIP program to 1 million more
children than the bill we'll be voting on today; it also leveled the
playing field by adjusting the reimbursements for the Medicare
Advantage Program, a program that is in dire need of reform. But I will
not and I cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the very good,
and this is a very good bill.
Under this agreement, health insurance coverage will be provided to
millions of children who do not have it today. Quality dental coverage
will be provided to all enrolled children. The agreement ensures that
States will offer mental health services on par with medical and
surgical benefits covered under SCHIP, and the bill also provides
States the option to cover prenatal care, ensuring healthy babies and
healthy moms.
Now, contrary to the White House rhetoric, the bulk of the children
who would gain coverage are poor and near-poor children who are
uninsured, not middle-income children with private coverage.
{time} 1600
The President would like to suggest that SCHIP is Congress's way of
socializing medicine and undermining private health insurance plans,
which is interesting, considering that just yesterday this bill was
endorsed by America's Health Insurance Plans, the Nation's largest
insurance lobbying group. It is also important to note, Mr. Speaker,
that this bill is fully paid for. This represents a sharp change from
earlier bills that the President enthusiastically supported from the
2003 Medicare prescription drug bill to the Republican energy plans to
his tax cuts for the rich, which were all financed by massive amounts
of deficit spending.
The President has threatened to veto this bill, Mr. Speaker. That
takes my breath away. He didn't veto billions of dollars in tax breaks
to oil companies that were gouging people at the pump. He didn't veto
billions of dollars in no-bid defense contracts. But he will veto a
modest bipartisan bill to provide health care coverage for millions of
low- and moderate-income American children?
Now, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle would say that
we should simply extend the current SCHIP program, but what they won't
tell you is that the spending level supported by the President is not
enough even to provide continued coverage for all the children who are
currently enrolled. In other words, Mr. Speaker, those who support the
President would take health care away from over 800,000 kids who have
it today. That is not acceptable. That is cruel.
As the Catholic Health Association has said, ``Temporary extensions
and/or inadequate funding levels will lead to children losing coverage.
That would be an enormous step back for our Nation and a retreat from
our collective commitment to cover uninsured children.''
Mr. Speaker, this is a defining moment for this Congress. With a
``yes'' vote on this bill, we can improve the lives of millions of
children and their families. A ``no'' vote is a vote to take health
care away from some of the most vulnerable members of the American
family.
The choice is clear. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the
underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today is a defining moment for an
insatiable appetite that the new Democrat majority has for spending,
spending taxpayer dollars and going well beyond the mission statement
of SCHIP. And that is what the day is all about. It is a defining
moment with the new Democrat majority seeking a way to have single
payer-funded health care for all America. And that is the road that we
are defining and beginning again today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this completely closed
rule that fails to even provide the minority with a motion to recommit,
and to the underlying legislation that the minority did not receive
until 6:30 last night.
When I came to the floor in the beginning of August to oppose the
previous version of this legislation, I explained my opposition to the
way that it had been brought to the floor without a single legislative
markup. And, unfortunately, again today that fact has not changed. In
fact, neither Republican leadership nor Republican members on the House
Energy and Commerce Committee had an opportunity to participate in the
crafting of the 250-plus pages of legislative language this entire
House was provided with just a little bit more than 12 hours ago.
Despite the terrible process surrounding this legislation from start
to finish, I would like to once again thank the Democrat leadership for
one thing: By cramming this bill through the House for a second time,
they are giving every single Member of this body another opportunity to
go on record regarding which vision they have for the future of our
Nation's health care system that they truly support.
The first vision for our future is to slowly shift away as many
Americans as is possible into a one-size-fits-all Washington
bureaucrat-run program. And, if nothing else, I congratulate the
Democrat leadership for their clarity, because that vision is embodied
in H.R. 976.
Rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children who cannot
obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill
uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions
of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health
care needs.
H.R. 976 also increases government spending and dislocates the
private marketplace, leaving taxpayers holding the bag for these
increased costs. This bill generally raises the income threshold for
eligibility and allows States to qualify anyone receiving these funds,
including childless adults and people making over $80,000 a year,
despite the fact that this diverts these much needed funds away from
helping our Nation's most poorest children.
It would also allow illegal immigrants and aliens to receive these
benefits by forcing States to accept nonsecure documents as proof of
citizenship for purposes of receiving these funds. I find it both
ironic and unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the party of Hillary Clinton
and bureaucrat-run health care would float a proposal in which law-
abiding citizens are made to show proof of insurance as a condition of
employment, while this legislation would open the door for ineligible
and illegal immigrants to receive federally funded benefits, no
questions asked.
All of these problems exist on top of a current system which we know
that some States already abuse. This bill grandfathers in New York's
standard, which provides Federal assistance to those making four times
the poverty level, and in New Jersey at 3\1/2\ times, while allowing
every other State to expand coverage to three times the current poverty
level.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the crowd-out effect created by this big
government bill that replaces private insurance with a government
program will not provide coverage to more kids. By the CBO estimate, it
simply will shift 2.4 million children out of private insurance and
into a Federal program that hurts doctors and hospitals by forcing them
to deal with government bureaucrats that short-change both patients and
providers by undercompensating them for medical services.
If Democrats were serious about ensuring that every American had
access to inexpensive and high-quality health care, we would be talking
about a different vision today for our health care, one that tackles
the system's real underlying problems and revolutionizes our health
care system to provide us
[[Page H10806]]
with better results. This other, Republican vision for improving health
access to health insurance includes allowing families to have access to
tax exemptions up to $15,000 a year for health care, not just those who
work for large employers.
The Republican vision includes giving Americans the ability to
purchase health insurance across State lines, because healthy insurance
options should not be limited to the State you live in or your zip
code. It also includes having Congress act to ensure that those who
can't get insurance in the marketplace have access to coverage through
high-risk pools and low-income tax credits.
Mr. Speaker, I am not here to oppose the idea of SCHIP. It was a
Republican-controlled Congress that created SCHIP, and I support its
original, true mission. But H.R. 976 is a camouflaged attempt at slowly
siphoning Americans from insurance plans into a Washington, D.C.,
bureaucrat-run system.
Mr. Speaker, today we fail to address one of the most serious issues
facing our Nation: how to make our health insurance system more
affordable and accessible for all Americans. And by focusing on the
wrong vision for our future, this bill does nothing to address either
problem. It ignores the fact that our Nation has produced the greatest
health care advantages in the world, many of which have come as a
result of our competitive insurance market.
The American survival rate for leukemia is 50 percent; the European
rate is just about 35 percent. For prostate cancer, the American
survival rate is 81 percent; in France, it is 62 percent; in England,
it is 44 percent.
Rather than trying to emulate Europe and its outdated socialized
approach, we should be working on a vision to give every single
American an opportunity to take part in our competitive insurance
market. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule and the
underlying legislation to drag America into a one-size-fits-all
European model.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to our next speaker, I just
respond to the gentleman from Texas by saying, he talks about this
Republican vision for health care; but if my memory is serving me
correctly, the Republicans were in charge of the Congress for many
years, too many years, if you ask me, and they had the President of the
United States of the same party while they were in control of both
Congresses.
What they presided over with all their control, this Republican
vision that the gentleman from Texas talks about, resulted in more and
more and more, millions and millions more Americans falling into the
ranks of the uninsured. And many of them are children. Too many are
children. We are trying to fix that here. We think it is unconscionable
in the richest country on the face of this Earth that millions of
children go without health insurance.
Let me just say one other thing. The gentleman made an allusion, too,
that this bill would make it easier to enroll illegal immigrants. I
want to ask my friend from Texas to read the bill. Section 605, no
Federal funds for illegal immigrants. Nothing in this Act allows
Federal payment for residents who are not legal residents.
Now, I know that immigrant bashing is the last bastion of the
politically desperate, but the fact of the matter is facts are facts.
And on documentation, only my Republican friends would argue that poor
children should have passports as though they are jetting off to Paris
for the spring fashion shows.
The bottom line is, what the gentleman is raising on that level is
totally unwarranted.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Loebsack).
Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
bipartisan agreement that will provide health coverage to 10 million
children.
We have a moral obligation to protect and nurture our children. No
child should go without health care. No child should go without regular
checkups, preventive care, and treatment of illnesses. This legislation
provides support to those who need it most, our children. And it is
long overdue.
This compromise secures coverage for the 37,000 children covered by
Iowa's HAWK-I program. It also provides essential funding for the State
of Iowa to reach the almost 27,000 children who are eligible for the
program but remain uninsured.
Mr. Speaker, healthy children are the foundation of our society and
our economy. I sincerely hope that the President will change his mind,
put the politics aside, and sign this critical legislation into law.
The health, the well-being, and the lives of our children are at stake,
and I support the rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from
San Dimas, California, the ranking member on the Rules Committee, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 6 minutes.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Dallas for
yielding this time, and I thank him for his great, very thoughtful
statement on this issue.
I have got to say, as I did last night when we met in the Rules
Committee, Mr. Speaker, that it really saddens me that we are here at
this point. It was very proudly in a Republican Congress with a
Democratic President that we came together in a bipartisan way to
ensure that the very, very underprivileged in this country, children,
would have access to health insurance. It is something that existed for
10 years, and we know that there are still children who are in need and
we want to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that children
have an opportunity to have access to quality health care. Mr. Speaker,
this ain't it. This is not the answer.
I listened to my friend from Worcester begin this very thoughtful
statement about bipartisanship. He mentioned two House Republicans and
two Senate Republicans who made this a wonderful bipartisan measure.
But I would like to yield to my friend and engage in a colloquy with
him, if I might.
I see here on the floor the very distinguished ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the committee that has
had jurisdiction over this issue. And I would like to inquire of my
friend if he knows if the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton) was ever invited, as he hails this great spirit of
bipartisanship, to any meeting that was held by the majority in
attempts to negotiate this measure. I am happy to yield to my friend
from Worcester.
{time} 1615
Mr. McGOVERN. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question of the gentleman
from California.
Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield me 1 minute so that I could ask
the question again?
Mr. McGOVERN. We have all of our time scheduled. I'm sorry.
Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield me 30 seconds so that I can ask
the question? We've got a limited amount of time here and a lot of
speakers.
Mr. McGOVERN. We are literally filled up.
Mr. DREIER. So the gentleman chooses not to answer my question then.
Mr. RANGEL. I will answer the question if you yield.
Mr. DREIER. I'd be happy to yield to my very good friend from New
York.
Mr. RANGEL. Let me explain to the ranking member how difficult I know
it must have been for you to see how the leadership in the House and
Senate did this.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me reclaim my time. I was happy to yield
to my friend to answer my question. It was a yes or no question.
Mr. RANGEL. The Republican leadership excluded that man. The
Republican leadership excluded him, as I had been excluded as a
Democrat. He was excluded from participating by the Republican leaders.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schiff). The gentleman from New York
will suspend. The gentleman from California controls the time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on
Ways and Means is a great friend of mine. I'm always happy to yield to
him. I was trying to yield to the gentleman from Worcester who is
managing this rule----
[[Page H10807]]
Mr. RANGEL. He was excluded, too.
Mr. DREIER. I would simply inquire as to whether or not the
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
the former chairman of the committee, was invited to participate in
this much heralded bipartisan agreement to which Mr. McGovern has
referred. And I guess the answer that I'm getting with all of this
convoluted stuff is no. Well, you know what? Maybe I should yield to
the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce to inquire of him. Mr. Rangel and Mr. McGovern seem to be
unable to answer the question as to whether or not the distinguished
former chairman, the ranking member, was invited to participate in this
great bipartisan package that we've got. I'm happy to yield to my
friend.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. The answer is no. I was allowed to testify at
the Rules Committee last evening. That's the only formal opportunity I
was ever given in the last 9 months on this bill.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for enlightening us on that, Mr.
Speaker, and I will simply say that that demonstrates that, as we've
heard about this great quest for bipartisanship in dealing with an
issue which should have been completely bipartisan, and was when the
Republicans were in the majority, I will say. The American people were
represented here in a bipartisan way in fashioning a State Children's
Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, that had, first, a Democratic
President, Bill Clinton, sign it, and it was a Republican work product.
It saddens me that today we now have a Democratic Congress and a
Republican President, and this Republican President is going to veto
the measure. Why? Because it dramatically expands the welfare state,
undermines the ability for children who are truly in need to get it,
and as was pointed out in an Energy and Commerce item, it's a reverse
Robin Hood. It takes from the poor with a tax increase, the most
regressive tax of all, as was stated by the Congressional Budget
Office, and it gives to people who shouldn't even be able to qualify
for this program.
And that is, I believe, just plain wrong. It is a mischaracterization
of what we should see in a SCHIP program. Everybody wants to make this
happen. Governors across the country wanted to make it happen. Of
course, they want to have access to these resources. And Democrats and
Republicans want to make it happen. But this is not the right bill. If
Mr. Barton had been able to participate, I'm convinced that we would
have, Mr. Speaker, had a very decent bill on this.
Now, let me just say that the other thing that really troubles me is
what we held our last vote on just a few minutes ago. Let me just very
quickly, Mr. Speaker, say that we tried very, very hard at the
beginning of this Congress to take the majority at their word when they
said there was going to be a great new era of transparency and
disclosure and accountability.
Well, 10 days ago, Mr. Speaker, we marked the first anniversary of
our passing real earmark reform in this institution. What did it say?
It said there would be transparency, accountability and disclosure on
items, not just appropriations bills, but on authorizing bills and on
tax bills. And, unfortunately, in this so-called new era of
transparency and disclosure in this new Congress, we completely subvert
the notion of transparency and disclosure on earmarks, as is evidenced
in this bill.
When we in the Rules Committee last night saw the majority, and they
all voted, we had a recorded vote on this. They chose to waive the
provision that would have, in fact, had an opportunity for disclosure
and accountability; and they voted, again, against it right here on the
House floor. That's why, as was said by Mr. Rogers earlier, we have a
discharge petition so that we can do what we did last September 14, a
year ago, and that is have real earmark reform.
Vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the underlying legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that the gentleman from
California wasn't impressed with the names of the Republican
legislators that I met who, I think, have impeccable conservative
credentials. But this is a bipartisan effort. In fact, unlike when he
was the chairman of the Rules Committee and his party was in control of
Congress, bipartisanship now means more than just one Member of the
opposing party.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record a letter that's in
enthusiastic support of this bill sent to Speaker Pelosi signed by 16
other Republicans, and there are many, many more who I hope will
support this bill.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, September 19, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington,
DC.
Madam Speaker: On September 30, 2007, authorization for the
State Children's Health Insurance Program will expire,
putting at risk the health insurance coverage of six million
children. While the House has passed a controversial Medicare
and SCHIP reauthorization bill largely along party lines, the
Senate has passed bipartisan SCHIP reauthorization
legislation without Medicare provisions. We urge you to take
up the bipartisan Senate SCHIP bill to reauthorize the
program before it expires at the end of the month.
The Senate legislation would reauthorize the program for
five years and increase. the authorized funding for the
program by $35 billion over that time. The funding would
fully fund current program levels and allow for the
enrollment of more eligible uninsured children into the
program. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the Senate
bill would decrease the number of uninsured children by 3.2
million.
We would be supportive of consideration of the Senate SCHIP
bill and believe it is the best vehicle for extending the
program expeditiously. The health of the nation's children is
too important to delay.
Sincerely,
Heather Wilson, John M. McHugh, Mary Bono, Phil English,
James T. Walsh, David Reichert, Jo Ann Emerson, Wayne
T. Gilchrest, Ralph Regula, Tom Davis, Todd R. Platts,
Jim Ramstad, Mark Kirk, Judy Biggert, Rick Renzi, -- --
--.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene
Green).
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I've been on the Energy and
Commerce Committee 10 years, and it was a dark day that we couldn't
mark up this bill simply because the Republican minority wanted to read
the bill for 2 days, and so we lost jurisdiction of it. It hurt the
Energy and Commerce Committee. But it hurt this House. And that's what
we're seeing in this House of Representatives.
We want to do things on a bipartisan basis. And there is not a closer
friend I have in the House than Joe Barton. But as ranking member, we
were stuck there for 2 days and couldn't even amend the bill without
reading the whole bill. So to pass it in August we had to get it out of
the committee. And we didn't do that when we were the minority. We
could have, but we also knew that the majority had to rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise with the same
sadness that was manifested by the ranking member, Mr. Dreier of the
Rules Committee, when he spoke about the fact that on an issue like
this, if there is ever an issue where we should be able to come
together and extend a program, it is this one.
But as we saw last night, with the long, thorough testimony before
the Rules Committee, the excessively exclusivist process that has been
engaged in by the majority really has affected, in a significant and
unfortunate way, the product before us. And Mr. Barton pointed out, as
has already been explained, that he was excluded from the process. And
for example, on an issue, despite the fact that it's a major expansion
of SCHIP, that we're facing a major expansion here of SCHIP on a very
important issue which is the inclusion, for example, of legal immigrant
children, they have not been included. For example, that's why we have
the National Hispanic Medical Association saying we do not support this
legislation, this SCHIP bill that does not include legal immigrant
children.
You have the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda: ``We cannot support
legislation that extends health coverage to some children while
explicitly excluding legal immigrant children.''
[[Page H10808]]
The National Council of La Raza: ``We are particularly disheartened
that a congressional debate focused on expanding access to health care
to children would perpetuate an exclusion for legal immigrants.''
Now, one thing would be, Mr. Speaker, if due to limited resources we
were simply extending this program, a program that we all agree is so
necessary and important. But to see an expansion of the program that
excludes legal, and I reiterate, legal immigrant children and pregnant
women is most unfortunate. That's why I would include into the Record,
Mr. Speaker, these letters.
My distinguished friend Mr. Pallone last night was saying, well, you
know, some people in the Senate didn't want that; that's why we don't
do it. Mr. Barton pointed out in Rules that he would have been happy to
be there supporting this provision for legal, and I repeat, legal
immigrant children. Perhaps that would have been the difference in
being able to solve this problem.
Again, exclusivist process leads to an unfortunate result in policy.
If there's ever been an example of that, we're seeing it this
afternoon. So I oppose this rule, Mr. Speaker, and, at this stage, this
unsatisfactory product that is being brought before us and that we
should vote down today.
National Council of La Raza,
Washington, DC, September 24, 2007.
Dear Member of Congress: The National Council of La Raza
(NCLR), the largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy
organization in the U.S., urges you to vote ``No'' on the
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
reauthorization conference report, legislation that we had
hoped to support. The SCHIP conference report deliberately
deletes a provision previously approved by the House of
Representatives to restore health care coverage for Latino
and other legal immigrant children. We cannot support
legislation that extends health coverage to some children
while explicitly excluding legal immigrant children. We urge
Congress to reject the conference report and go back to the
drawing board to develop SCHIP reauthorization legislation
which will provide health care coverage equitably.
Latino children, who represent two-fifths of uninsured
children, are overwhelmingly disconnected from health
coverage, so it remains essential for Congress to address the
core barriers that prevent them from gaining access to health
care. While we acknowledge that the bill has some provisions
that will broaden coverage opportunities for some of
America's children, including some Latinos, we are deeply
dismayed that it fails to include the language of the ``Legal
Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act (Legal ICHIA),''
which was passed by the House of Representatives with
widespread bipartisan support. This important proposal
addresses arbitrary restrictions to Medicaid and SCHIP for
legal immigrant children and pregnant women and has the
potential to extend coverage for hundreds of thousands of
vulnerable children.
We are particularly disheartened that a congressional
debate which is focused on expanding access to health care to
children would perpetuate an exclusion for legal immigrants.
It is disingenuous to say to the Latino community that health
care is being expanded when a significant proportion of our
children are not included.
We cannot accept this unjust and unnecessary inequity. We
urge you to oppose the SCHIP conference report and redraft a
reauthorization which includes the provisions of ``Legal
ICHIA.'' We will recommend that votes associated with this
legislation are included in the National Hispanic Leadership
Agenda (NHLA) congressional scorecard.
Sincerely,
Janet Murguia
President and CEO.
____
National Hispanic
Leadership Agenda,
Washington, DC, September 24, 2007.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi: On behalf of
the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA), a nonpartisan
coalition of 40 major national Hispanic organizations and
distinguished leaders, representing 44 million Hispanics, we
strongly urge you to include the Legal Immigrant Children's
Health Improvement Act (Legal ICHIA) into the final State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Conference
Report.
Latino children, who represent two-fifths of all uninsured
children, are overwhelmingly disenfranchised from health
coverage, so it remains essential for Congress to address the
core barriers that prevent them from gaining access to health
care. Not including Legal ICHIA in the Report is a grave
injustice to the thousands of legal immigrant children and
pregnant women who will be affected by this exclusion. The
ban on covering legal immigrant children who have not been in
the U.S. for five years has resulted in high uninsurance
rates and lack of preventative care for many Hispanic
children. Lifting the restriction to public health care would
provide assurance to many families that their children's
health conditions could be treated before becoming chronic.
We cannot support legislation that extends health coverage
to some children while explicitly excluding legal immigrant
children. We urge you to reject the conference report and go
back to the drawing board to develop SCHIP reauthorization
legislation which will provide health care coverage
equitably.
Sincerely,
Ronald Blackburn-Moreno,
Chair of the Board of Directors.
____
National Hispanic
Medical Association,
Washington, DC, September 24, 2007.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi: On behalf of
the National Hispanic Medical Association (NHMA), a nonprofit
association representing 36,000 licensed Hispanic physicians
in the United States, we strongly urge you to demonstrate
leadership and include the Legal Immigrant Children's Health
Improvement Act (Legal ICHIA) into the final State Children's
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill.
The mission of NHMA is to improve the health of Hispanics
and other underserved populations. We recognize that
expansion of health insurance to legal immigrant children in
the U.S. would allow a significant number of children to have
access to health care that they desperately need in order to
be better equipped to learn in school as well as to be able
to grow developmentally into healthy adults. Since one in
five Hispanic children is currently uninsured, and Hispanics
represent the largest group of uninsured in the United
States, inclusion of the Legal Immigrant Children's Health
Improvement Act into the program is vital to increasing the
enrollment numbers of Hispanic children.
In summary, the National Hispanic Medical Association
strongly supports the inclusion of expanding access to health
insurance for legal immigrant children and pregnant women
that would ultimately, increase the quality of life of all
Americans. We do not support an SCHIP bill that does not
include Legal ICHIA.
Sincerely,
Elena Rios,
President and CEO.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say a couple of things with
regard to process. The gentleman knows, everybody else knows, the
gentleman should know that his Republican colleagues in the Senate
blocked a motion to go to conference.
The SCHIP program expires in 6 days, and we don't have time for a
House version of a filibuster. A dozen States will run out of SCHIP
funding if we do not act. Now is the time to act. So if you want to
make sure that those currently enrolled continue to get the health care
coverage, then you've got to vote for this. And if you want more
children to be enrolled, then you have to vote for this.
On the issue of legal immigrants, I agree. I think all of us here
agree that the legal immigrants should be included. The reality is
there were not enough Republicans who agree. The Republican leadership
has been awful on this issue. And the Republicans in the Senate have
said that adding a legal immigrant provision would have killed the bill
in the Senate. That is the gentleman's party.
Let me also remind Members of this House that you had an opportunity
to vote for an SCHIP that covered legal immigrants. That is what we
voted on here in the House, and you all voted ``no.'' You voted ``no''
on that. You voted not to extend coverage for those legal immigrants in
this country, those children of legal immigrants. So I'm not quite sure
what you're trying to do here, other than trying to delay this process
so we don't get this bill passed.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the
underlying legislation, even though it does not do as much as I would
like. In fact, less than 2 months ago I voted with a majority of this
body for a bill that covered more children. It strengthened health care
for millions of American citizens and restored fairness to our Medicare
system and invested in preventive health.
Unfortunately, that bill cannot pass the Senate. And sometimes, in
order to make change, we must compromise. Compromise is why we are here
today,
[[Page H10809]]
Mr. Speaker. And though the bill before is us is not ideal, it is a
step in the right direction.
It is rare that Members of Congress have the chance to provide health
care to 4 million more children with one vote, but that is the
opportunity we have today.
My district is like many others in this country. In my hometown of
Sacramento, there are children who can see a doctor when they get sick.
They go to a pediatrician and get a checkup or have their ear infection
examined or their teeth cleaned regularly.
But there are also thousands of children in Sacramento who do not
have this access, thousands of kids whose families cannot afford the
huge cost of health insurance. These are children who cannot see a
doctor until they're seriously ill, children who do not get the medical
attention until they get to an emergency room. It is for these
children, the thousands in Sacramento and the millions across the
country, that we must pass this legislation today.
It is for these children that the President must sign this bill. If
he vetoes it, he turns his back on 4 million more children in need. He
will disregard the will of a clear majority of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I stand before this House today as a colleague, but also
as a proud grandmother. My two grandchildren are named Anna and Robby.
Most of what I do in Congress is colored by how it will affect them and
their generation.
Anna and Robby are fortunate. They have stable reliable health
insurance. Millions of other children are not so lucky. Anna and
Robby's peers are the reason I support this compromise bill, Mr.
Speaker, even though it ignores many of the problems that the CHAMP Act
addressed. Anna and Robby's peers are still the reason we should all
support this bill, and they are the reason the President must sign it.
We'll return to this issue soon, Mr. Speaker. We'll finish what we
began with the CHAMP Act. But for now, for the sake of millions of
children in this country, I urge all my colleagues to support this rule
and the underlying legislation.
{time} 1630
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Ennis, Texas, the ranking member on Energy
and Commerce (Mr. Barton).
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak
extemporaneously since my prepared remarks are in the Record. I remind
the body that the Democratic majority took over the House and the
Senate in January of this year. They set the schedule. They set the
agenda. They decide what hearings are held. They decide what bills are
marked up. They decide which issues come to the floor of both bodies.
Not the Republicans.
It is insulting to sit here and be told that somehow when the same
party, of which I am not a member, controls the agenda in both
legislative bodies of this great Congress that somehow the Republicans
are responsible for this late effort to reauthorize SCHIP.
I told the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee the day after the election last November, Mr. Dingell of
Michigan, that I was looking forward to working with him on SCHIP
reauthorization, and while I don't know it as a fact, I am fairly
certain that Mr. McCrery had a similar conversation with the
distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel of
New York.
Now, how much bipartisan cooperation have we had in the House of
Representatives? The answer is almost none. It is my understanding that
Mr. Rangel and Mr. McCrery did talk some in their committee, but in the
Energy and Commerce Committee we held a number of generic hearings. We
never held a hearing specifically on SCHIP. We never held a legislative
markup in subcommittee. We never held a legislative hearing or markup
in full committee. We got a 565-page bill the night before the
scheduled markup, and it was take it or leave it. Well, we left it. And
that bill passed the House, but barely.
What has happened since that bill passed? There have been discussions
in the Senate between the Republicans and the Democrats apparently, and
the House Democratic leadership have participated. But the House
Republicans have not been allowed to participate. So what is the result
of that? The result of that is a 300-page bill that the House
Republicans saw at about 6:14 last evening and a Rules Committee in
which it was voted to not give a Republican substitute, not give a
Republican amendment, not even give a Republican motion to recommit.
So we are going to have twice now a major bill in which there is
bipartisan support for is going to come to the House of Representatives
with no Republican input, not even a motion to recommit.
Now, I don't know how many times the Republicans did that to the
Democrats in the last several Congresses when we were in the majority,
but I bet I could count them on the fingers of one hand, and I might be
able to count them on the fingers of one finger.
Don't you think the American people deserve at least a substitute or
a motion to recommit? Now, we are going to be given a chance later this
evening to have 1 hour of debate, 1 hour of debate, and then an up-or-
down vote, and we are going to get enough votes to sustain the
President's veto, and maybe next week Mr. Dingell and Mr. Rangel and
Ms. Pelosi will contact Mr. Boehner, Mr. Barton, and Mr. McCrery, and
we may yet get this bipartisan agreement. We may get it next week, and
I hope we do. But I don't want the American people to be under any
illusion. The bill that's coming before the floor tonight is a backroom
deal that the most that can be said for it is that it does have money
in it for the children of America, which we support. And there are lots
of reforms that we probably support, too, if we are ever given the
chance to have that discussion.
I would hope we would vote ``no'' on this rule, take it back to the
Rules Committee, at least make a substitute or a motion to recommit in
order, and put back in the rule in terms of earmarks. There are at
least two earmarks that we know in the bill that nobody has talked
about.
One of the earmarks is from the great State of Michigan, $1.2 billion
over 10 years. It's just a gift of $1.2 billion for their FMAP program.
And if that's not an earmark, I don't know what is. And under the
Democratic leadership's own rule in this Congress, that should have at
least been disclosed. And last night at the Rules Committee, they said
there were no earmarks in the bill. And I believe when Ms. Slaughter,
the distinguished chairman, said that, she believed it. I don't think
she knew it was in the bill. But it is. That at least ought to be
corrected.
Vote ``no'' on the rule and send it back to the committee.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is an apt reflection of the underlying SCRIP
legislation. Like the bill, it tramples democracy in a feckless
commitment to bad politics over good policy. The House Democratic
leadership wants to embarrass and weaken the President, and that goal
is more important to them than extending health care to needy children.
So we're being instructed--not even asked--to swallow a multi-
billion-dollar bill without having a legislative hearing at any level,
without having a subcommittee markup and without having a conference.
We're each supposed to analyze and comprehend a 299-page enigma that
was unveiled last night. There'll be no amendments, of course, and no
motion to recommit. This is getting to be a bad habit, isn't it?
Each of us represents several hundred thousand people, and most of
them come from families that work hard and pay taxes. They do their
part, and we should, too. But we can't do much more than voting object
when we are not even able to know what's in the bills we're voting on.
Most of what we know about this SCHIP bill is what we hear in the
halls and see in the newspapers. For some, that's enough because the
harder we listen and the more we look, the more we discover that is
troubling. What on earth is the $1.2 billion earmark for Michigan all
about, anyway? And how many more like it are tucked away in this bill?
We cannot actually know most of what's in this bill, but we can
suspect much. We can certainly suspect the State Children's Health
Insurance Program grew from a fraction of the House SCHIP bill to
become an entire pretend conference report. All we know for sure is
that we're being asked to pass another major
[[Page H10810]]
piece of legislation based on blind faith and guesswork.
I wonder why we can't do now what we're surely going to do later--
pass a simple extension of the SCRIP program and then have the honest
public debate about policy changes that should have occurred over the
last 10 months. Mr. Deal and I propose to extend the authorization of
SCRIP for an additional 18 months, and more than a hundred of our
colleagues have agreed. There are no gimmicks, no budget trickery, no
politics and no changes.
But the majority will want their pound of the President's flesh
first. Everybody gets that, and maybe it won't work so well as they
hope because, after all, everybody gets it. This rule and this
legislation aren't about children or health. They are about a cynical
exercise of raw power for the sake of a fleeting political advantage.
I wish the Democrats wouldn't do it this way, but I'm under no
illusion that wishin' or hopin' will change the speaker's mind. I look
forward to the President's inevitable veto because it will give us a
chance to have a real discussion and write a transparent bill instead
of foisting this mystery package on the taxpayers and the needy
children of America.
We can work together and do this right, and I believe that
eventually, we will. The best first step would be to reject this
pathetic rule and start working on real legislation now instead of
later.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that this
program expires in 6 days and that the Republicans in the Senate
blocked a motion to go to conference. That's why we are here. The other
reason why we are here is we want to make sure that 10 million children
in this country get health insurance.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from New York, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee (Mr.
Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to support some of what Mr. Barton
has just said in terms of being critical about the manner in which this
bill, albeit it helps 3\1/2\ million more children, how it got to the
floor. And I also want to sympathize with him, having been the ranking
member of Ways and Means when the Republicans were in charge, so I know
what being excluded means. But I want to assure him that he was not
excluded by the House leadership, not the House Democratic leadership
and not the House Republican leadership. The criticism that so many
people have about this bill is misfounded.
This is not the House bill. For those that are so sensitive about
legal immigrants not being covered, you had an opportunity when the
bill was in the House to vote for the House bill. And I hope for
political reasons when you get back home, that vote was recorded the
right way. But the reason it is not in this is because this is not the
House bill.
And I want to tell Mr. Barton that I was invited to go into the back
room, but the back room was on the Senate side and it wasn't controlled
by the Democratic leadership but by those Republicans who demanded that
it be their way or the highway.
So you can debate all you want how you want to help or hurt the
children, but don't be critical of the Democratic leadership in the
House. Be critical of this bipartisan agreement on what? The Senate
bill. And I have been assured by the majority whip of the majority
leader in the Senate that he wanted to go to conference, and it would
take 60 votes in order to beat a filibuster even for us to have a
conference on the bill or perhaps we could have heard from the ranking
member and others that would be appointed to the conference.
So the issue today is not how badly really the Republicans in the
Senate handled this. They're in charge. They hold us hostage. You need
60 votes. You got a filibuster. So they have now capitulated to this
bill that's now before us. And what is your decision? It is either
you're going to help the kids or you're not. Either you're going to
expand the coverage or you're not. And the President is not going to be
in your district if you're lucky, but he doesn't have to explain
anything if he vetoes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, it came up in the point of order about a
question of an earmark, and it was raised by the Republican side that
that earmark was in my district. And they questioned something that
maybe I should have done.
The fact is that part of the bill is in my district. It's The Med, a
public hospital that renders charity care to people in Tennessee,
Mississippi, Arkansas, and the boothill of Missouri; a hospital almost
out of business because of how much charity care that it renders to the
folks in those States.
I have no interest in that hospital but that as a congressman who
supports that hospital. No personal interest whatsoever. I have great
political interest in it because it serves my constituents, the people
of Mississippi, and Arkansas. It is questionable whether that is an
earmark or not. It was put in with the help of people across the aisle,
and I appreciate my Republican colleagues from the State of Tennessee
who helped get this in the bill because they see the need to help folks
from Mississippi and Arkansas get health care that is provided at The
Med and is not reimbursed to The Med. They lost $20 million in funding
last year, the citizens of Shelby County who provided that funding at
The Med for people in Mississippi and Arkansas, and that funding should
continue.
Patients don't stop at State lines and neither should funding. And
all this provision does is allow States to request Medicaid
reimbursement for their citizens being treated at The Med in Memphis,
Tennessee, the ``City of Good Abode.'' I am proud to be a Congressman
from Tennessee, and I am proud to represent The Med and take umbrage at
any suggestion that I violated any rules in seeing that I worked with
my colleagues from Tennessee on the Republican and Democrat side to see
that this inequity was corrected.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague of the
Rules Committee for allowing me to speak.
I rise today in support of the legislation to reauthorize the SCHIP
program. With 6 million American children currently eligible for the
program and yet unenrolled, it is time we quit playing politics with
their health care and start covering these children.
This bill accomplishes both of these goals and is a true bipartisan,
at least in the Senate, bicameral effort that will result in nearly 4
million additional children receiving health insurance coverage under
the SCHIP program. This bill wisely retains the House formula and the
incentives for States to implement outreach and enrollment tools, which
offered the best combination for finding and enrolling eligible
children.
However, I have to express regret and disappointment that the bill
did not include the House bill's guarantee that children in families
earning less than 200 percent of the poverty level will have 12 months
of continuous eligibility under SCHIP. The enrollment and outreach
package includes an incentive for States to provide this eligibility
guarantee. But for a State like mine, we need to ensure that the State
of Texas does right by our Texas children and doesn't use that
flexibility inherent in the program to kick these kids off the rolls on
a budgetary whim. The 175,000 Texas children who were kicked off the
rolls in 2003 know all too well of the State's willingness to balance
the State budget on their backs, and I hoped that this bill would take
away the State's ability to do that in the future.
But like most pieces of compromise legislation, we have to consider
the totality of the bill, and the bill should be celebrated for all
that it does accomplish.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the legislation and
sending a strong message to the President that we must abandon the
partisan politics and reauthorize SCHIP for America's children whose
parents are working but cannot afford or are not offered employer-based
health insurance.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
[[Page H10811]]
I rise today in opposition to this rule. It is the latest example of
a long line of broken campaign promises made by this Democratic
majority to conduct the most open, fair, and inclusive Congress in
history. However, the Democrat majority has taken this opportunity yet
again to shut out and alienate nearly half of the American population
from the democratic process.
But I not only rise today in opposition to the rule but the
underlying legislation as well. I do so because this massive expansion
of an entitlement program is an irresponsible way to spend American
taxpayers' hard-earned money.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we will be debating on the floor of
the House today increases this government-run health care program far
past its original intent to help low-income families purchase health
care coverage for their children. The reality is this bill does not
protect the most vulnerable amongst our children and citizens. Rather,
it diverts these precious resources from those who most need it in
order to cover adults and already privately insured children.
{time} 1645
In fact, the extra $35 billion the Democrats are asking American
families to pay for is aimed at a population, Mr. Speaker, where 77
percent of the children already have private health insurance coverage.
These children would simply be transferred from private insurance
coverage to a taxpayer-funded, government-controlled health care
entitlement program.
So I wholeheartedly support the concept of the continuation of the
SCHIP program, because as a physician for nearly 30 years, I acutely
understand how quality health care is critical for our American
children. And that's why I am a proud original cosponsor of H.R. 3584,
the SCHIP Extension Act.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation looks to extend the current SCHIP
program for 18 months, and it focuses the program and its funds on
those individuals who really need it: low-income, uninsured American
children.
I am also a cosponsor of the Barton-Deal alternative to this 140
percent massive 5-year Democratic expansion. Barton-Deal increases
funding by 35 percent, and this is sufficient to cover the poor
children who have fallen through the cracks; it is estimated to be
750,000 to 1 million kids. That covers it, Mr. Speaker.
So I, again, want to say that I am adamantly opposed to this
legislation, not because I don't support SCHIP, but because this
legislation irresponsibly spends American tax dollars. And I believe
Congress can and should do a better job, because I believe the American
taxpayers deserve better.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today's bill certainly does not do enough
for America's children; but even too little is too much for President
Bush, who seems intent on doing for America's children what he did as
Governor for the children of Texas, condemning more and more of them to
suffer without health insurance.
As Governor, Mr. Bush refused to lead for Texas children. Our
children's health insurance was late, very late. And once we got it, he
did all he could to see that as few children as possible were covered,
even though the Federal Government was picking up almost 75 cents of
every dollar of the bill. Texas has actually refused about $1 billion
of Federal money to help our children. And by insisting on such neglect
from the start, Mr. Bush has ensured that Texas has the proud record of
being number one of all the 50 States in having the highest percentage
of children with no health insurance.
Now in alliance with the nicotine peddlers opposing this bill, once
again President Bush's greatest concern is that too many children will
get insurance coverage. He actually demands that some children must
wait an entire year with no insurance at all before they are eligible
for CHIP coverage.
Why doesn't the child of a waitress, the child of a construction
worker, the child of one of the many workers at a small business that
can't afford to provide health insurance to their employees, why
doesn't that child deserve a healthy start in life? Painful earaches, a
strep throat, a cavity, they deserve swift treatment, not waiting. As
President Bush so disdainfully said last month, just take them to the
emergency room. It's that kind of indifference, combined with his
record in Texas, that demonstrates indifference to the needs of our
children and their health insurance as nothing new for our President.
But if he prevails today, the number of children who will suffer
without adequate health insurance will be even bigger than Texas.
He calls this approach compassionate conservatism. I think most
Americans would just call it ``cheatin' children.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the Children's Health Insurance Program is
pro-family and pro-work. It is pro-family because few things are more
important to a family than the health of their children. It's pro-work
because it says to those on welfare, if you will get a job and go to
work, you won't lose your health care coverage for your children.
This bill is about helping those who are working hard to help
themselves. By passing this bill, we can ensure that 4 million American
children without health insurance will receive better health care.
All too often in years past, Congress has fought hard for powerful
special interests for change. Today, we can stand up for the interest
of America's children, and we should do it for their sake and for the
future of our country.
As a father of two young sons, I hope every Member will ask him or
herself just one question, how would I vote if this bill meant the
difference between my own children having health care coverage or not?
The lives of 4 million children will be affected by how we answer that
question today, right now.
Vote ``yes'' to children's health care. It's the right thing to do.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a father and a patriot (Mr.
Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank my dear friend for yielding.
I rise in opposition to this rule. I find it somewhat ironic that
apparently Members have 5 days to insert something into the Record, yet
we have less than 24 hours to actually read a 300-page bill.
Mr. Speaker, maybe some people are confused about the debate. Those
of us who have plowed through this bill are not. Make no mistake about
it, this is a government-run, socialized health care wolf masquerading
in the sheepskin of children's health care.
This is only the first battle in this Congress over who will control
health care in America. Will it be parents, families and doctors? Or
will be it Washington bureaucrats? That's what this debate is all
about.
As one of my colleagues, the gentlelady from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin),
said, and I'll paraphrase, the Democrats now want to turn over your
health care, your family's health care to the same Federal Government
that can't get you a passport, that can't keep illegal immigrants from
crossing our border, and could not competently render aid after
Hurricane Katrina. And that's who they want to give your family's
health care to.
Now, again, the Democrats claim this is all about insuring low-income
children. That debate is false because they know, Mr. Speaker, Medicaid
takes care of the children at the poverty level in the current SCHIP
program, takes care of the working poor. And today, the Democrats know
they could get overwhelmingly bipartisan support if they would
reauthorize that, but that's not what they're bringing to the floor.
They're bringing us a program that will insure adults, insure families
making up to $62,000 a year and in some cases $82,000 a year. And they
do this by taxing working poor, by a massive tobacco tax that primarily
falls upon families with less than $30,000 in income. That's right, Mr.
Speaker, they're going to tax the working poor to give subsidies to
those making up to $82,000 a year.
In order to finance this program, the Heritage Foundation has
concluded they're going to need 22 million new
[[Page H10812]]
smokers over the next 10 years just to fund this program.
The Congressional Budget Office said that in effect they will also in
this bill take family-chosen health care plans away from 2.1 million
families and stick them with a government-run plan instead. They're
taking children off of family-chosen health insurance and putting them
in government-run plans.
Every American child deserves access to quality, affordable,
accessible health care. They deserve the kind of health care that we in
Congress and our children enjoy, but that's not what they're receiving
here. Instead, in a matter of years, when mothers in America have sick
children, they will wait weeks and months to see a marginally competent
doctor chosen by a Washington bureaucrat that may or may not do
anything to help their children. That's not the way it ought to be in
America. We can do better.
Defeat this rule. Defeat this bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished 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. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman
from Massachusetts and the chairman of the full Committee on Ways and
Means and the chairman of Energy and Commerce. This is correctly stated
by the chairman of the Ways and Means: this is not the House bill.
I love our children. I have great concerns about this legislation,
but I have more concerns about my Republican friends who are opposing
this legislation, and I am outraged about the President's threat of a
veto. Even this bill does not cover the 6 million children that we need
to cover, it only covers 2.4 million. My friends, this is not Medicaid;
this is SCHIP. This is for working men and women whose children don't
have health insurance; 2.8 million are insured. We wanted 5 million, 6
million; but, no, we only have 2.8 million, 3.2 million left out.
And then, of course, there was the possibility of insuring some
adults, the most vulnerable sick adults, under SCHIP with remaining
monies. This bill does not do that. And then, of course, we look at
individuals who are of legal immigrant status and we tell them they
cannot be covered--these immigrants are here legally.
We also are asking people to come to the emergency room with a sick
child with citizenship documentation. And let me say, this is for all
of us. And so you have a sick child and you're looking for citizenship
documentation. On the other hand, I am grateful that we have parity
with dental and mental care for SCHIP children. And pregnant women are
covered. And then we have the ability to enroll the children quickly,
because one of the problems of SCHIP is that children are not enrolled.
But the real crisis is no answer coming from the White House children's
health care. The only thing coming from the White House is a veto pen.
So not only will 6 million children be left out in the cold, but the
small number, 2.8 million, that was squeaking through the door will be
thrown under the bus because we won't be able to cover them because a
veto pen is waiting for us. We can do better. America is better than
this.
I love our children. We need to do this in the right way. We
certainly don't need a veto pen by the President of the United States.
We should love our children and respond to their health needs.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment in the version of
the State Children's Health Insurance Program Act of 2007 which has
been brought before this body today. This bill, which has been largely
driven by the Republicans in the Senate, falls far short of the mark to
mend the broken pieces of our healthcare system and provide healthcare
coverage for some of our most vulnerable populations in this country.
Instead of covering an additional 6 million uninsured children, this
bill increases coverage for 3 million, leaving 3 million children
uninsured. This bill also fails to provide vision coverage and provides
very little mental coverage for our children. Pregnant women may also
suffer under this bill because this bill, unlike the previous House
version, does not guarantee additional coverage for pregnant women.
This bill also denies coverage to parents, college-aged adults, and
legal immigrants who currently have coverage in some states.
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 bill 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 healthcare
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.
Looking at the statistics, 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. Meanwhile,
healthcare 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 health care coverage through
SCHIP. More than half of all children whose family income is $32,180
received health care coverage through SCHIP.
Children in Urban Areas: SCHIP is also important to children living
in urban areas of the country. In urban areas: One in four children has
health care 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 health care 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
[[Page H10813]]
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.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
I urge my colleagues to invest in our children's health by approving
this bipartisan legislation.
It amazes me that the President of the United States can support
testing our children in school repeatedly under No Child Left Behind,
but doesn't think we should test them for hepatitis, let alone
vaccinate them against the disease.
The President claims that everybody already has access to health care
through the emergency room. This is not only callous; it's a terrible
way to get health care and it is factually wrong. Every family does not
have access.
Now, there are no surprises here in this legislation. No matter how
often the President or some of his apologists here on the Republican
side of the aisle say it, this is not a giveaway to the middle class;
it's not socialized medicine. That's why 86 percent of our Governors,
including 16 Republican Governors, support this legislation and are
looking, actually, to use it to increase the number of vulnerable
families who receive health care.
How can some claim that ours is the best health care system in the
world when it is inaccessible to 10 million of our most vulnerable
citizens, our children of working class families, none of whom can
afford their own health care?
I urge my colleagues to take a stand, join this bipartisan consensus,
vote to extend the program, and resist the President's veto.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this
rule to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program. It is
critical that we pass this legislation, and with the funding for SCHIP
program scheduled to expire in 5 days from now, it is critical that we
pass it today.
SCHIP began in 1997 and has been a true success story. While the
number of uninsured adults has steadily climbed over the past 10 years,
currently 47 million Americans without health insurance, the number of
uninsured children in our Nation has declined by nearly a third.
This program has made health insurance a reality for over 12,000
children in my home State of Rhode Island this year, the majority of
them in families where one or more adults is part of the workforce. It
is a critical component of health care delivery in Rhode Island, as it
is across the country.
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.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule which will allow
us to preserve and strengthen this tremendously successful program. It
is the compassionate thing to do, it's the right thing to do, and I
urge my colleagues to support SCHIP reauthorization.
{time} 1700
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the
previous question so that I may amend the rule to allow for
consideration of H. Res. 479, a resolution that I call the ``Earmark
Accountability Rule.'' It seems like we need a lot more accountability.
We had to learn today that through a loophole that evidently we don't
have to have all earmarks to be accounted for in the bills that come to
this floor of the House of Representatives despite what we were told
just a few months ago.
Last night in the ``Graveyard of Good Ideas,'' which is the Rules
Committee, I made a motion that would have the Democrats enforce their
own earmark proposal by allowing points of order regarding earmarks to
be raised on this legislation. As expected, the vote failed along party
lines with every Democrat member present voting to waive their own
earmark rules for this bill. I am greatly disappointed in that outcome.
So today I am giving the entire House, not just the nine Democrat
members of the Rules Committee, whose word we are expected to take that
this legislation contains no earmarks, an opportunity to correct that
mistake.
This rules change would simply allow the House to debate openly and
honestly about the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all
bills, not just appropriations bills. If we defeat the previous
question, we can address that problem today and restore this Congress'
nonexistent credibility when it comes to the enforcement of its own
rules.
I ask unanimous consent to have the text of this amendment and
extraneous material appear in the Record just before the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today, once again, we have a rule that is
on the floor of the House of Representatives that is neither open nor I
think passes the standard of accountability to the American people nor
fairness that they spoke about. Last night, the Rules Committee and
minority received this bill just 1 hour and 15 minutes before the Rules
Committee was to meet. It involved no feedback from Republican Members,
especially those who have jurisdiction over this from the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
I am disappointed. I am disappointed that, once again, we have to
come to the floor of the House of Representatives after asking a
straightforward question last night to the chairman of the Rules
Committee, ``Are there any earmarks in this legislation? We think we
found three,'' only to come to the floor today and find out, oops, no,
we got a loophole, had to find a loophole.
This is crass. It is really politics over policy. I know many people
want the United States House of Representatives to be higher in the
polls. We are at 11 percent right now. People scratch their head and
wonder why. Well, with the way that this House is running, not living
up to their word, even the word in committee among colleagues who have
been with each other for 9 years that I have been on the Rules
Committee where a person looked right at me and said, ``There is
nothing in that bill,'' I think we can do better.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that this is a
proud day for the House of Representatives. If we can pass the bill and
send it to the President, that will guarantee 10 million children who
don't have health insurance currently that they will get health
insurance. That is something we can be proud of. That is an
accomplishment. That is results.
We have heard a lot of excuses from the other side. A lot of my
friends say, ``I love SCHIP, but I just don't want to vote for it. I
love all of our children in this country. I believe everybody should
have insurance, but I am not willing to vote to make sure that they
have insurance.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't cut it. The American people are sick
of the stalling tactics. They are sick of the excuses. They are sick of
the lack of results that they have seen in the area of making sure that
everybody in this country gets health insurance. And that is one of the
reasons why, I should tell the gentleman from Texas, why his party lost
in the last election, because it was perceived by the American people
that his party wasn't responding to the real challenges and the real
needs of the American people, that they were indifferent to the plight
of uninsured children across this country.
[[Page H10814]]
It is time to do the right thing, Mr. Speaker. As I said in the very
beginning of this debate, the choice really is very simple, will you
vote to provide health insurance to millions of children, or will you
vote to take health insurance away from children who currently have it?
This is the choice. Voting ``no'' or voting for all the procedural
motions that the gentleman from Texas has put forward will basically
result in children currently who have insurance losing that insurance,
because the President's plan doesn't provide nearly enough money to
cover those who are already enrolled in the program. But we need to do
better.
The bottom line is that we are the richest country on the face of the
Earth. It is unconscionable that every person in this country does not
have health care. It is even more outrageous that our children don't
have health insurance. It is, quite frankly, outrageous that the
President of the United States is holding a veto threat over this bill,
a bill to guarantee that more of our children have health insurance. Of
all the things he could possibly veto, this is where he draws the line
in the sand when it comes to making sure that our kids get the health
care they deserve? It takes my breath away when I think that this is
the issue that he chooses to have a fight over, health insurance for
our children. I am grateful that there are Republicans who are going to
join with us on this vote.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and
on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 675 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the
House shall, without intervention of any point of order,
consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the Rules of
the House of Representatives to provide for enforcement of
clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as read.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or
demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)
one motion to recommit.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on
adoption of House Resolution 675, if ordered, and suspending the rules
and agreeing to House Resolution 95.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 197, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 903]
YEAS--218
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
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
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
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
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--197
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
[[Page H10815]]
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
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
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
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--17
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Blunt
Carson
Cubin
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Delahunt
Herger
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Poe
Putnam
Ross
Snyder
{time} 1732
Messrs. DAVIS of Kentucky, LEWIS of California, and STEARNS changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. GENE GREEN of Texas, HIGGINS, and MOORE of Kansas changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schiff). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215,
noes 199, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 904]
AYES--215
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
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
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--199
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
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
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
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)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Kaptur
Watson
NOT VOTING--16
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Blunt
Carson
Cubin
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Delahunt
Herger
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Poe
Putnam
Ross
Snyder
{time} 1741
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________