[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 149 (Wednesday, October 3, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11203-H11214]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007--VETO 
  MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 110-62)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto 
message from the President of the United States:
To the House of Representatives:
  I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 976, the 
``Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007,'' 
because this legislation would move health care in this country in the 
wrong direction.
  The original purpose of the State Children's Health Insurance Program 
(SCHIP) was to help children whose families cannot afford private 
health insurance, but do not qualify for Medicaid, to get the coverage 
they need. My Administration strongly supports reauthorization of 
SCHIP. That is why I proposed last February a 20 percent increase in 
funding for the program over 5 years.
  This bill would shift SCHIP away from its original purpose and turn 
it into a program that would cover children from some families of four 
earning almost $83,000 a year. In addition, under this bill, government 
coverage would displace private health insurance for many children. If 
this bill were enacted, one out of every three children moving onto 
government coverage would be moving from private coverage. The bill 
also does not fully fund all its new spending, obscuring the true cost 
of the bill's expansion of SCHIP, and it raises taxes on working 
Americans.
  Because the Congress has chosen to send me a bill that moves our 
health care system in the wrong direction, I must veto it. I hope we 
can now work together to produce a good bill that puts poorer children 
first, that moves adults out of a program meant for children, and that 
does not abandon the bipartisan tradition that marked the enactment of 
SCHIP. Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance 
to private coverage, not to move children who already have private 
health insurance to government coverage.
                                                      George W. Bush.  
                                      The White House, October 3, 2007.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will be 
spread at large upon the Journal, and the veto message and the bill 
will be printed as a House document.


                      Motion Offered by Mr. Hoyer

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hoyer moves that further consideration of the veto 
     message and the bill, H.R. 976, be postponed until October 
     18, 2007.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is 
recognized for 1 hour.

[[Page H11204]]

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and pending that, I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that of 
the 30 minutes yielded me, 15 minutes of that be yielded to the ranking 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McCrery.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, earlier today, the President of the United 
States, in defiance of bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate, 
and in defiance of the will of a great majority of Americans, vetoed 
fiscally responsible legislation that would ensure that 10 million 
children in our Nation receive health insurance coverage. That's 
approximately 4 million more children than are covered under the highly 
successful Children's Health Insurance Program today.
  I remind the Members of the House that that program was adopted in 
1997 by a Republican-controlled Congress with strong Democratic 
support, a bipartisan program. Let us be clear, this is a defining 
moment for this Congress and for a President who has labeled himself a 
compassionate conservative.
  The President's veto, my colleagues, must not stand. The President 
wrongly claims that this bipartisan legislation is fiscally 
irresponsible. But the truth is the Children's Health Insurance Program 
legislation, forged by Members on both sides of this aisle, is paid 
for. It does not add to the deficit or to the debt. Moreover, President 
Bush, whose policies over the last 6 years have instigated record 
budget deficits and spiraling debt, should not be lecturing anyone on 
the issue of fiscal discipline. This administration, I suggest to all 
of us, has pursued and enacted the most fiscally irresponsible policies 
perhaps in American history. In fact, even as the President vetoed this 
CHIP legislation, all of it paid for, he has asked Congress to approve 
another $190 billion to protect Baghdad and its environs. Mr. 
President, we need to protect the children of Bowie, of New York, of 
Peoria, of Miami, of California.
  In fact, even as the President vetoed, as I said, this legislation, 
he sent to us a $190 billion request for more money for the war in 
Iraq, the civil war in Iraq, a place where, very frankly, it is far 
past time where the people of Iraq took the responsibility to defend 
and secure their country.
  This legislation that the President has vetoed is about securing the 
health of America's children. With this veto, the President is playing 
politics, pure and simple.
  After running up record deficits in debt, he is now trying to 
establish his fiscal bona fides with his conservative political base by 
denying health services to children.
  Mr. President, it won't work. Mr. President, it shouldn't work. Mr. 
President, it is not compassionate, nor is it common sense.
  Senator Hatch, no one's idea of a liberal or of a Democratic 
spinmeister, said on the Senate floor last week, and I quote, ``It is 
unfortunate that the President has chosen to be on what, to me, is 
clearly the wrong side of the issue.'' That was Senator Hatch.
  I hope all of us in this body, Republican and Democrat, decide, when 
this vote comes up, to determine whether or not the Congress should 
make policy or whether we will be subservient to the President's veto 
in protecting children.
  I hope all of us, Republican and Democrat, liberal, moderate and 
conservative, will join together to respond to the children of this 
country and their families who agonize about not having the health 
insurance they need so that their children can be kept healthy.
  Senator Roberts of Kansas remarked, another leader in the Republican 
Party, ``I am not for excessive spending and strongly oppose the 
federalization of health care. And if the administration's concern with 
this bill were accurate, I would support a veto, but bluntly put,'' 
said Senator Roberts from Kansas, who served in this body, ``the 
assertions of the President,'' he said, ``are wrong.'' Technically, he 
said that the premises were inaccurate.
  Madam Speaker, this legislation is not only supported by majorities 
in the House and Senate, it is supported by doctors, nurses, private 
insurers, children's advocates, 43 Governors. The list goes on and on 
and on. But most importantly, most importantly, it's supported by the 
parents of children who are working, working hard every day, playing by 
the rules. Perhaps both are working, if they're fortunate to have two 
parents in the home, or a single parent, mom or dad, working hard, but 
making too little to afford insurance and working for an employer who 
can't give them insurance. Most of all, that is the constituency, that 
is the voice we ought to hear, that is why we ought to override this 
veto.
  According to an ABC News-Washington Post poll released just this 
week, 72 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, 
support this legislation, 69 percent of independents. What is perhaps 
most stunning of all is that, with this veto, the President has 
violated his own pledge at the Republican National Convention in 2004. 
You've heard me say this before, but let me say it again: ``In a new 
term we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of children 
who are eligible but not signed up for government programs.'' ``We will 
not allow,'' said the President, ``a lack of attention or information 
to stand between these children and the health care they need.'' Mr. 
President, that is what you have done by this veto, stood between those 
children and the insurance they need.
  I urge my colleagues, override this veto, support this motion, and on 
October 18 let us vote for the children.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, there is politics being played in this body this 
afternoon, but it's not by the President of the United States.
  When the SCHIP bill was up for reauthorization back in early 
September, people like myself asked that we have a regular process, 
have some time to review the bill, have some markups, learn what was in 
it, since we had gotten it the night before about midnight.
  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield just for a technical matter?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of my time be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. At that time, we were told that we didn't have 
time for that, that we had to move that bill before September 30 so 
that the children of America wouldn't lose their health insurance. 
Well, that bill, the CHAMP Act, passed this body. It never was brought 
up in the other body. Thankfully, it is gone. So you would think that 
with the continuing resolution that passed last week, we would now have 
some time to look at the SCHIP issue on a bipartisan basis here in the 
House and come up with a compromise that could be passed and signed by 
the President before the continuing resolution expires on, I think, 
November 16.
  What we are being told today is that since the President vetoed the 
bill, we don't want to vote on the veto today, we want to postpone it, 
I believe, until October 18. Now, why is that? If it was such a rush 
last month, you would think that it would still be a rush now and they 
would want to get the veto out of the way and then work together to 
come up with a bill that the President would sign. So it would seem to 
me that the Democrats are saying, Well, let's have a 2-week period here 
to try to play politics with this.
  I think that is wrong. I checked with the Parliamentarian about when 
was the last time a motion to postpone a veto was authorized by the 
House. It is not done very often. The last time was 1996. So I would 
hope we would defeat this motion to postpone and let me offer a 
substitute motion to refer the veto to the committee of jurisdiction. 
We then could have a process, have a bipartisan compromise, and bring 
it up within 2 weeks and vote for it, send it

[[Page H11205]]

to the other body and send it to the President, and I bet he would sign 
it. That is what we should be doing, not voting to postpone a veto vote 
which we know when that veto vote comes, we will sustain the 
President's veto.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 12 
minutes. The gentleman from New Jersey has 12 minutes. The gentleman 
from Texas has 12\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from Louisiana has 15 
minutes.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STARK. I just want to remind my colleagues that we are dealing 
with a President who has a very short memory. Just 2 days ago, he 
proclaimed October 1 as Child Health Day 2007. Today, he just trashed 
that. I don't know what he thought he was doing when he talked about 
improving the lives of children and preventing and reducing the cost of 
disease and promoting community health, because he is just following a 
position that denies 1 million kids the right to health care.
  So I hope, Mr. President, that you certainly don't proclaim a Protect 
Congress Day, or we are all in deep trouble.
  This veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program compromise 
legislation is finally showing the American people the President's true 
priorities. He is a war President. All he cares about is war and more 
war. The previous speaker on our side talked about $190 billion for the 
war in Iraq, and these funds aren't paid for. They add to the deficit. 
In addition to our children having to look around for health care, they 
are going to have to look around to pay for that illegal war.
  Simultaneously voting to extend a State Children's Health Insurance 
Program would be a good program. We would extend health care to nearly 
4 million children, and the President is cutting a million off that 
cost a fraction of his illegal war. It is fully paid for and doesn't 
increase the deficit one penny. It passed both the House and the Senate 
with strong bipartisan majorities.
  What's wrong with our Republican minority? Why do they insist on 
denying 1 million children, kicking them off the rolls of SCHIP? Why do 
they scorn in the face of 43 of the Nation's Governors who have written 
to the President and argued against his vetoing this bill?
  President Bush says he has his own plan. I don't know if he had that 
when he declared October 1 as Child Health Day. Whatever that plan is, 
it would cause millions of children to lose their health care. My own 
Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, estimates that the 
President's plan would cause 1 million children to be denied health 
care in California by the year 2012.
  This is a matter of life and death for our children's insurance. 
Children with health care do better in school, in life, and have their 
illnesses caught before it is too late. Ladies and gentlemen, the axis 
of evil is not just in the Middle East. It is right down here on 
Pennsylvania Avenue.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the President's veto, have a 
compromise bill to assure the health of America's children and make 
sure that that is put ahead of some obscure, extreme, radical ideology.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to not address the 
President in the second person but, rather, to address their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am only going to make one point during my brief 
remarks, and then I am going to ask unanimous consent to turn over the 
time for allocation of time to Mr. Camp.
  The point that I want to make is that the President's veto will be 
sustained, and that should allow the opportunity for Democrats and 
Republicans to sit down in this House and listen to each other as far 
as how we can reach a compromise on this important legislation.
  I was a Member of the House back in 1996 when we passed welfare 
reform for the third time. We had a Republican majority and a 
Democratic President. The Democratic President vetoed welfare reform 
twice. Basically, he told us, the majority Republicans, Look, I want 
Democrats to be at the table to try to get a compromise on this 
important legislation. That is what ultimately occurred. The President 
signed welfare reform on the third try. Then, in 1997, we had the 
Balanced Budget Act. There were considerable Medicare reforms in that 
act. President Clinton said the same thing. He said, Look, I want 
Democrats at the table. We allowed them to the table. I was in the room 
when Democrats, Republicans and a member of the Clinton administration 
sat down together to hash out the details, very nitty-gritty details, 
of the Medicare portion of the BBA.
  That is what should happen now with SCHIP. SCHIP was passed in 1997, 
as part of that 1997 effort, as a bipartisan effort. It should remain a 
bipartisan initiative. Unfortunately, the minority in this House and in 
the House of Representatives was excluded from the outset from 
discussions regarding the SCHIP legislation. The Senate, yes, had more 
of a bipartisan discussion. We were never included in that discussion, 
either. So we think we deserve, and I think the President thinks we 
deserve, a seat at the table to discuss this very important issue. I 
hope that is what finally emerges from this veto.
  I don't know why the majority wants to postpone the override vote for 
over 2 weeks. It just doesn't make sense to me if you want to get this 
done in a rational, reasonable manner this calendar year. It seems to 
me you would want to have the override vote immediately so we could get 
right on with the business of trying to compromise and give the 
President something that he could sign. I don't know why they are not 
doing that. But, in any event, at the end of this road when we sustain 
the veto, I am very hopeful that the majority now will act as the 
majority back in 1996 and 1997 did and give us all a seat at the table 
so we can work this out.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that Mr. Camp 
be allowed to allocate the remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, the Children's Health Insurance Program 
Reauthorization Act passed the House and the Senate with overwhelming 
bipartisan support. I would stress ``bipartisan'' because I listened to 
the gentleman from Louisiana. He neglects to mention that Republicans 
were at the table, Senator Grassley, Senator Hatch, and certainly a 
large number of Republicans who voted for this as well in the House of 
Representatives. The bill also has overwhelming support with the 
American people.
  Yet this is a bill that the President has been threatening to veto 
since this summer. I don't know what happened to the President's 
compassion or sense of social justice. I don't think he understands the 
negative impact his veto will have on the millions of children who 
would be denied regular visits to see the doctor because he refused to 
sign this bill into law.
  Now, let's review who stands for what. Under the bipartisan bill that 
the President vetoed this morning, 4 million previously uninsured low-
income children, many of whom are in working families, I know there was 
a reference to welfare from the gentleman from Louisiana. I don't think 
he was referencing these kids or their families because these are 
working families. But 4 million previously uninsured low-income 
children who are in working families would get health coverage under 
this bill. A total of 10 million children would have their health 
coverage secured.
  Under the bipartisan bill, the vast majority of children covered are 
the lowest income children who are today uninsured. According to the 
CBO, under the bipartisan bill, about 84 percent of the uninsured 
children who would benefit live in families with incomes below $40,000 
a year. In addition,

[[Page H11206]]

1.7 million uninsured children who are eligible for Medicaid but 
otherwise would be uninsured would gain coverage under the agreement. 
Most of these would likely be children living in families with incomes 
below $20,000 a year. Under the bipartisan bill, States would have new 
tools to conduct outreach and enrollments. States could use express-
lane, one-stop-shopping at places like schools, community centers and 
hospitals to get children covered.
  The President, while he recently put out a regulation that would 
actually block schools from helping to sign low-income, uninsured 
children up for coverage, he put out another regulation that would 
force children to go an entire year, that is one whole year, without 
insurance coverage before their parents could sign them up for CHIP. 
That is 1 year of earaches, strep throat, asthma, diabetes and 
toothaches that would be treated in emergency rooms rather than the 
doctor's office. The President talked about how kids can go to the 
emergency room. Well, has he been to an emergency room lately? I was at 
one in my district last weekend. It is not a great place for a kid to 
visit. It is a scene of trauma. People who have overdosed on alcohol 
and drugs. Most emergency rooms are overwhelmed with real emergencies 
and have few resources to treat people who need regular family care.
  The President makes $400,000 a year. He is guaranteed health care for 
life. He has a government doctor that is at his immediate call. Yet 
today this President has denied millions of low-income children and 
working families the opportunity to get even basic health care. Working 
Americans understand the struggle families have to make ends meet and 
afford health care coverage for their children. But the President and 
very few, because I am not talking about all Republicans, but very few 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle appear to be the only 
people in America who do not understand the challenges these families 
face or the importance of securing affordable coverage for their 
children.
  It is a sad day, Madam Speaker, for America that the President vetoed 
this bill. But there is an opportunity over the next 2 weeks, because I 
want everyone to support this motion, but in about a week or two, we 
are going to have a vote on the floor. I would urge all those on the 
other side of the aisle who did not vote for this bill to use that time 
to reconsider and think about these kids when they go and cast their 
vote and vote to override this veto by the President.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Before I yield to Mr. Deal, I want to ask the 
distinguished subcommittee chairman a question if I could, and I will 
do it on my time.
  Why are we postponing for 2 weeks?

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. PALLONE. I would hope that the Members on the other side of the 
aisle, including the ranking member, who I have a great deal of respect 
for, would use the time to contemplate, perhaps go to an emergency 
room.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, we are not 
postponing for any substantive reason; we are just postponing for 
political reasons.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, it is not a political reason if you use 
the time to think about what this is all about. That is what I would 
urge you to do.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Texas for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I remind my colleagues that we created the SCHIP 
program 10 years ago in a bipartisan way to help insure low-income 
children who did not have access to high quality health insurance. 
Republicans continue to believe that we ought to have this program and 
that we ought to find a way to ensure low-income children have access 
to the kind of quality health care that our children enjoy.
  This move today to delay the override of this veto is the most 
partisan political activity I have seen in this Congress all year. If 
you're really serious about trying to help children get access to low-
cost health care, make sure that they have the insurance they need, we 
would have the veto override today, we would have it right this minute, 
and then we would start to sit down in a bipartisan way and work out 
our differences and ensure that we get low-income kids the kind of 
health care that they need.
  Madam Speaker, yes, there are differences over this program. Some 
believe that having adults, and in some States, almost half the people 
involved in the program are adults, let's make sure that low-income 
kids, the target of this program, is met. But, no, we are not going to 
do that, unfortunately. We are going to do what the American people 
have said they are sick and tired of; we are going to do political 
games. That is what this delay is intended to do, to allow more time 
for the political games to go on, exactly what the American people have 
said they are sick and tired of.
  Madam Speaker, I think we should have the vote today. Let's just go 
ahead and have the vote. We are going to sustain the President's veto. 
Then let's sit down together and do what the American people expect of 
us, and that is to make sure that this program is continued and 
children's health care in America is taken care of.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I intend to recognize in a moment Ms. Shea-Porter from 
New Hampshire, but pending that, a couple of comments.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest that the 45 Republicans who 
voted for our bill, if they are being disregarded by Republican 
leadership, we have a lot of room over here and would welcome them on 
our side. I also suggest to the distinguished ranking member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, while his 2-year-old may not be ready 
for it yet, as somebody who is raising two children who are now 6, the 
reason we are waiting is for what we call in our household a ``time-
out.'' You go to your room and think about the mistake you made, and 
when you're ready to apologize and come back and set things straight, 
you can come out of your room. That is what the 2-week period is all 
about.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, my 
2-year-old hasn't needed a time-out yet.
  Mr. STARK. He will.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire 
(Ms. Shea-Porter).
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, Americans are divided over many 
issues, but we are not divided over health care for our children. We 
are a good people, and we want our children to have health care. None 
of us want to see children in this country without health care; none, 
except for the President and his Republican supporters in Congress, 
that is.
  Madam Speaker, the President and his supporters in Congress want to 
take hardworking American tax dollars and spend them, but not on the 
kids; no, in Iraq, in the middle of a civil war, with the $190 billion, 
which is the President's new request for Iraq, as he turns around to 
the children and the hardworking families of America and says, Just 
don't get sick, kids.
  Mr. President, that is not acceptable.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, like others, I am disappointed we are not going 
forward today to sustain the President's veto, an outcome that I think 
no matter how much time anybody has in the time-out chair will be the 
result. If we were moving forward today and sustaining the veto, then 
we could get together and try to have a bill that does what I think all 
of us want to do.
  Madam Speaker, all of us don't want to do everything, but all of us 
do want to do some things. We all want a program that meets the needs 
of poor kids first. That is why when we put this in place in 1997, we 
said, look, kids, whose families are at the poverty level or below, 
they have access to Medicaid. But what about people who are kids whose 
parents are working, and working in jobs where they don't likely have 
access to insurance? Let's prioritize those kids.
  Madam Speaker, as a minimum, whatever we do as we move forward, let's 
have a standard that the States

[[Page H11207]]

have to meet, the administration proposed 95 percent, Mr. Barton 
proposed 90 percent, but some percentage of kids whose families are in 
those jobs that may not have access to insurance. Before we go on and 
just simply talk about insuring kids, this should be a program that is 
focused on poor kids, not a program that is on more kids.
  Madam Speaker, some of our friends say, well, if a program that would 
give health care to poor kids is a good thing, a program that would 
give health care to all kids or more kids must be a great thing. It is 
just simply not accurate. Things that destroy the private insurance 
market, things that don't meet the needs of the program before you move 
on to do more are not the kinds of things we ought to be focused on.
  We need to be sure that we are covering people who are uninsured, not 
people who are insured, and then moving from insurance to government-
paid health care, Washington-based health care. There are going to be 
situations, I guarantee, if we start insuring all the kids in America, 
or all the kids that this bill says that we are going to insure, where 
moms are going to wind up in houses that have both a mom and dad as the 
only person not insured.
  Madam Speaker, think with me for just a minute. Dad has a job; 
insurance comes with dad's job. The government comes in and says we are 
going to insure the kids. Who gets left out then? It's mom. Our mom has 
a job, and while she is struggling with the job, she has to figure out 
how to insure herself and the kids, because insurance didn't come with 
the job. Then the government decides to insure the kids, and mom says, 
well, maybe I don't need insurance anymore.
  Some of our friends will say, well, that is why we are insuring 
adults. This should not be a program about insuring adults. One of the 
reasons this program hasn't worked as well as it should have is too 
many States move to insuring adults before they would insure poor kids.
  Madam Speaker, let's get on with this debate. I regret the fact that 
we are not able to start tomorrow because we went ahead and did today 
what is going to happen in two weeks. But let's get on with this 
debate. Let's be sure we provide a stable funding source for a program 
for poor kids and we put poor kids first in a program that is supposed 
to be about helping kids whose families are working, but working in 
jobs that aren't likely to have insurance.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the majority whip, 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding at this 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the 112,000 uninsured 
children in my home State of South Carolina and the millions of other 
uninsured children across the country. Many of the uninsured children 
in my home State come from lower-income and working families, most of 
whom devote nearly all of their earnings to providing their children 
the basic necessities, such as shelter, food and clothing. Without 
CHIP, most of these families would not be able to provide their 
children with the health care they deserve.
  Madam Speaker, in vetoing this bill, President Bush has shown the 
American people that his priorities are not with our Nation's 
uninsured; his priorities are not with the millions of families 
struggling to make ends meet. This President will have you believe that 
it is more important to reach out to America's millionaires and 
billionaires because, according to the President, they are the ones who 
are being left behind, not our children, not our uninsured, and not our 
hardworking families.
  Madam Speaker, by opposing this legislation, the President is 
rebuking an overwhelming majority of Americans. CHIP has broad 
bipartisan support in the Senate and House, and 43 Governors and 300 
advocacy groups have endorsed this legislation.
  Support for this bill is high because it seeks to do what is right. 
It is right to insure children from poor and low-income families. It is 
right to extend coverage to 2.4 million minority children.
  So I encourage my colleagues to do what is right and support this 
legislation. In doing what is right, you will be standing up for the 
uninsured. In doing what is right, you will be standing up for millions 
of hardworking American families. In doing what is right, you will be 
putting the needs of our children first.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished subcommittee ranking member from Georgia (Mr. Deal).
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, there 
ought to be something that we can agree on. The first is that the 
program ought to be for children. And yet we are told that in the bill 
the President has rightfully vetoed, in 5 years there will be 780,000 
adults still in a children's health program.
  Secondly, this program ought to be, as its primary target was, for 
children below 200 percent of poverty. We know that in States that have 
gone above the 200 percent level, they have left behind up to a quarter 
of their children in their State that are below 200 percent of poverty, 
and there is nothing in this bill that requires them to go back and 
make sure that they enroll those children. In fact, this legislation 
repeals the outline that CMS had put out to require 95 percent 
saturation of children below 200 percent of poverty. So there is no 
effort to go back and do what the program was designed to do, and that 
is to help those between the 100 and 200 percent of poverty.
  Madam Speaker, the third thing is that we all ought to agree that 
Medicaid and SCHIP ought to be for Americans, for American children. 
The change that this bill puts into place will allow people who are not 
qualified under our current law for Medicaid or SCHIP to become 
eligible. CBO says that the Federal cost of that alone is $3.7 billion.
  I think the last thing we ought to agree on is that we should not 
take a major step toward socializing health care in this country. This 
bill does nothing to prevent States from having what is called ``income 
disregards.'' That is, if a State says, well, we just won't count what 
it costs for housing, we won't count what it costs for food, we won't 
count what is costs for transportation in computing your percent of 
poverty eligibility, then you can go up to 800 percent of poverty. And 
that certainly distorts the program.
  Madam Speaker, lastly, we want to talk about time and the use of 
time. We knew 10 years ago that this bill was going to expire at the 
end of last month. This was a 10-year authorization bill. We knew in 
1997 when it was put in place that it was going to expire at the end of 
September of this year. We knew 9 months ago when this Congress went 
into session that unless something was done, the legislation was going 
to expire the end of September. And yet only at the last minute was 
legislation presented in this House, with no legislative hearing, and 
then asked to be voted on, and not a single House Republican 
participated in the conference committee report that we are now being 
asked to sustain and to agree to at this point.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, House Republicans strongly support the SCHIP program, 
and, as many speakers have said, this program was created on a 
bipartisan basis 10 years ago. We are advocating that the program 
remain what it was intended to be, and that was a program that helps 
low-income children who cannot otherwise get health insurance.
  Had we been able to sit down on a bipartisan basis anytime over the 
past 9 months, I am convinced that we could have come to an agreement 
that reauthorizes this important program without turning it into a 
massive expansion of government-controlled health care. Instead, the 
majority first produced a massive expansion of SCHIP, partially paid 
for by cuts to Medicare.
  Madam Speaker, fundamentally, the majority chose to shortchange the 
most vulnerable members of our society, seniors and the disabled, in 
order to force middle and upper middle-class families out of private 
health insurance and into a government program.

                              {time}  1515

  Then the majority was confronted with the reality that Members of the

[[Page H11208]]

other body would not cut Medicare, so they passed the Senate's version 
of SCHIP. That bill, instead of cutting government funds for seniors 
and the disabled to expand SCHIP as a middle-class entitlement, raised 
taxes on the working poor to expand SCHIP.
  Now the majority is again forced to face reality. In order for a bill 
to become law, it must be signed by the President of the United States, 
and this President's position is clear: SCHIP should help low-income 
kids first. Before you expand coverage to families earning $62,000 or 
$83,000 a year, 300 or 400 percent of the poverty level, you need to 
cover children in families earning less than 200 percent a year. That 
is about $42,000 a year. That is just common sense, and is true to the 
original bipartisan spirit of the SCHIP program.
  I hope we will be able to come to an agreement and not have the 
majority just simply roll over our legitimate concerns about this 
legislation. We need to sit down together to help low-income children, 
to fix the loophole that makes it easier for illegal immigrants to get 
government benefits, and to ensure that the SCHIP program is funded on 
a sound and honest basis. I look forward to that discussion.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Madam Speaker, this veto will be sustained, and I hope it will allow 
us to return to the core issue of discussing health care for children, 
needy, poor American children. That is what our focus should be. It 
should not be about a secret, giant step towards nationalized health 
care. It shouldn't be about health care for adults or for middle-class 
families. It should be about meeting the needs of poor American 
children. That's what the program was set up to do.
  Unfortunately, as H.R. 976 is constructed, we are only talking about 
800,000 additional children. For all of the hype, for all of the talk, 
that is what you are talking about. We have seen numerous gimmicks used 
to try to make this bill work. We have heard about income disregards 
today. Now, in this bill, there are provisions that would allow you to 
go to 800 percent of the Federal poverty level. So instead of 
addressing the needs of poor American children, what we are talking 
about is providing coverage for families making over $206,500 a year. 
Madam Speaker, that is not the original intent of this program.
  Another budget gimmick, in mid-2012, all of a sudden the funding is 
going to be cut 80 percent.
  Madam Speaker, what is going to happen to SCHIP in mid-2012? How are 
we going to meet the needs of those children? This is what we need to 
do; return to the core issue, strip away all of these attached issues, 
and get back to what we need to do to be certain that we meet the needs 
of poor American children, not provide health care to illegal 
immigrants, not provide health care for the middle class.
  SCHIP is about those children that are of the working poor, 200 
percent of the poverty level. It is a program that deserves to be 
reinstated under the same rules that it was put in place in 1997.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I always thought that 800 percent of 
poverty was a Republican, but I am happy to recognize the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen) for 1 minute.
  Mr. KAGEN. Madam Speaker, this morning President Bush said ``no'' to 
95,000 children in Wisconsin and to millions more across the Nation. 
His veto of the SCHIP bill is morally unacceptable. It is unacceptable 
to me as a father, as a husband, and as a physician. And to everyone 
living in Wisconsin and across this Nation who has a human heart. What 
kind of Nation are we when a President turns away a child in need? And 
what kind of Nation will we become if we remain on this partisan path?
  My friends, this administration no longer represents our traditional 
American values, for no one anywhere in these United States believes we 
should abandon children in need. We need a President who believes in 
children and taking care of ordinary people and the needs of our 
children, our senior citizens, and the needs of America first.
  Madam Speaker, today, right here and right now, we must begin to work 
together and build a better future for all of us, especially our 
children on whose future we depend.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a distinguished member of the Ways 
and Means Committee.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is bad enough that Congress 
continues to play politics with the war, now they are playing politics 
with little kids.
  Despite broad bipartisan support for children's health insurance, 
this new leadership has settled on a divisive scheme to score political 
points rather than sit down and work out a reasonable solution.
  Make no mistake, earlier you heard somebody say this is just a time-
out. It's not a time-out. It's a cop-out. It's a cop-out to all the 
political hacks in Washington who want to spend 2 weeks covering your 
television sets and our newspapers and radio airwaves with their 
misleading ads rather than sitting down with us.
  Meanwhile, the working poor who are parents are wondering if they are 
going to have any insurance for their kids past Christmastime. It 
doesn't have to be this way. I was here in Congress when we started 
this program. We sat down together with President Clinton and worked 
out a good program. There are a lot of us Republicans willing to do the 
same today.
  I am hopeful that President Bush's veto will finally move our 
Democrat friends to stop playing political games with our kids, to sit 
down and pay for this bill and make it a reasonable one, end the abuses 
we all know are there and move this bill in a way that the President 
can sign it because our kids need this bill and we need to stop. It is 
shameful these political games we are playing here today.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, we have 46 million Americans that are 
uninsured, of which a large number are children. I have heard 
individuals come up and talk about the undocumented individuals. They 
are not covered by this particular piece of legislation.
  If you live in rural America, if you live in rural Texas, you don't 
have access to insurance coverage. If you are not working for the 
government and if you are just working for a small company, you don't 
have access. If you make $20,000 or $40,000 a year, that is not 
sufficient to be able to cover your children. That is why we need a 
program that allows an opportunity for our young people to be able to 
get coverage.
  These are Americans who are working hard. These are Americans who 
don't qualify for Medicaid because they are not poor enough and they 
are paying their taxes. These are Americans that don't qualify for 
Medicare because they're not old enough. Yet, they find themselves 
working hard every single day and are not able to cover their children.
  We have to do the right thing. We have to make sure that we pay for 
those youngsters and allow an opportunity for them to have access. 
After all, they are the ones that are paying the taxes. They are the 
ones out there working hard, and yet they don't have their kids 
insured.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  One of the speakers on the majority side several speakers ago from 
the great State of Wisconsin was talking about the children. In his 
home State, they cover 110,000 adults and only 56,000 children under 
SCHIP.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 4\3/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 6\1/2\ minutes. The 
gentleman from New Jersey has 5 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
California has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
thank him for his tremendous work on

[[Page H11209]]

behalf of health care for all Americans in our country and in this case 
for our children. I commend Mr. Pallone for his leadership as well, and 
the distinguished chairmen, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Dingell.
  I salute the bipartisan vote that we had in the Congress to send the 
SCHIP legislation to the President of the United States. It was strong 
and bipartisan. It was about the children. And I also salute the strong 
vote in the United States Senate. I commend Senators Hatch and Grassley 
for lending their weight and bipartisanship to this important 
legislation. They joined Senators Rockefeller and Baucus on this 
important issue.
  Madam Speaker, as we all know and has been spoken already, today the 
President of the United States missed an opportunity to say to the 
children of America your health and well-being are important to us, so 
important that we are making you a priority. Today, the President said 
``no'' to bipartisan legislation that would have extended health care 
to 10 million American children for the next 5 years.
  The President said ``no'' to giving assurances to America's working 
families that if they work hard and play by the rules, we are their 
partners in raising the next generation of Americans and investing in 
the future.
  In his speech and his veto statement, the President indicated we were 
doing something in this bill that we were not, that we were expanding 
eligibility. No, we were just enrolling all of the children who are 
eligible. In fact, we didn't have enough money to enroll all of them, 
but as many as could be afforded by a bill that could receive 
bipartisan support.
  The President said that we are moving toward socialized medicine and 
that he supports private medicine. Well, so do we, and this is about 
private medicine. It is about children being able to get insurance so 
they can have health care. The fact is that 72 percent of the children 
on SCHIP receive their health care through private insurance programs.
  I think the strongest indication of the President's commitment to 
this initiative came when he was Governor of Texas. At that time the 
State of Texas ranked 49th in its participation in SCHIP in meeting the 
needs of the children of Texas.
  SCHIP started as a bipartisan initiative with a Democratic President, 
President Clinton in the White House and a Republican Congress which 
came together in a bipartisan way in order to provide for the needs of 
our children. Once again with the reauthorization of the bill, we have 
come together in a bipartisan way to provide for the needs of our 
children.
  Sadly, following true to form, this form in Texas, 49th in the 
country, and how could Texas be 49th in the country with all of the 
pride that Texas takes in its stature, its size, its commitment to the 
future, its large number of beautiful and diverse children, that it 
would allow 48 States to be ahead of them in meeting the health needs 
of America's children from poor working families.
  What I know will happen today is that we will vote for a time certain 
in 2 weeks for us to bring up the override of the veto. At that time I 
hope that with the 43 Governors across the country, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, with bipartisan overwhelming support in the House 
and Senate, with every organization from AARP to YMCA and everything 
alphabetically in between, including the Catholic Hospital Association, 
Families USA, and the American Medical Association talking about 
private medicine, and the list goes on, that Members will listen, at 
least listen to those who care about children, who have standing in 
caring about children because I believe every person in this Congress 
cares about children, and I think it would be important for us to hear 
the voices of those who on a day-to-day basis try to help families who 
need some assistance in meeting the health needs of their children.
  So, my colleagues, this is, as Mr. Hoyer said, a defining moment for 
the Congress of the United States. The President has said ``no.'' This 
Congress must not take ``no'' for an answer, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``aye'' on a time certain when we can take up the override of 
the President's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, 
an initiative to provide 10 million children health care, health 
insurance for 5 years. The difference between us and the President is 
41 days in Iraq. For 41 days in Iraq, 10 million children can receive 
health care for 1 year.

                              {time}  1530

  Let's get our priorities in order. Let's recognize that the strength 
of our country, in addition to being defined by military might, is 
defined by the health and well-being of the American people, starting 
with our children.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman very much for the time.
  Madam Speaker, we've heard a lot of comments from our friends on the 
other side of the aisle about what the President meant by his veto. 
Well, let's talk for a moment what we mean by the action we're going to 
take.
  We're going to postpone action on the veto override. We're going to 
postpone for 2 weeks a significant decision which will allow us to 
begin, on a bipartisan basis, to answer this question. I'm not sure I 
have seen a more cynical move in the House in my 13 years here. Maybe 
there has been one, but none comes to mind here.
  But we have such a priority to name post offices after eminent people 
this week, but we don't have the time to stay here to work on this 
issue. No, we're going to postpone our override of the President's veto 
because somehow we, in some silly way, say we need a time-out. We don't 
need a time-out. We need a time-in. We need to work.
  There are many things the American people are concerned about. One is 
health care for those poor children. That's why this program was 
established some 10 years ago. But the American people are also 
concerned about budgets that are out of control, and one of the reasons 
you have a budget out of control is because we take worthy programs 
that were designed for a specific purpose and we expand them and 
distort them beyond all recognition and have a program that is sold as 
for the children, that in some States has more adults on it than 
children, has more adults before you've registered the children, has 
gone beyond focusing on the poor children, is a program that is going 
to bankrupt this country because you see that repeated again and again 
and again.
  Cynicism, cynicism is postponing the action on this floor. Last time 
I checked, we're not going to be here tomorrow. Last time I checked, 
we're going to be out of here by 7 o'clock tonight, but we don't have 
time to deal with this veto override so we can get about the business 
of truly dealing with a bipartisan approach to dealing with children's 
health.
  That's the message here, not defining what the President's veto is, 
but by our actions defining who and what we are.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, who's been an outstanding proponent of the SCHIP bill, 
Mr. Altmire.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, today the President showed that he fails to understand 
the struggle before Pennsylvania's working families when he vetoed a 
bipartisan, fiscally responsible bill to provide health care to 10 
million children, including 320,000 in Pennsylvania, and in justifying 
his veto, all he offers is the same tired rhetoric, too expensive.
  Well, our bill pays for itself at no additional cost to the taxpayer 
and doesn't add one penny to the Federal deficit.
  Socialized medicine? The SCHIP bill continues a State-administered 
block grant that's delivered in the private market, and the private 
insurers and the American Medical Association have endorsed this bill.
  A subsidy for wealthy families? Well, most children covered live in 
families that earn less than $40,000 a year, and these are working 
families that we're talking about, working families that work hard and 
play by the rules but can't afford health care for their children.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join the 
majorities in both the House and the Senate, the 43 Governors and 68 
Senators, and join us in support of this bill.

[[Page H11210]]

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Our speaker talked about Texas's rank in terms of SCHIP. In the first 
year that SCHIP was in law, Texas is a biennial State in terms of its 
legislature so we weren't able to get the program up and running. But 
in the second biennium, we did get it up and running under then-
Governor Bush's leadership. Texas now ranks third in terms of the 
number of absolute children, and I would say in the top five in terms 
of percentage of eligible children, under SCHIP.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, there is absolutely nothing cynical 
about the delay. My Republican friends need some time to get their 
facts straight. I really get tired about hearing these phony arguments.
  We're going to be covering some adults. Why are we covering some 
adults? Because the Republican administration granted State waivers for 
some States to be able to deal with some experiments to add to them, 
and this legislation stops the ability to grant those waivers that the 
Bush administration enacted.
  We're talking about it should be just poor children, and somehow I 
heard somebody talk about $200,000 levels. Hogwash. There was one State 
that requested a waiver, New York, that would have taken it up to 
$83,000. That was denied. There are a number of States, with the 
approval of the Bush administration, that have raised the levels. New 
Jersey at $63,000 still doesn't hit their median income. Only one out 
of 10 of these children are in family incomes of over $40,000.
  You need 2 weeks to get your facts straight.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his 
leadership and for yielding.
  As a physician, I recognize clearly the imperative of all having 
health insurance, and I strongly support providing low-income kids with 
greater access to health care coverage, which is why I support a 
positive bipartisan reauthorization of SCHIP.
  The problem is that's not what this bill is, and today, we're 
debating a 2-week delay. Now, there's no reason for a delay. It delays 
solving the problem, and it delays providing health care to some needy 
youngsters.
  But I welcome this time because it gives Americans more time to 
realize this is all about politics. It gives Americans more time to 
realize that the bill is paid for with 22 million new smokers. It gives 
the American people more time to realize that the bill covers kids in 
higher-income families before lower-income families. It gives the 
American people the opportunity to understand the irresponsible and 
cynical nature of this bill.
  We're sent here to solve challenges, Madam Speaker, and I call on my 
colleagues to work positively together now. Let's cover kids most in 
need now. Vote ``no'' on the postponement now.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I'm the last speaker, so I 
reserve my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize Members to close in 
the following order: Mr. Camp of Michigan, Mr. Stark of California, Mr. 
Barton of Texas, and lastly, Mr. Pallone of New Jersey.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, we're not quite ready to close 
yet on my time. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As a physician who's treated many uninsured patients, I have to say 
that there's a profound difference between coverage and access to care. 
Yes, you need coverage, but it doesn't necessarily equate to access.
  Clearly, we've got a number of uninsured children in Louisiana. We 
have 107,000 on SCHIP but 91,000 who currently qualify who are not on 
SCHIP.
  I asked the question why. I offered an amendment in this process to 
try to get the States to certify, to give reasons and to take steps to 
clear up this problem, to get those who currently qualify onto the 
rolls, to let this program work for those it's intended to; yet this 
amendment wasn't even allowed through the rules process. So this has 
not been an open and thorough debate on this problem.
  We need to get away from our dug-in positions on different sides of 
this and really work hard on this health care access issue to solve it. 
It's got to be bipartisan. That's the only way it's going to work.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, President Kennedy once said, To govern is 
to choose. $700 billion for the war in Iraq but no health care for 
America's children. $50 billion in subsidies for big oil companies, but 
no to health care for America's children. $8 billion in no-bid 
contracts and lost in waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq, but no to 
America's children. Billions of dollars for schools and roads and 
clinics in Iraq, but no to health care for America's children.
  Today, the President told millions of children and their families 
that they're on the bottom of his priority list.
  Now, I used to work in the White House. I know it can be quite 
isolating. I just never knew it was this isolating. When 45 Republican 
House Members, 18 Republican Senate Members, Governors who are 
Republicans, Democrats come together, build this type of consensus, 
it's time for the President to see what the American people see, that 
this is the right health care.
  You have the same health care for you and your families that we are 
trying to provide for these 10 million children whose parents work 
full-time.
  Delores Sweeney in my district works in an insurance company, has 
three children, and she's trying to get the health care for her 
children that she cannot get in the private insurance place.
  This is right for Delores Sweeney. It's right for your kids. Let's 
make it right for America. Vote ``yes.''
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I've no further time to yield, Madam Speaker. 
We're prepared to close. I would ask my colleagues on the other side, 
are we prepared to close as a group?
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I do have some additional speakers, and I 
yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
President's veto of the KidsCare bill, known as SCHIP here in 
Washington. His refusal to provide funding to over 82,400 uninsured 
children in the State of Arizona is simply unconscionable.
  Today, in my State, one out of every five kids currently has no 
health insurance. We rank among the five highest States in the entire 
country.
  By vetoing the KidsCare bill, this President proves that his 
priorities are not in line with the American people, are not in line 
with the people from my home State of Arizona.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to 
support this fiscally responsible legislation passed by Congress with 
bipartisan support. It is critically important that the President does 
not fail the kids of Arizona, the kids of our country and, hence, fail 
our future.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close when it is 
time to close.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Let me ask you this: If you were walking down the street and you saw 
a child injured on the side of the road, would you stop? Would you do 
everything necessary to help that child? I think everyone on this floor 
today has a simple answer to that question. Of course we would.
  So why don't we also agree that for the millions of sick children 
around this country who have no access to health insurance or 
preventative health care, that we don't have a similar duty to do 
everything in our power to help them get healed?
  That, to me, is the definition of compassionate government. And don't 
let

[[Page H11211]]

anybody tell you that these kids have access to health care and their 
parents are just negligent. The truth is that health care availability 
is shrinking, and the number of children who get sick because they 
can't get health care is growing.
  And just like we have a moral obligation to help that injured child, 
we have a similar moral obligation to help heal a child who lies sick 
in their bed simply because their family cannot afford a doctor.
  I don't understand why the President won't help that child, but I 
hope that together, by overriding his veto, we will.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I think the issue of providing health 
coverage to 10 million children is important enough to give our 
constituents adequate time to weigh in on it.
  Let them consider whether they want to spend $7 billion a year to 
provide health care to 10 million uninsured children, an amount 
equivalent to 2\1/2\ weeks spent on the Iraq war.
  Insure our children for $7 billion a year? President Bush runs for 
the veto pen. $10 billion a month for Iraq? The President asks for $190 
billion more.
  I urge my colleagues to take this time to listen to their 
constituents. Look into the eyes of an uninsured child. That child 
could be sitting next to yours or your grandchild in school.
  And remember, unlike the war funding which is all on credit cards, 
this bill is actually paid for. This is an offer, as someone running 
for reelection, you can't afford to refuse.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Madam Speaker, for 6\1/2\ years this President was not 
concerned about fiscal responsibility, but today he claims to get the 
picture. However, what he claims is clearly in conflict with the facts.
  Our SCHIP is fiscally responsible, it's compassionate, and it makes 
sense. And it's what the American people want. We are determined to 
override the President's veto, because it is the responsibility of this 
body to take care of the children of this country. This isn't about 
ideology, as the President wants, but about practicality. It's about 
doing what it will take to fulfill the responsibility to the next 
generation of our country.
  We will override this veto and give health care to our children. I 
can tell you something, anyone who votes against SCHIP will answer to 
his or her constituents in November.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have had an additional speaker 
show up, so if it would be appropriate, I would yield 1 minute to Mr. 
Kingston of Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  One thing you can always count on in Washington is whenever we pass 
any legislation, it's always going to be in the name of the children, 
or the seniors or Mama or puppies or clean air or all things small and 
beautiful. In fact, the Speaker of the House the other day used the 
word ``children'' in her speech 44 different times, because politicians 
are always altruistic with other people's money.
  Now, the SCHIP program was designed to help the working poor, not to 
help people who make $82,000 a year, who might not be rich, but they 
are certainly not poor. It is designed for American children. It wasn't 
designed for illegal aliens and yet the Democrats have thrown out the 
citizenship test. That's the last thing we need is more benefits for 
illegal aliens.
  And then there will be 780,000 adults on this program. This is the 
children's health care program. While the Democrats will tell you, 
well, that's only 30 percent, it should be 100 percent children.
  The President is right in vetoing this sham.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of postponing consideration of 
the vote to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP Reauthorization 
Act.
  We have a momentous opportunity here. Yet today the President chose 
to deny health care to millions of poor and uninsured children. In the 
State of California, 50 percent of those children that are enrolled 
happen to be of Hispanic descent.
  What message is he giving to those children? While the bill may not 
be perfect, I think it's still a step forward in the right direction 
for our country and for the communities of color that it will serve and 
for our children, our very, very poorest children.
  In the coming weeks, I urge our colleagues to stand up for the health 
and well-being of our children of working families and to reject the 
President's misguided, immoral and fundamentally flawed veto.
  I join with my colleagues today in asking that we postpone, call a 
timeout, so that he can think about this and his party. We must do the 
right thing for our children, those who are the most vulnerable in our 
population.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. I have 
no further speakers.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I believe under the rules, in 
consultation with the minority, that the majority does control the 
calendar; is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Parliamentary inquiry. Who controls the 
calendar? That is a parliamentary inquiry. The legislative calendar.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman should consult with the 
leadership.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. By what?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman should consult the majority 
leadership.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Right, by a majority decision, which means 
essentially the Speaker's office, but nonetheless, that's 
interpretation.
  Presuming that what you said is correct, that majority decision can 
set this bill when they wish to, including the middle of October, if 
they wish to; is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I think it is. It is asking about process 
and the procedure of the House.
  I beg your pardon. I don't do this very often.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry. The gentleman is advised to consult with the leadership.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I think it is very important, Madam Speaker, 
that this parliamentary inquiry be, at the least, responded to 
partially.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman will state a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am about to do that. It is very clear to 
you, Madam Speaker, I am sure, and anybody listening, that the 
leadership wants to delay this until October 15 for political purposes, 
and they are partisanizing this for no reason.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, are we closing?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, this is a disappointing day. 
Instead of sending the President a bill he could sign, the majority 
chose to ignore calls for bipartisanship and chose to ignore the kids 
they proclaim to champion.
  And what is their reaction to this forewarned veto? Did the majority 
immediately reach out to build consensus? No. Compromise? No.

[[Page H11212]]

  Instead, the majority decided to stall, to put off dealing with the 
veto and put off finding a solution.
  I ask one simple question: How does stalling a renewal of SCHIP for 
partisan gain meet the needs of low-income kids? SCHIP can be renewed 
without extending benefits to people making $82,000, without extending 
benefits to adults, without going down the path of government-
controlled health care.
  We can renew SCHIP without raising taxes, without cutting Medicare, 
without assuming there will be 22 million new smokers, and without 
cutting funds in year 6 by 80 percent and pushing the program off a 
budgetary cliff.
  It's time for this Congress to get its priorities right to determine 
if we are results or rhetoric, if we are for kids or campaign tricks.
  Let's pass a new SCHIP program, and let's send the President a bill 
he will sign.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am happy to recognize the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett) for the remaining time to close for our side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. The Republicans charge that we want to help so many 
children with no insurance and that we want to allow them so much time 
to reconsider their indifference. We plead guilty as charged.
  This President? It's like the book title, Dead Certain but also Dead 
Wrong.
  The only question is how many children will be dead or will suffer 
with disease and disability until enough Members of this Congress are 
willing to stand up to the President and stand up for children.
  President Bush has ideological blinders. He is never around the 
children of the working poor, the child who sobs with an earache, the 
child who moans as a result of an abscessed tooth, who has no 
antibiotics for a strep throat, and the poor parent who lacks the 
ability to do something about it.
  The President's veto today is neither sound fiscal policy nor good 
medicine, and his solution that these Republicans embrace of ``just go 
to the emergency room'' is neither compassionate nor conservative.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker and distinguished Members of the 
House of Representatives, I have in my hand a letter dated September 27 
from myself and the majority of the Republicans on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee asking Speaker Pelosi to refer the SCHIP bill to the 
Energy and Commerce Committee so that we truly could have a bipartisan 
compromise.
  If we could defeat this motion to postpone the veto, we could then 
move to a motion to refer the bill to the committee and honor the 
letter that I have sent to our distinguished Speaker.
  We are going to sustain the President's veto whenever that vote 
occurs. In the history of the Republic, there have been over 2,000 
vetoes of bills. Only 106 of those vetoes have been overridden. This 
will not be 107.
  We will sustain the veto when that vote occurs and then hopefully we 
will begin the bipartisan process that should have begun back in 
January when the new majority took over.
  When that day comes, the debate is not going to be about whether 
there should be a SCHIP program. There should be. The debate is not 
going to be whether we should cover low-income children. We already do 
that under Medicaid. The debate is not going to be whether we should 
cover children between 100 and 200 percent of poverty. We already do 
that.
  The debate is going to be, should we cover adults? Most Republicans 
say no, we should not cover adults. The debate is going to be about 
illegal residents of our country. Should we cover illegal residents? 
Most Republicans are going to say no. I am not sure what our friends on 
the majority side are going to say. They may say no, they may say yes, 
they may say both. We are going to have that debate.
  There are 78 million children in America. As far as we can tell, when 
you compare the numbers between the majority side and the minority side 
and the President's numbers, we are really having the debate about 
between 1.2 million and 800,000 children in America today that for some 
reason are not covered, and they fall within the income eligibility 
levels that we all tend to agree on, which is at least up to 200 
percent, maybe 250 percent of poverty.
  So we will focus the debate at some point in time, and at that point 
in time, we will have a bipartisan compromise. The President wants to 
reauthorize SCHIP. The Republicans want to reauthorize SCHIP. We just 
don't want to cover high-income Americans, we don't want to cover 
illegal residents, and we, the Republicans, don't want to cover adults.
  Let's vote not to postpone the veto. Let's have the veto today and 
then begin the process that should have begun back in January of this 
year.
                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                               Washington, DC, September 27, 2007.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, The Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker: Circumstances have combined to present 
     the House with an unusual opportunity to restore a part of 
     the usual process by which legislation, major and minor, is 
     produced by the House in normal times.
       As you know, legislation reauthorizing the State Children's 
     Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was approved on Tuesday 
     night by a margin that plainly implies our House will sustain 
     the anticipated veto. As you also know, that legislation was 
     the product of decisions which largely ignored the regular 
     and established legislative process. In our committee, we had 
     a single general hearing on children's health. There was no 
     legislative hearing on the House SCHIP bill, and no markup by 
     our Health Subcommittee. The full committee markup was 
     restricted to reading the legislation because the 500-page 
     bill had only been revealed to most of us at 20 minutes to 
     midnight on July 24, just 10 hours before the markup was 
     scheduled to open. Then on the House floor, amendments were 
     barred.
       Strategic errors by the majority generated House and Senate 
     bills so distinctly different that a conference committee to 
     work out the differences was deemed impossible. Thus the 
     House was required to consider a take-it-or-leave-it 
     patchwork of private agreements in lieu of a normal 
     conference report. As you know, House Republicans were denied 
     access to any part of the negotiations. That solution was 
     said to be ``creative'' by a prominent member of your party.
       We opposed the SCHIP bill that came to us on Tuesday, and 
     not only because of the terrifically flawed process; you 
     supported it, and we think largely because you are proud of 
     the bill's content. Yet we gather from your remarks that you 
     and many other Democrats also believe the makeshift bill we 
     passed Tuesday night is hardly perfect, and could be improved 
     dramatically.
       It seems to us that until November 16, when the temporary 
     extension of SCHIP under the continuing resolution expires, 
     we have a second chance to get both the process and the 
     policy right.
       All Republicans have ever wanted was a fair opportunity to 
     understand, debate and affect the legislation in a positive 
     way. During the crafting and passage of both the CHAMP Act 
     and the House-Senate package of amendments, none of these 
     possibilities were available to Republicans or, for that 
     matter, to most Democrats. That failing can be revisited and 
     remedied if you are willing to respond to the inevitable 
     requirement for an SCHIP extension by conducting a normal 
     legislative hearing and a traditional markup.
       Given a common-sense opportunity to actually read and 
     comprehend a bill reauthorizing SCHIP--surely a handful of 
     days could be permitted and please, this time without a 
     midnight document delivery--our strong preference would be to 
     stand and debate, then let the votes decide the outcome. All 
     you need do is convene the relevant committees between now 
     and November 16 to do the work they were designed to do.
       Second chances on legislation always seem possible, but 
     never seem practical. We're about to have a practical second 
     chance to do it right. While Democrats control a majority of 
     the votes, no Democrat we know claims to have a monopoly on 
     good ideas.
       Madam Speaker, SCHIP should never have become the intensely 
     partisan issue that it did become. A time will come, however, 
     when no more political advantage can be wrung from it. We 
     think that time is nearly upon us, and we should use it to 
     achieve a bipartisan bill through a cooperative effort. 
     Still, Democrats and Republicans do have different views and 
     if our principles cannot be reconciled through good-faith 
     bipartisanship, an honest airing of facts accompanied by 
     actual amendments and real votes cannot help but produce a 
     better bill than the one we passed on Tuesday night. Whether 
     intended to produce bipartisan agreement or a clash of 
     values, a legislative hearing would lay the groundwork for a 
     formal markup. Such a process can occur if the

[[Page H11213]]

     chairmen of the Energy and Commerce and the Ways and Means 
     committees can be prevailed on to take the requisite steps, 
     and only you can accomplish that task.
       We hope you can find a way to agree that good process will 
     produce better legislation, and that you will instruct the 
     committees to conduct public hearings followed by fair, open 
     markups of the SCHIP extension that will be required.
           Sincerely,
         Joe Barton, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and 
           Commerce; Nathan Deal, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
           Health; Ralph Hall, Committee on Energy and Commerce; 
           Ed Whitfield, Committee on Energy and Commerce; John 
           Shadegg, Committee on Energy and Commerce; Steve Buyer, 
           Committee on Energy and Commerce; Joe Pitts, Committee 
           on Energy and Commerce; Lee Terry, Committee on Energy 
           and Commerce; J. Dennis Hastert, Committee on Energy 
           and Commerce.
         John Shimkus, Committee on Energy and Commerce; Chip 
           Pickering, Committee on Energy and Commerce; George 
           Radanovich, Committee on Energy and Commerce; Greg 
           Walden, Committee on Energy and Commerce; Mike Rogers, 
           Committee on Energy and Commerce; Sue Myrick, Committee 
           on Energy and Commerce; Michael Burgess, Committee on 
           Energy and Commerce; John Sullivan, Committee on Energy 
           and Commerce; Marsha Blackburn, Committee on Energy and 
           Commerce.

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Texas, 
and he talks about process. The fact of the matter here, this is not a 
process issue. These are the kids that are not insured, are eligible, 
and we need to cover them.
  The President of the United States and my colleague on the Republican 
side does not want to spend and provide the extra money to cover these 
kids that need insurance. If anything, the President's proposal and his 
directive would actually put more roadblocks and bureaucracy in the way 
with his directive that says that kids have to stay uninsured for a 
year, for example, before they can even get into the program.
  Let there be no mistake about what the President and the Republicans 
on the House side are trying to do today. They don't want these kids to 
be covered. They don't want to provide the money for them to be 
covered. They want to put roadblocks in the way and say they have to be 
out of insurance for a year.
  I remember back in the spring when some of my colleagues on the other 
side from Georgia came here with their representatives from the Georgia 
government, and they said that they didn't have enough money to cover 
the kids, that we needed more money for this program. I don't 
understand how any of you can come here today and say you are trying to 
help. You're not.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote for this motion.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I do not think I 
have to further remind this Congress about how far off base the 
President is over the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
  The health care system is failing our Nation's children who are in 
need. Too many are without health insurance and do not receive the 
regular care they need.
  For this President, the supposed evil of two million children 
possibly switching health coverage to state sponsored healthcare is 
enough to block coverage for six million additional poor children.
  Seven hundred and fifty thousand children were added to the rolls of 
the uninsured last year and the number of employers that offer health 
benefits to the children of workers continues to shrink.
  Yet the President stands firm to a proposal for SCHIP that would not 
even be able to maintain existing coverage and would impose 
unconscionable hurdles on families whose children need health care.
  One must question the principles of this President. How, in good 
conscious, could he ask for an additional $190 billion for a war that 
two-thirds of the American people oppose while calling $5 billion for 
one of our nation's most successful programs reckless spending?
  The American people deserve better and our Nation's children deserve 
the right to have health insurance.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, the President's veto of a bipartisan plan 
to help 10 million children is incomprehensible. It willfully ignores 
the needs of low-income children and the recommendations of Congress, 
43 State Governors, more than 300 coalition groups, and the vast 
majority of the American people.
  Unlike America's children, the President has nothing to lose by 
vetoing this legislation. President Bush has government-run health 
insurance. But millions of American children do not have any coverage 
at all.
  It saddens and baffles me to think that the President would not want 
to make health insurance for 10 million children a positive part of his 
legacy. I pledge to keep fighting for this bill and to protect 
America's most vulnerable children.
  This matter is too important to the children of our Nation. I support 
the Leader's motion to postpone immediate consideration of the 
President's veto of H.R. 976 so that we may provide Members time to 
consider the magnitude of this vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to postpone.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 197, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 938]

                               AYES--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     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
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--197

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     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
     English (PA)
     Everett

[[Page H11214]]


     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
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     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
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Barrett (SC)
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Gordon
     Jindal
     Lee
     Paul
     Perlmutter
     Waters


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1625

  Messrs. HOEKSTRA, SHAYS, and BOOZMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________