[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 158 (Thursday, October 18, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11735-H11754]
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
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The unfinished business is
the further consideration of the veto message of the President on the
bill (H.R. 976) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend
and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the
contrary notwithstanding?
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30
minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton).
I will also yield 15 minutes of my time to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and ask unanimous consent that he
be permitted to control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
General Leave
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material on the matter under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Today we face an awesome responsibility to do what is right for
America's children. The debate here is about one thing only: health
care for kids. Some have tried to change the subject, obfuscating this
debate with misconceptions, half-truths, and outright lies. Whether
this is ignorance or malfeasance, allow me to help them understand the
legislation.
First, the bill terminates the coverage of adults under the CHIP
program. I repeat, terminates.
Second, the bill prohibits the use of Federal funds for illegal
aliens. Section 605 plainly states, ``No Federal Funding for Illegal
Aliens.''
Third, the bill is fully paid for and will not increase the national
debt. In fact, CBO estimates this bill, if enacted, will return money
to the Treasury.
The legislation before us would provide health care and health
insurance coverage for 10 million needy American children. It provides
funding for States to enroll millions of low-income children who are
already eligible for benefits yet remain uninsured. Under current law,
these boys and girls are entitled to their benefits. Continuing this
situation of not providing coverage is a travesty.
I am not alone in this view. Former Surgeons General for Presidents
Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and for the current President recently
wrote in support of this legislation the following: ``We implore you to
not put off the health needs of our Nation's children. Please act
today.''
This legislation has the strong backing of the entire medical
community, children advocates, educators, school administrators and
school boards, as well as insurance companies across the country, and
43 of the Nation's Governors want SCHIP enacted because they know
children cannot learn if they are not well.
{time} 1100
They also know something else. These are the most vulnerable people
in our society. We will be judged how we care for them; but beyond
that, this is an investment in the future of the country. More than 300
organizations and a long list of distinguished Americans support this
bill.
I urge my colleagues to join in overriding the veto.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, of the
30 minutes that I control, I yield 15 minutes of that to the ranking
member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McCrery of Louisiana, to
control.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished ranking member of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy
and Commerce Committee, Mr. Deal of Georgia.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
All of us would like to see an extension of the SCHIP program, and I
think there are some very basic principles on which all of us should
agree, principles that should be embodied in a bipartisan piece of
legislation. I would suggest there are five.
First of all, we should put the poorest children at the front of the
line. That means we should require States actually to enroll 90 percent
of their SCHIP and Medicaid-eligible children under 200 percent of the
poverty line before they start enrolling children at higher income
levels.
Two, no families with incomes above 250 percent of the Federal
poverty level should be eligible for Federal SCHIP funds. States that
want to go above that should feel free to do so with their own funds;
but hardworking, tax-paying families in the Midwest and the Southeast
shouldn't be forced to subsidize the health care for children and
families in the richer States who are making over $82,000 per year.
Third, no Federal SCHIP funds for adults other than pregnant women
beginning in 2009. We should give the States a year to transition their
low-income adults to Medicaid, which is where they belong, and stop
taking away limited resources from needy children and giving them to
childless adults.
Fourth, keep the existing Federal requirement that States actually
document the citizenship and identity of all of the applicants for
Medicaid and clearly state in the bill that illegal immigrants are
prohibited from receiving Medicaid or SCHIP benefits. Being able to
write down a Social Security number doesn't actually prove you're a
United States citizen. Federal benefits should not go to illegal
immigrants.
Fifth, no millionaires in SCHIP. We should simply put a $1 million
net asset cap on eligibility for Federal SCHIP funds. If you have over
$1 million in net assets, you should be able to afford to pay for your
children's health insurance.
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. After my 2
minutes, I ask unanimous consent to turn the remaining time to Chairman
Stark to be able to yield to other people as he sees fit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, let me stand in a sense of bipartisanship,
especially to my Republican friends, and remind you that come the next
election, President Bush is going to be there at his ranch in Texas,
and he will not be with you at the polls.
I say that because by that time the truth will have caught up with
the message that the President is giving and most of you are using to
sustain the President's veto.
Let me get to the one that I'm most familiar with, this $83,000
ability of people to enjoy SCHIP. No one is more familiar with this
than I am. It was the great State of New York that exercised its
request for a waiver to ask the President of the United States whether
or not a family of four would be allowed to buy in, even though they
were making $83,000. And guess what, under existing law, not new law,
the President of the United States says, hell, no, you can't do it.
So we've got to emphasize over and over again, you could ask for it
for $1 million because it's not an entitlement, it's a block grant, and
the Governors can ask for anything they want over 200 percent over
poverty, and the President, Republican or Democrat or whoever she might
be, will be able to say, no, you're not going to be able to do it. So
knock that out.
And for all of the people that are upset with immigrants, legal or
illegal,
[[Page H11736]]
we're just going to put in big letters so that by the time November
gets here that in the bill that the President has vetoed it says no
illegal alien can receive the benefits of the bill.
And since you're so against adults receiving benefits, the bill is
eliminating adults.
So if you can't be with us today, try to think of yourself in
November, and maybe we can work out something.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may
consume.
Ten years ago, Republicans and Democrats came together to create an
SCHIP program with a stable funding source. It was a truly paid-for
program. Throughout the process this year, we've been talking about the
fact that this SCHIP reauthorization that's before the House today is
not paid for. It's paid for only if you accept the budget gimmick that
is used to make it appear on paper over the 10-year budget window that
the program is paid for.
But I don't think any of us realized just how steep that cliff in the
bill is until today, because last night my staff received from the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office new numbers that show very
clearly that under the bill that's before us today, total enrollment in
SCHIP is expected to drop by 6.5 million children in the second five
years of the program. Does anybody believe that is going to happen? Of
course not. But the way the bill is designed, that's what would happen.
We know that's not going to be reality.
Under this bill, the way it's designed, Democrats would have people
believe that SCHIP enrollment, kids enrolled in this program, will drop
to only 1.3 million by 2017.
Under a realistic expansion of the program, which the President has
proposed and we support, there would be 2.9 million kids enrolled in
the program in 2017. So under this bill that's before us today, you'd
have 1.6 million fewer kids enrolled in SCHIP than you would under the
President's budget. That's not realistic. We know that's not going to
happen.
So how does that problem get fixed after 5 years? Massive tax
increases. That's how it gets fixed. This House will be back here
having to finance the real costs of the then-existent SCHIP program
over the next 5 years, which CBO estimates will require about another
$40 billion in revenues over and above the new $35 billion that this
bill would impose on the American taxpayers.
So there is a better way. It's the way we created for this program in
the first place, a bipartisan, fiscally responsible, truly fiscally
responsible program to help kids in need.
I hope that the majority will be willing to join with us, all of us,
to create that bipartisan program again when this veto is sustained.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the chairman of the
subcommittee, a great expert on the business of health.
Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just keep hearing inaccurate information on the other side of the
aisle in an effort to try to sustain this veto, and it's simply not
right.
First of all, this bill is totally paid for with a tobacco tax
increase. Now, you may not like that if you don't like your tobacco
taxed, but that's how it's paid for and it's a good way to pay for it.
Secondly, this idea that the President's alternative will not take
kids off the rolls, that is simply not true. With the President's
alternative, 800,000 children that are now covered by SCHIP will not
have SCHIP anymore.
The President's veto of this bill was a slap in the face not only to
this Congress but to the millions of children who, without this bill,
will continue to be uninsured or, worse, lose the insurance they
currently have.
And this is the truth about CHIP. Just listen up. The bipartisan CHIP
proposal is supported by 72 percent of the American people, two-thirds
of the Senate, the majority of the House, 43 State Governors, and more
than 300 organizations nationwide.
The President is deluding himself if he doesn't think this veto is
going to hurt millions of children; and unless we override, there are
just going to be a lot of kids who simply cannot go to the doctor and
would have to go to the emergency room.
What we sent to the President was a reasonable, bipartisan bill that
would cover 4 million previously uninsured low-income children, most of
whom are in working families, a total of 10 million. The vast majority
of these kids are the very lowest income children who have no other
options for care.
The President claims this bill covers rich kids, but it's not true.
Senator Hatch who helped write this bill said 92 percent of the kids
will be under 200 percent of the poverty level.
The President has also said that this bill opens the door to
government-sponsored health care because it encourages families to drop
their coverage. Simply not true. CBO said that that is not the case.
The best way to avoid crowd-out is to basically pass this bill. The
problem is we continue to get inaccurate information from the other
side of the aisle.
I would urge my Republican colleagues today to vote with their
conscience, instead of with this misguided loyalty to the President who
is out of touch with America's families.
Vote to override.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the ranking member for yielding to me and
appreciate the privilege to address this issue again here on the House
floor.
I think we miss the point sometimes on what this is about. This isn't
about sometimes the nuances of all of this. This is about where we take
this Nation, and I'm seeing this debate in Iowa and across this
country.
And what this is about, SCHIP stands for Socialized, Clinton-style
Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents. That's what happens, and it
is illegals that are being funded by this because all they have to do
is write down a Social Security number.
The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, has given us a number, $6.5
billion in additional costs that flow over to people that are not
citizens because we've lowered the standards. Whatever gets said,
that's the language that's in there, and the cost is there, $6.5
billion.
So this is SCHIP, Socialized Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals
and their Parents. This is the cornerstone of socialized medicine. It's
put in place. That's what this debate is about: make people dependent
so they don't have individual responsibility and you can have more
people dependent upon your votes on the floor of this Congress and less
vitality in America.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds for purposes of
responding to the comments just made.
I want my colleagues to take a careful look at the remarks just made
and the poster just presented. Every one of those statements is false.
There is no treatment in this for illegals. There is no treatment in
this for their parents. This is not socialized medicine.
It is supported by the health care industry. It is also supported by
the insurance industry. It has no relationship to and it doesn't even
look like the Hillarycare thing about which the gentleman complains.
I would note something else. This is a proposal which is a block
grant to the States. It is not an entitlement.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
First of all, I'm just amazed that the Republicans are worried that
we can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure
don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq.
Where are you going to get that money? You are going to tell us lies
like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war?
You don't have money to fund the war or children, but you're going to
spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow
old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the
President's amusement.
This bill would provide health care for 10 million children; and
unlike the President's own kids, these children can't see a doctor or
receive necessary care. Six million are insured through the Children's
Health Insurance Program, and they'll do better in school and in life.
[[Page H11737]]
{time} 1115
In California, the President's veto will cause the legislature to
draw up emergency regulations to cut some 800,000 children off the
rolls in California and create a waiting list. I hope my California
Republican colleagues will understand that if they don't vote to
override this veto, they are destroying health care for many of our
children in California.
In his previous job as an actor, our Governor used to play make-
believe and blow things up. Well, the Republicans in Congress are
playing make-believe today with children's lives. They claim they can't
afford health care. They say the bill will socialize medicine. Tell
that to Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, and Ted Stevens, those socialists
on the other side of the Capitol. The truth is, the CHIP program allows
States to cover children primarily through private health care plans.
But President Bush's statements about children's health shouldn't be
taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth
is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United
States, and in Congress.
I urge my colleagues to vote to override his veto. America's children
need and deserve health care despite the President's desire to deny it
to them.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to engage in
personalities toward the President.
Mr. McCRERY. I thank the Speaker for that admonition.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, that gentle reminder is not
enough. It is despicable to have a Member of this Congress accuse this
President, any President, of willfully blowing the heads, quote,
blowing the heads off our young men and women over in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Having a brother who is an Army medic and served in Iraq,
having spent this weekend with a family who lost their son in Iraq, it
is beneath contempt, beneath contempt, to have a Member of Congress
stand here and accuse the President of, in effect, assassinating our
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is dead wrong. And it is beneath
contempt as well that we will sit here silently and allow such a remark
to be tolerated, accepted if not embraced. And I will guarantee you, no
Member on this side will stand up here and disavow those remarks,
unfortunately, today.
It is bad enough that we are playing politics with the war. Now we
are playing politics with our kids. The claim that the Republicans
don't support this program is equally untrue. We created it. This is a
great program. It keeps kids healthy. It helps their families avoid
serious illness, keeps them out of our emergency rooms. It is a great
program.
When we created it, we did it the right way. We sat down with the
President, President Clinton, and we worked out a good plan for kids.
And then, more importantly, we believed in it enough to pay for it. We
paid for the whole 10 years. This plan does not. It is only half paid
for. It is only half paid for. It is just like these predatory loans;
the first years are affordable, and then it balloons beyond what we can
pay for it. If we believe in it, let's pay for it now. It allows abuses
to continue. It doesn't cover the poor kids first.
My question is, why don't we sit down, why don't we quit playing
political games with our kids, sit down with Republicans and Democrats
with the White House and find a solution that is right for our
children.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the
distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) 1 minute.
Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I have long stated that caring for our
children is always the right thing to do. Every parent in my State of
Utah and in this country knows that access to health care and
preventive medicine for our kids is the right thing to do.
It has been 10 years ago that we passed this program. It has helped
insure more than 6 million children, and that is a good thing. And we
have made that type of progress even as health care costs have gone up
and the number of people struggling to get and to pay for health
insurance has increased. We made that progress through the Children's
Health Insurance Program because it is a model that works. The States
do their part, the Federal Government does its part, private insurance
does its part, and the families through copays and premiums do their
part as well.
At a time when it is often tough to make progress on important
issues, why would we want to turn our backs on our kids and stop
progress in its tracks?
As Members of Congress, none of us have to worry about this. We all
have insurance for our kids. We don't need to worry about being one
huge medical bill away from facing bankruptcy. Let's think about the
folks who aren't in the same situation that we all have as Members of
Congress. The best investment we can make is in our kids. I urge
Congress to override the President's veto.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
There has been a lot of rhetoric today and a lot of talk about
polling and how Americans everywhere support this, Governors support
this, people at the local level support it.
We have in this country something called representative government.
We are sent here and we are given access to figures and numbers that
perhaps others don't have. What figures and numbers I am talking about
tell us that we cannot sustain the trend that we are on, particularly
ramping up a program like this and spending more than we have in the
past. We simply can't sustain it, particularly when gimmicks are used
in the outyears to pay for it. We know that. Perhaps those who are
responding to the polls do not.
George Washington once said: If to please the people we do what we
ourselves disapprove, how will we afterwards defend our work?
That is what we are here for, to do what we know is right. When I am
told you have got to do what your conscience says, my conscience says
that we can't afford this. If we have to use gimmicks in the outyears
to pay for it, we simply can't afford to expand this program.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize for 1 minute a
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlelady
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) who, unlike the Republicans, has had
some experience with the truth and knows that occasionally it hurts.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. The President has rejected legislation to strengthen
and expand CHIP for 10 million children of hardworking American
families. The President's veto makes it clear that he has chosen to
ignore the financial struggles of working families in this country who
are unable to afford health care for their children. His veto makes
clear that health care for America's children simply is not a priority
for him; and the Republicans in this Chamber who support his veto today
illustrate that they, like the President, does not understand or have
chosen to ignore how well CHIP has worked and how positively it has
impacted the lives of millions of American families.
The Nation's Governors, health care providers, children's advocates,
insurance executives, labor unions, religious leaders, parents and
grandparents all support CHIP's affordable coverage for millions of
American children. They know the President's veto is shortsighted, it
is callous, and it is wrong.
Today is the day of decision to stand with the President or to stand
with America's children. Ten million American children and their
families are waiting.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I recognize for 1\1/2\ minutes the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the ranking
member on the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, all of us support SCHIP and we all want to
reauthorize it, but we need to put low-income kids first.
This bill would expand the program to families making more than
$60,000 a year. That is not low income. It is a majority of the
households in America. There is a better way. Reauthorize
[[Page H11738]]
SCHIP and keep it focused on truly needy children, and then tackle
rising health care costs that are squeezing middle-class families.
Tax credits could help 10\1/2\ million kids from middle-income
families gain or keep their health care coverage. Millions more would
benefit if families could purchase less expensive health plans from
across State lines. Let's defeat this motion and get to work on making
health care more affordable for all Americans.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to show
the bipartisanship of this bill which is supported by one of every four
of our Republican colleagues, including our dear friends Mr. Grassley
and Mr. Hatch in the Senate. At this time, I yield to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) 1 minute.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Ten years ago, the Children's Health
Insurance Program passed with a Republican Congress and a Democratic
President. Now we are trying to reauthorize it with a Democratic
Congress and a Republican President. We should be able to do this, and
we should be able to do it in a bipartisan way.
The Children's Health Insurance Program has reduced the number of
uninsured children in this country and has given them access to primary
care. They live healthier lives because of it. This is not a great
bill, but it is a good bill; and I have supported this bill, and I
encourage my colleagues to support it again today.
In particular, it phases out the participation of adults in this
program. This program is for kids, for low-income kids, not for adults.
And successive administrations have been approving the admission of
adults to the program, and that was not its intent.
New Mexico in particular will benefit from this program because it
allows lower income kids to be participants in the program. Because of
an anomaly of the original law, New Mexico's lowest income kids are not
eligible for this program. I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor
of the bill today.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a
distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mrs.
Blackburn of Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, we do all know what this debate is
about, but I think there is still confusion about the context of this
bill and the content of this bill. We have heard our colleagues across
the aisle saying that it has to do with supporting health care for
disadvantaged children. But, unfortunately, that is not exactly what
this bill does.
We are all for health care for children of the working poor, but some
of the things that this bill is about: It would move a very successful
block grant program to an entitlement. It would provide free taxpayer-
funded health care to illegal immigrants. It would add more adults than
what our own IRS calls high-income families to the government health
care rolls. It would remove people from private insurance and put them
over on the government rolls. It would, in many cases, replace the
doctor-patient relationship with the bureaucrat making the decision.
It doesn't live up to its name. It doesn't live up to what it is
supposed to do. How do you pay for it? With budget gimmicks. Look at
what happens in 2012. Let's show respect for the issue. Take it back.
Sustain the President's veto.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hall) 1 minute.
Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Speaker, in a move that defies logic,
President Bush made the mistake of vetoing the Children's Health
Insurance Program, or CHIP, contradicting an explicit pledge he made
during the 2004 campaign to ``lead an aggressive effort to make sure
uninsured children receive health coverage, guaranteeing them a healthy
start in life.'' Instead of living up to that promise, he is denying
millions of children access to high quality, affordable health care.
CHIP is a vital program for both the Nation and the State of New
York. Since 1997, it has proven to be a popular, successful program,
covering 6.6 million children nationwide, and helping to reduce the
number of uninsured children in my State of New York by 40 percent. The
bill he vetoed would help 268,000 more of New York's kids.
The President has said that children don't need health care; all they
need to do when they get sick is go to an emergency room. I am not sure
if that comment was uninformed and irresponsible or simply callous, but
I think that parents of New York would like to see the veto overridden.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Hulshof,
a member of the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, be
permitted to allocate the remainder of the time on my side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Never in my wildest dreams would I imagine that on a day in August of
1997 that a Democratic President would sign a bill presented by a
Republican Congress, and that that would be a high-water mark as far as
consensus between a divided government, 10 years ago, the high-water
mark of a divided government coming together to create a solution. I
was here to help create the bill. In that instance, a Republican
Congress worked with, negotiated with, compromised with the President
of the other party to create a solution to the problem of children who
had no health insurance.
{time} 1130
Now, I would say, Madam Speaker, that the 2007 version of the
Children's Health Insurance Program is almost unrecognizable from the
original bill, and certainly beyond the original intent of that bill.
For instance, New Jersey currently has a planned amendment that would
use income disregards which would allow it to raise its SCHIP
eligibility levels to 350 percent of poverty. That's about $71,000 for
a family of four. And don't just take my word for it. Look at section
114, subparagraph A under the bill. And that would continue under this
bill.
Many adults without children would be eligible under this bill. Don't
take my word for it. Read subparagraph A of section 112 of the bill.
You know, the bill allows States to move them to Medicaid, but allows
it to pay.
The Federal Government should not be, in my humble opinion, in the
business of paying for States who want to cover childless adults that
are grandfathered in this bill. And on behalf of my constituents in
Missouri, should I ask them to reach in their pockets then and to pay
for health care for a family of four in New Jersey making $70,000 or a
family of four in New York making $80,000?
So it comes down to this. In fact, there are still 79,000 kids in
Missouri, Madam Speaker, that are still at or below 200 percent of
poverty. Those are the kids we need to reach out to to provide health
insurance.
So the question at the end of this vote is this, to my friends on the
other side, Do you want the politics or do you want the policy?
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield to the distinguished
majority whip, the gentleman from South Carolina, my friend, Mr.
Clyburn, 3 minutes.
Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, when it comes to the war on terror, the
President is always quick to remind members of the international
community that they're either with us or against us. There is no
neutral or impartial position that can be taken. Well, I'm here to tell
my colleagues today that there is no nonaligned position that they can
assume on child care. You either support working families with health
care for their children, or you don't. It's just that simple.
Now, I've heard the specious claims that SCHIP is a form of
socialized medicine. The President did not call it socialized medicine
when he promised the American people he would seek to expand the
program when he was accepting the party's nomination for a second term.
Then again, how can it be socialized medicine when it covers 10 million
children and not be socialized medicine for 6 million children?
And the outrageous claim that this Congress is neglecting poor
children is inaccurate. We already provide assistance to poor children
through Medicaid. SCHIP is designed to provide assistance to those
working families whose incomes are too high to qualify for Medicaid and
too low to purchase private health care coverage.
[[Page H11739]]
If you do not want to provide relief to middle-income families, you
should just have the guts to say so. But don't come here to the floor
and mislabel this bill as socialized medicine or accuse Democrats of
not prioritizing the needs of America's children.
I implore those of you who plan to vote to sustain the veto to
reconsider your position. Think of how devastated you would be if your
children and grandchildren had to go without basic health care. Imagine
the hopelessness and despair you would feel in such a situation.
This is where we are today, because when you cast your votes today,
you either stand with our children or you stand against them. There is
no in between.
Let's vote to override the President's veto.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a
distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Walden
of Oregon.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I rise today to say that I
support expansion of the children's health care program, but not in its
current form, and here's why. Half of the 1.2 million new enrollees in
the expansion of SCHIP under this proposal already have insurance,
already have insurance, and that's according to the Congressional
Budget Office. When it comes to adults, they cost 60 percent more to
care for than kids. This program should be about helping expand
coverage to children whose families do not have access to health
insurance.
I spent 21 years in small business. I'd never sign a contract that I
knew I couldn't keep my word on. This bill is unfunded after year five.
In year six, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this program
is short about 80 percent.
Beyond that, if we took the million and a half adults off of this
program and put them on Medicaid, which they're eligible to do, then
that would free up funds that could go to help kids. In fact, I think
it's about 780,000 adults in 2012 would still be on this program. That
would fund 1,150,000 children who could be put on Medicaid.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to recognize the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), the chairman of
the Democratic Caucus, who has a brilliant 3-minute speech, and I yield
him 1 minute in which to present it.
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, Dolores Sweeney, from my district, works
for an insurance company that doesn't provide health care for her or
her children. She earns a paycheck, not a welfare check. She has three
children and would like to buy private health care, but can't afford to
do so.
Dolores Sweeney's children are on SCHIP, and without the SCHIP
program they would go without health care, or she would have to go
without a job.
Our bill does right by Dolores Sweeney and the other 10 million
children from working families.
I believe that you care about the poor, but I wonder why you voted to
cut $8 billion from Medicaid.
I believe that you think this is excessive cost, but you never said
that about the $680 billion for Iraq, no questions asked.
And I believe that you say that this is a taxpayer-funded government-
run health care, just like the health care your kids get in the Federal
Government program. This is exactly that.
I believe the sincerity of your positions; but time and again, when
it came to standing up for poor kids, you cut Medicaid. When it came to
excessive cost, you provided $680 billion for the war in Iraq. And when
it comes to government-funded health care, if it's good enough for your
kids, it's good enough for Dolores Sweeney's children.
Mr. HULSHOF. I continue to reserve my time, Madam Speaker.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I reserve my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished Congressman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I believe that every child deserves
proper health care. I support SCHIP's renewal with increased funding.
And I also support its expansion, but I believe it must be done in a
responsible manner, a manner that ensures valuable resources target our
Nation's most vulnerable children without unnecessarily expanding the
program to those who do not need it.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, of the 4 million
children who would receive coverage under the current proposal,
approximately 40 percent already have private insurance. Our dialogue
should focus on our children who are uninsurable, sick children who
have exhausted private coverage, and families who cannot afford
coverage for their children. Yesterday, I introduced a measure that
seeks to achieve this goal.
Congress now has the opportunity to engage in a productive,
bipartisan discussion focusing on strengthening the SCHIP program.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, the moment of truth has arrived. And now,
our Republican friends have a very clear choice that they must make.
They can stand with 10 million American kids who need, deserve and
currently are eligible for health insurance under the CHIP program.
They can stand with the bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate
who supported compromise legislation to reauthorize CHIP, including 18
Republican Senators and 45 House Republicans.
They can stand with the States' Governors, the American Medical
Association, the Association of Health Insurance Plans, pharmaceutical
companies, nurses, children's advocates. And most important, they can
stand with the American people, 81 percent of whom support expanding
the CHIP program to cover more low-income children, according to a
just-released CBS News poll.
This poll, of course, was taken long after the American people knew
exactly what the terms of this bill are all about. Eighty-one percent,
including a large, over two-thirds majority of independents and
including over 60 percent of the Republicans polled, believe that we
ought to move forward on this bill.
Or, Madam Speaker, House Republicans can choose today to stand with
President Bush, who earlier this month broke his own campaign promise
to extend insurance coverage under CHIP to millions of additional low-
income American children, low-income American children.
They can choose to stand with President Bush, who continues to make
inaccurate and misleading claims about the bipartisan bill that he has
vetoed; claims that have been repudiated by Senators Hatch, Grassley,
Roberts and many other Republicans.
Let me remind my Republican colleagues, who I believe want to help
children, as the gentleman who preceded me said, here is what President
Bush told the American people 3 years ago when he was seeking their
votes for re-election at the Republican National Convention, the
President of the United States, 2004, seeking re-election, promising
what he would do: ``In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to
enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for
government health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of
attention or information to stand between these children and the health
care they need.''
That is what President Bush said in 2004 when he was seeking the
votes of the American people for re-election. Yet, the President's own
proposal that he has made this year would force nearly 1 million
children from low-income families who are participating in CHIP to be
dropped from the present CHIP program. So his proposal not only does
not add the millions that he promised to add in 2004, but it drops over
830,000 children.
In sharp contrast, Madam Speaker, through this bipartisan compromise
this Congress has done exactly what the President said he would do if
re-elected.
The American people have heard both sides of this issue, and they
have disagreed with the President. They stand with America's children,
and so must this Congress.
I urge my Republican colleagues, and the reason I say I urge my
Republican colleagues, because we believe that there are very few, if
any, Democrats who will not vote with the children this day.
[[Page H11740]]
Look at the facts. Look into your hearts. Look beyond partisanship
and politics. Look at the pictures of your loved ones back in your
office and ask, what if they were the ones today who needed health
insurance?
Luckily, our children are covered. Our children are covered.
{time} 1145
But think of the millions of children to whom President Bush referred
to in 2004 that he promised to add to this critical program.
This, I suggest to all of us, is a defining moment for the Congress
of the United States. Will we, as the Founding Fathers contemplated,
exercise the policymaking authority, or will we once again crumble,
complicit in the President's failure to respond to the views of the
American public and to our children?
My friends on both sides of the aisle, let us come together. Let us
come together and do the right thing for our children and for our
Nation. Let's override the President's unjustified veto of this
compromise, bipartisan legislation. Let us ensure that 10 million low-
income children have the health care coverage they need and deserve.
This will not be a partisan victory if we override this veto. It will
be a victory for our children and for the President's promise.
Vote to override this veto. Vote for our children.
Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, this is a moment of truth for millions of
American children and the hardworking families who love them. With this
vote we can say yes to providing health care to 10 million children.
The Children's Health Insurance Program is pro-family and pro-work.
You know, there has been a lot said over the last 7 years about
leaving no child behind. Well, today we can do something about it. The
choice is clear: A ``yes'' vote means 10 million children receive
better health care. A ``no'' vote will leave millions of children
behind without adequate health care.
Our children don't need slogans. They don't even need good
intentions. Today, they need our vote. Today, they deserve our vote.
I would ask each Member one question: If this vote meant the
difference between your child or grandchild having health insurance or
not, how would you vote? How would you vote?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to a
distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, I listened to one of my colleagues just a
moment ago say that this bill should be easy to reauthorize and should
be done on a bipartisan basis, and, indeed, it should. But it is not
because it has fallen victim to politics. It is victim to overreaching
and political exploitation.
This is a program that is supposed to be about uninsured poor
children. But the President vetoed it because the majority insisted on
expanding it to already insured middle-class children and adults.
We can reform this program and keep it where it is supposed to be,
and then we can move on to real health care reform. In his State of the
Union address this year, the President proposed an idea to help every
uninsured American, a proposal to end the outrageous discrimination by
which those who have employer-based insurance get it with pretax
dollars but the rest, who don't, have to pay more.
We can do better for all Americans. We can help all the uninsured.
And when this veto is sustained today, as it should be, let's
reauthorize this program, but then let's reform health care for all the
uninsured.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
I proudly rise to vote to override the President's veto and to
support 10 million children with health care.
Madam Speaker, as the chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I
rise to announce that I will proudly cast my vote to override the
President's veto of H.R. 976, the ``State Children's Health Insurance
Program (SCHIP) Authorization Act of 2007.''
By vetoing the bipartisan SCHIP Authorization Act, the President
vetoed the will of the American people. By vetoing this legislation,
the President turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to the loud message
sent by the American people last November.
I will vote to override the President's veto because I can think of
few goals more important than ensuring that our children have access to
health coverage. I will vote to override the President's veto because I
put the needs of America's children first.
Madam Speaker, this important legislation commits $50 billion to
reauthorize and improve the State Children's Health Insurance Program
(SCHIP), and it also makes critical investments in Medicare to protect
the health care available to our Nation's senior citizens. I strongly
urge my colleagues to join me in voting to override the President's
veto.
Madam Speaker, SCHIP was created in 1997, with broad bipartisan
support, to address the critical issue of the large numbers of children
in our country without access to health care. It serves the children of
working families who earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but
who either are not able to afford health insurance or whose parents
hold jobs without health care benefits.
Children without health insurance often forgo crucial preventative
treatment. They cannot go to the doctor for annual checkups or to
receive treatment for relatively minor illnesses, allowing easily
treatable ailments to become serious medical emergencies. They must
instead rely on costly emergency care. This has serious health
implications for these children, and it creates additional financial
burdens on their families, communities, and the entire Nation.
This year alone, 6 million children are receiving health care as a
result of SCHIP. However, funding for this visionary program expires
September 30. Congress must act now to ensure that these millions of
children can continue to receive quality, affordable health insurance.
As chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I can think of few
goals more important than ensuring that our children have access to
health coverage. It costs us less than $3.50 a day to cover a child
through SCHIP. For this small sum, we can ensure that a child from a
working family can receive crucial preventative care, allowing them to
be more successful in school and in life. Without this program,
millions of children will lose health coverage, further straining our
already tenuous health care safety net.
Additionally, through this legislation, we have an opportunity to
make health care even more available to America's children. The
majority of uninsured children are currently eligible for coverage,
either through SCHIP or through Medicaid. We must demonstrate our
commitment to identifying and enrolling these children, through both
increased funding and a campaign of concerted outreach. This
legislation provides States with the tools and incentives they need to
reach these unenrolled children without expanding the program to make
more children eligible.
In my home state of Texas, as of June 2006, SCHIP was benefiting
293,000 children. This is a decline of over 33,000 children from the
previous year. We must continue to work to ensure that all eligible
children can participate in this important program. To this end, Texas
Governor Rick Perry signed legislation in June which, among other
things, creates a community outreach campaign for SCHIP.
In addition to reauthorizing and improving the SCHIP program, this
legislation also protects and improves Medicare. Due to a broken
payment formula, access to medical services for senior citizens and
people with disabilities is currently in jeopardy. Physicians who
provide health care to Medicare beneficiaries face a 10 percent cut in
their reimbursement rates next year, with the prospect of further
reductions in years to come looming on the horizon. The budget proposed
by the Bush administration does not help these doctors, or the patients
that they serve.
This is extremely important legislation providing for the health
coverage of 11 million low-income children, as well as protecting the
health services available to senior citizens and persons with
disabilities. President Bush was wrong to veto this legislation. I
stand strong with the children of America in voting to override his
cruel veto.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of a bill that I
do understand has expanded dental care and I do understand puts mental
parity more on a par with physical disability.
[[Page H11741]]
But I must rise today because that number of nearly 4 million
children uninsured is almost too large for me to comprehend that we
haven't done something before, based upon when my daughter, struck with
a malignant brain tumor and given 3 to 9 months to live at age of 4,
and you all provided me, as a 31-year military veteran, with the
opportunity for her to live.
But what I was most struck by was her roommate when she began her
chemotherapy. A young 2\1/2\-year-old boy, where we listened and could
not help in that small room hear social workers come and go for 6 hours
as they tried to determine whether that young boy, struck with acute
leukemia, whose parents did not have health care, would have the same
opportunity as you gave my daughter; that this Nation gave them the
time for not just quality of life but for life.
I rise in support of this bill to give all children what you gave me
as a member of the Armed Forces.
Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to an
individual who is now the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee,
who also helped create the Children's Health Insurance Program back in
1997, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First, I would like to make one point perfectly clear: Republicans
support health care for low-income children.
Second, I want to address something that was said on the floor the
last time we considered this issue. It was said that failing to cast a
``yea'' vote would give new meaning to the phrase ``suffer the little
children.'' However, it's the failure of this legislation to refocus
benefits on low-income children that gives new meaning to the phrase
``suffer the little children.''
If, as the verse continues, it is to these children ``that the
Kingdom of God belongs,'' then why is this children's program failing
to serve so many children? How is it that in my home State of Michigan
87,000 eligible children don't have health care while 39,000 adults are
in the program?
How is it that in Minnesota 87 percent of the enrollees in this
children's program are adults?
How is it that this low-income program is covering families in New
Jersey making more than $70,000 a year? No wonder New York wanted to go
over $80,000.
Ladies and gentlemen, the answer to these questions is clear. The
majority does not want a low-income children's plan. They want what
Hillary Clinton called for in 1994, the first step towards
nationalized, government-run, controlled health care.
We should not be diluting this children's program, and we should not
be diverting money away from these low-income kids.
I am proud to have offered yesterday the Kids First Act, a bill that
would return this program to its roots, insuring low-income children,
covering an additional 1.3 million American children, does not raise
taxes, and is fully funded. This is the kind of legislation we should
be debating instead of continuing this senseless stalemate that uses
children as political pawns.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this veto override, and more
importantly, I urge my colleagues to quickly compromise on this
important issue and ensure that low-income American children have
health care coverage.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I would just note that my good Republican
colleagues have ignored one fact that is important, and that is that
every time that there is an inclusion of anybody over the level of 200
percent of poverty, it is on an express waiver granted by the
Republican White House.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to
the distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Dr.
Burgess of Denton, Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I come to the floor of the House today to say that I
support the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance
Program. It's a good program that deserves to be reauthorized. I wasn't
here when it was first passed in 1997, but I believe in the original
intent of this program.
Madam Speaker, I believe it is critical to focus on the most
important recipients of this program: That's the poor children, poor
kids first.
Madam Speaker, this debate is not about money; it is about freedom.
And it is also critical to remember to focus on what is necessary to do
to cover the poor kids. And every opportunity for expansion, every
opportunity for expansion based on income set-asides, expanding
covering adults, expanding covering people in the country without the
benefit of a Social Security number, every time we expand the benefit,
we limit the benefit for the poor and the near poor, the initial
population that we were supposed to be covering. We can't cover those
other populations at the expense of people that we are required to take
care of.
Finding more of the truly eligible children is hard work. It's hard
work, but it's the right thing to do. Hard work first. It is the right
thing to do.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, today we must override the
President's veto because it is the right thing to do for our children.
We have a mission, an obligation, and a mandate to provide health
insurance for all of the children and override the President's veto.
We can spend millions and billions of dollars on war, but we cannot
take care of health care for our children? It would be a shame and a
disgrace not to take care of the little children.
We must take care of the children. ``Suffer the little children.''
They need our help and they need it now. Override this veto.
Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, as Senator Grassley wrote in a letter
to The Washington Post, it's fine to have a philosophical debate over
the merits of this program, but opponents should be intellectually
honest about what the bill does and does not do.
Despite this, the President and a few supporters are still clinging
to a series of distortions and spin to try to mislead the public. The
President keeps talking about families earning as much as $83,000. If
this were true, I would have voted against this program. And as for the
exception for New Jersey, the $72,000 was requested by a Republican
Governor and approved by President Bush's administration. Some of the
President's supporters have claimed we didn't provide a way to pay for
this bill, but we did. As Americans, we want our children to be healthy
and productive.
The irony did not escape me that while the President was attacking
SCHIP, I was sitting in a hearing of the Armed Services Committee, of
which I am a member. The topic was waste and fraud in Iraq, billions of
dollars. Like I said, the irony did not escape me, and it did not
escape most Americans.
We must override this veto.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, is it acceptable under the rule
that we are operating under, as long as we control time, to recognize a
Member more than once as long as you control the time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Recognition is within the discretion of the
Chair.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I'm not sure I understand. Let me rephrase my
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman seeking to have another
Member recognized that has already spoken?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to recognize myself now and then
recognize myself later in the debate, because my speakers aren't here.
Is that acceptable, Madam Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In controlling time the gentleman may speak
more than once and may yield to another more than once.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
[[Page H11742]]
Madam Speaker, one of the things that has been talked about in this
debate is that the pending bill before us does not allow illegal aliens
to receive benefits, and there is a section in the bill, section 605
that says that. But it has no enforcement. And in another part of the
bill the requirement for citizenship verification is repealed, and the
substitution for that is a requirement that a beneficiary or potential
beneficiary simply show a Social Security number.
{time} 1200
And as we all know, there are millions of fraudulent Social Security
numbers floating around. So when we actually do get down to negotiating
the conference after this veto is sustained, I hope that my friends in
the majority will work with us in the minority to make sure that
illegal aliens do not get benefits and that we have the appropriate
enforcement mechanism in the bill that we send to the President.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to recognize a member of the
Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished lady from Nevada (Ms.
Berkley) for 1 minute.
Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, coming from a State with one of the highest
percentages of uninsured children, I know how important it is that we
succeed in overriding the President's veto today.
I think it's absolutely shameful that in the United States of
America, in the 21st century, in a country of such great abundance, we
have to override a Presidential veto to provide essential health care
to kids from lower-income, hardworking American families.
Passage of this bill is essential to ensure continued coverage for
the more than 30,000 kids currently receiving their health care by the
SCHIP program in Nevada. And the bill will also enable Nevada to reach
out to the nearly 70,000 children currently eligible who remain
uninsured and not in the program because of a lack of funding.
I urge my colleagues to vote to override this veto. It's a shame that
he vetoed this bill in the first place.
Mr. HULSHOF. Before yielding to my friend from Texas, I yield myself
such time as I may consume to respond to a previous speaker, the
gentlelady from New Hampshire, who said that she would have voted
against the original bill had she known or had she believed that, in
fact, a family of four making $80,000 would qualify their children.
Well, in fact, I would point the gentlelady to section 114,
subparagraph A of the bill that allows income disregards.
And I would say to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, who pointed out that, yes, it was the
administration that granted the waiver, there are some on this side who
would suggest the administration has approved unwise waivers in the
past. But even this administration has indicated to a particular
Governor that before we allow this waiver to occur, in the instance of
New Jersey, so many additional enrollees would have to meet the intent
of the SCHIP program, to which the Governor said, ``I don't have to
abide by that.'' And I find that a bit difficult to swallow as we then
discuss whether this should be the law of the land.
I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Ten years ago, a Republican Congress created SCHIP to provide health
insurance benefits to children who are uninsured, who are Americans,
and whose parents represent the working poor. Yet today, once again,
this Democrat Congress will try to do something else, and that is, give
these same benefits to adults, to illegal immigrants, to those who are
already insured, and to some of the wealthiest among us. These are the
facts.
Although the program was designed for those up to 200 percent of
poverty, we know today there are families of up to $82,000 of income
receiving these benefits. Although the program was designed for
children, we know almost 20 States now serve more adults than children.
Although the program was designed for Americans, the Democrats strip
out proof-of-citizenship measures. And although the program was
designed for the uninsured, CBO said this will have the effect of
taking 2 million off and putting them on a government insurance
program. That is wrong.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am delighted to recognize
the gentlelady from Arizona (Ms. Giffords) for 1 minute.
Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the 179,000
children in the State of Arizona who need Congress to stand up for
them.
Ten million American children need SCHIP, known as KidsCare in my
home State of Arizona, because it changes their lives. For example,
when Collin Bollinger was born, his mother, Sherry, did not have health
insurance. Sherry was gainfully employed, but she could not afford her
company's high insurance premiums and did not qualify for Medicaid.
After Collin's second birthday and a series of ear infections, Sherry
scraped and borrowed enough money for private insurance to cover Collin
at the high cost of $150 per month. At times, Sherry chose her son's
health care over paying the rent and having a full dinner.
Then she discovered the KidsCare program; her premiums then fell by
90 percent per month. With the money that Sherry saved, she could even
afford her own health insurance. Now Collin is a straight A student. He
plays football at Cienega High School and leads a happy and healthy
life. His mother credits KidsCare.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I just have two speakers left,
the distinguished minority leader and myself. I'm prepared to do the
mini-close. I assume that Ms. Pelosi is going to close for the
majority, so we're kind of in a holding pattern here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize for closing
speeches in the reverse order of opening: Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Stark, Mr.
Barton, and then Mr. Dingell.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I would observe that here we have three
speakers before we're prepared to close. And if you would permit, Madam
Speaker, the Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, will close for us.
Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm delighted to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).
Mr. SHULER. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
Madam Speaker, every night when we sit down, we talk to our children,
we say our prayers, my wife and I, we thank God for the many blessings
He has bestowed upon us, some of those blessings that we don't even
recognize so much every single day, like having health care for our
children. But there are children and parents every day for whom that is
a constant reminder.
And here we have questions about what is important, how many children
will it be. My children, age three and six, they talk about and they
pray that God will bless all children. We talk about, across the aisle,
I am pro-life. My distinguished colleagues across the aisle talk about
being pro-life. It is time they start being pro-life today and start by
overriding this veto.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank the Chair of our Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Madam Speaker, we have a health care crisis in our country. And the
President vetoing the SCHIP bill has made bad policy based on bad
information. We've heard it from the floor today from the minority.
The President should know we target low-income children below 200
percent of poverty. The President should know that we focus SCHIP on
children and phase out parents and childless adults that were allowed
by this administration to be covered. The President should know that
the bill covers 4 million children who are eligible for SCHIP but not
enrolled. The President should know that we do not cover illegal alien
children. It's frustrating, when we have a health care crisis in our
country, that we can't cover the children.
When the White House asked Congress just recently for a special $190
billion for the war in Iraq, over and above the hundreds of billions
we've already spent, why can't we find much less than that for covering
10 million
[[Page H11743]]
low-income children, parents who are working in this country?
We have a health care crisis, and the Republican minority and the
President have turned their back on that crisis, especially to the
children.
Mr. Speaker we have a health care crisis in our country. In vetoing
our SCHIP bill, the President has invoked a bad policy based on bad
information.
The President should know we target low-income children below 200
percent of poverty.
The President should know we focus SCHIP on children, and phase out
parents and childless adults that were allowed by his administration.
The President should know the bill covers 4 million children who are
eligible for SCHIP but not enrolled.
The President should know this does not cover undocumented children.
Under the President's proposal, 6 million of our children eligible for
SCHIP would remain without health insurance.
And, an additional 700,000 children currently in the program would
join them in the ranks of the uninsured.
If the President is so concerned about adults and middle income
families in the SCHIP program, he should sign this bill which
effectively addresses those concerns.
America's low-income children shouldn't suffer because the President
can't get his facts straight.
More than 8 in 10 Americans support this legislation to expand SCHIP
for children.
When the White House asks Congress for a special $190 billion for the
war in Iraq, over and above hundreds of billions already spent why
can't they find much less to cover 10 million low-income children.
This is the people's House, and it is our duty to override this veto
and listen to the American people.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I hope that we can find, as we close today and we come to this vote,
enough people on both sides of the aisle who will vote to override the
veto. It doesn't make much sense. There is no cost, there are no
illegal aliens, there are no rich people, unless the Republicans choose
to make it possible for them. It's a bill that is paid for, unlike the
war, which the Republicans don't mention.
What are you going to do for that 200 or 300 billion bucks, folks,
that you're spending to kill these kids when they grow up? You can't
answer that, can you? You look at your shoes, look up here, you don't
know.
So you don't even want to talk about $200 or $300 billion to kill
innocent Iraqis and young men and women. There is no Member of this
House that has an enlisted child over there. There is no risk for you
guys.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. STARK. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
The fact that we don't want to talk about killing children that we
send to die in a war and spend $200 billion, we're going to shuffle on,
calling things ``socialism,'' Madam Speaker. And we're going to talk
about if we only had a chance to do this a little better to make sure
that illegal aliens were treated a little less fairly than they are
now, we might vote for it. It's too bad. It's too bad they're voting to
harm children for a bunch of really petty grievances that they have in
the minority. I hope they will change their minds and vote to override
the veto.
Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
With all respect, Madam Speaker, I don't need to be lectured to by a
Member who did not even support the original Children's Health
Insurance Program.
The fact is that we reached compromise 10 years ago. And I recognize
that the chairman of the Health Subcommittee can ram through a bill
when you've got the votes, as the original bill was done, without any
input from anybody else, that it's my way or the highway. And I
recognize that when you have the votes, that's one way you can try to
enact legislation.
So my question still stands, after this veto is sustained, Do you
want the politics or do you want the policy? I hope the latter. Because
I guarantee you we can have a meeting of the minds.
Mr. Camp and I, Mr. Boustany, in fact, introduced the Kids First Act
that would reauthorize this program. It's similar to the alternative in
the Senate that would increase State allotments by $14 billion over the
next 5 years, that would allow 1.3 million new low-income children to
be covered, that reimburses States at their Medicaid matching rate,
fully offsets the bill without raising taxes, bolsters current
provisions to provide premium assistance to kids who have access to
private coverage so that we can better coordinate public and private
programs to prevent the crowding-out effect.
So once this political effort is done, I hope we can have a meeting
of the minds.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I reserve my time. I have
one more speaker and then the Speaker who will be closing for us.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
{time} 1215
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, what we have today is a classic
case of a Washington, DC, nonintersecting conversation. Since the
President vetoed this bill several weeks ago, my friends on the
majority side have spent 2 weeks encouraging outside groups and perhaps
their political arm, I am not sure about that, to spend millions of
dollars in television and radio ads bombarding targeted Republicans to
get them to change their vote.
Now, that is only the sixth time in history that we know of that a
veto has not been brought to the floor immediately on the President's
veto. The result is going to be that when we get to the vote in the
next hour or so, the next 30 minutes or so, the President's veto will
be sustained. Then, hopefully, we will have the real bipartisan
negotiations that should have started 6 or 7 months ago.
It is interesting to me that we are still having a misunderstanding
about the basic facts. And the reason is, we have never had a
legislative hearing in either the Ways and Means Committee or the
Energy and Commerce Committee. We have not had a subcommittee markup in
either of the jurisdictional committees. And we really didn't have a
markup at full committee, because the original bill for SCHIP was a
500-page mammoth bill that we got at midnight the day before it was
supposed to be marked up in the case of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
But once we do sustain the President's veto, we are going to have
these negotiations I hope. And first we are going to talk about the
kids. Both sides are talking about the kids. Well, here are the facts.
Under current law, every child in America who is below 100 percent of
poverty is covered by Medicaid. Both parties support that. Under
current law, every child in America who lives in a family between 100
and 200 percent of poverty is covered by SCHIP if they will sign up.
Now, there are some children and families that won't sign up. In
Dallas, Texas, I am told that only 33 percent of the eligible SCHIP
children are actually in an SCHIP program. That is a travesty. We ought
to do something together to reach out to those children and those
families to make sure that they either have SCHIP coverage or private
insurance, that they have something. We can work together on that on a
bipartisan basis.
Now, once you get above 200 percent of poverty, we have a difference
of opinion. The original House bill said go to 400 percent of poverty.
That bill is dead. The bill before us goes to 300 percent. It is a
legitimate policy argument: If you want to go above and expand the
program, how much do you expand it above 200 percent? Do you go to 300
percent? Do you go to 250 percent? The Republican alternative is, let's
cover the lowest income kids first. Once we get 90 percent of those
kids covered below 200 percent of poverty, let's let States go to 250
percent. That is the Barton-Deal alternative that we have the discharge
petition on. But that is a legitimate policy argument.
Now, let's talk about illegal aliens. Under current law, you are not
supposed to cover a child of an illegal alien. But they are covered
because there is no verification enforcement system. In the pending
bill, they have section 605 that says no benefit shall go to children
of illegal aliens. But that is
[[Page H11744]]
all it says. There is no enforcement mechanism. There is no enforcement
mechanism. That is something we can work on in the conference. That is
something we can work on together to really put some enforcement to
make sure that SCHIP benefits are for citizens and legal residents. We
can work on that.
Let's vote to sustain the President's veto, and then let's work
together to get a program that really is for the kids, not for adults,
that really is for citizens, and that we can afford.
Well, Madam Speaker, there they go again. Once again, we are being
forced by the Democratic Leadership of the House to vote on a bill that
exists almost exclusively to help Democrats score political points
against the President.
We're going to sustain the President's veto today, and we're going to
do it because the President did the right thing by vetoing this poorly
written expansion of federalized health care that leaves the poorest
kids behind. Anybody who cares about needy children can vote against
this bad bill proudly.
I'm both proud and concerned that Republicans had no part in writing
this legislation. Proud because this bill is an embarrassment.
Concerned because we're all supposed to be legislating on behalf of
children, and as everybody knows, no Republican Member of this House
was even asked for an opinion, much less invited to participate in
writing the Democratic SCHIP bill.
I don't even think the Democrats who wrote it understand what they've
done. I challenge the supporters of this bill to look people in the eye
and say that they understand all of the provisions that are actually in
this bill. Because I have some questions for you.
Madam Speaker, it would be a compliment to say that the so-called
process which produced this bill is an abuse of our democratic system
of Government. It was so much worse than garden-variety abuse. It was
pathetic. Yet, I'm sure that some will show up here with a handful of
talking points from your Democratic staffers who actually constructed
this legislation, and you will explain to us that it is not an
abomination at all, but a wondrous triumph of bipartisanship.
Give me the name of one Republican in the entire House of
Representatives who directly participated in these discussions. Name
just one.
I know that the authors of this bill certainly did not consult with
either Mr. Deal or myself, I know that they have not included any
Members of the Republican Leadership in the House; and I'm not aware of
a single Republican Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee or the
Ways and Means Committee being invited to participate in this process.
And although we were excluded from the negotiations and the
Democratic Leadership has repeatedly refused to hold a legislative
hearing on this bill, we have learned a few facts from the official
projections produced by the Congressional Budget Office, and from what
I've read, this bill isn't something that I could ever support.
For example, we know that the vast majority of the people added to
the SCHIP program under the Democrats' bill will either already have
private health insurance or they live in families with incomes too high
to be eligible for SCHIP coverage today.
In fact, the Congressional Budget Office projects that H.R. 976 will
lead to over 1.2 million new enrollees will be added to SCHIP as a
result of an ``expansion of SCHIP and Medicaid eligibility to new
populations.'' This means that these 1.2 million children live in
families whose incomes are too high to qualify for the current SCHIP
program. On the other hand, CBO projects that only 800,000 currently
SCHIP eligible kids will be enrolled as a result of H.R. 976. This
means that 50 percent more higher-income kids will be enrolled than
currently SCHIP eligible kids.
And who will be paying for this expansion of SCHIP eligibility to
higher-income families? Well, according to the Congressional Research
Service, the vast majority of the $70 billion in additional tobacco tax
revenues will come from low-income families. In fact, the Congressional
Research Service said that tobacco taxes are ``the most regressive of
the federal taxes.''
So, with H.R. 976, the Democrats really are taxing the poor in order
to give to the rich.
In their defense, I guess it is difficult for the Democratic
Leadership to know exactly what is in their own bill since it has
neither been subject to a single legislative hearing nor conferenced by
the House and the Senate.
Madam Speaker, I wonder if someone can explain to me why the
Democratic Leadership decided to wait until just days before SCHIP
expires to bring their reauthorization to the House floor. We have
known for well over 10 years that the current SCHIP authorization would
expire on September 30, 2007, and the Democratic Leadership in the
House and the Senate have known since early November of 2006 that they
would be in charge of actually producing a bill to reauthorize this
vital health care program for low-income, uninsured children. Yet, here
they were, a full 10 months later, jamming a bill through the House
with fewer than three legislative days before the entire program
expires and children's health care stops.
Well, Madam Speaker, I was not sent here by the 6th District of Texas
to be quiet and do what the gentle lady from San Francisco instructs me
to do. I was sent here to represent my constituents' best interests and
I demand the ability to do what I have sworn to do.
We all know that the President promised to veto this version of the
bill, so why did we waste precious time on a bill that we all know
didn't stand a chance of ever becoming law?
While we are down here on the floor participating in this Theatre of
the Absurd, the Democratic Leadership is in the back rooms trying to
figure how they will extend the SCHIP program for another 6 months or a
year. We all know this to be a fact, but I guess the Democrats want to
pick a fight with the president so they can pretend that he is against
children, and only then will they permit everybody to do the right
thing and extend SCHIP.
Madam Speaker, I'm sorry it's come to this. The pettiness of this
transparent political strategy to damage and weaken the president is a
new low.
I'd hoped that we would not engage in this game, and it's still not
too late to stop it. We could start debating how to best extend the
SCHIP program so that we can actually do the job people sent us here to
do. We still have a chance to write a responsible, long-term
reauthorization of the SCHIP program. Now, it's true that writing a
solid, bipartisan bill will not give the Democrats the ``political
victory'' that they are hoping for, but that's the price that Democrats
will have to pay. Given that millions of needy children are depending
on us, it doesn't seem like a big price.
I am ready to start today to sit down with the Majority and reach a
compromise bill so we can reauthorize this program expeditiously. Short
6-week extensions are irresponsible. We can and should come up with a
compromise that can be signed into law and that ensures that low income
children continue to have access to the SCHIP program. We should not
drag this political process out any longer than today. Let us dispense
with politics and commence with legislating.
Here's a way that will get me to call the President and urge him to
sign up fast.
Require that States find and enroll 90 percent of the kids under 200
percent of the Federal Poverty Level before they go looking for more
people with higher incomes.
States should be free to spend their own money, of course, but
Federal taxpayers in 49 States shouldn't be made to subsidize the
health care premiums for one State making $80,000 a year.
No adults except pregnant women, please. No more childless couples
and, beginning in 2009, and Medicaid-eligible adults should move to
Medicaid.
Let's preserve the requirement that States document the citizenship
and identity of Medicaid applicants. Just writing down a Social
Security number doesn't make you a citizen.
A bipartisan effort could pass this bill in a week, and doing so
would make sense to poor kids, their families and nearly everybody
outside the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, my good friend, the
gentleman from Louisiana.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. McCRERY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I have with me, I am going to submit this for
inclusion in the Record, a page from a report from the Congressional
Budget Office that we received last night. This one page puts the lie
to the assertion that this bill is paid for, at least in any terms that
a reasonable person would agree that the bill is actually paid for.
What this sheet says, in 2012, under the March 2007 baseline, CBO
estimated 3.3 million people, not just children, 3.3 million people
would be covered. Under the President's proposal, in his budget, CBO
estimated 4 million people would be covered in 2012. If the current
program with all the exceptions and waivers were continued, CBO says
that in 2012, 5.3 million children will be covered. CBO says under the
bill on the floor in 2012, 7.8 million people would be covered. But
then they say, in 2017, 5 years later, under the President's budget,
2.9 million people would be covered. Under the current program, with
all the exceptions and waivers, 5.6, and
[[Page H11745]]
under this bill, 1.3 million people. So you go down from 7.8 million to
1.3 million over 5 years, and you are telling me that that is going to
take place? It is not. You know it. And you are going to have to pay
for it to the tune, the CBO says, of $40 billion.
CBO PROJECTIONS OF SCHIP AVERAGE MONTHLY ENROLLMENT (BY FISCAL YEAR, IN
MILLIONS) \1\ \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 2012 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2007 Baseline \3\............... 4.1 3.3 2.1
President's FY 2008 Budget \4\........ 4.9 4.0 2.9
Maintain current programs \5\......... 5.0 5.3 5.6
H.R. 976, CHIPRA \6\.................. NA 7.8 1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The figures in this table include the program's adult enrollees, who
account for less than 10 percent of total SCHIP enrollment. These
figures represent the average number of individuals who could be
covered in a typical month. The total number of individuals enrolled
at any time during the year would be about 170 percent of these
figures. These figures do not include enrollment in the U.S.
territories.
\2\ These enrollment figures are for SCHIP only. Relative to the
baseline, the President's proposal and maintaining current programs
would reduce Medicaid enrollment by shifting some children to SCHIP.
In 2012, CHIPRA would also shift some children from Medicaid to SCHIP;
however, in 2017 the reduced SCHIP funding levels under an
extrapolation of CHIPRA would cause a shift in children from SCHIP to
Medicaid. CHIPRA would increase Medicaid enrollment overall by
providing financial incentives to states to enroll additional
children.
\3\ Title XXI of the Social Security Act authorizes SCHIP through 2007.
Consistent with statutory guidelines, CBO assumes in its baseline
spending projections that funding for the program in later years will
continue at its 2007 level of $5.0 billion.
\4\ The Administration proposes funding of $5.0 billion in 2008, $5.3
billion in 2009, and $6.5 billion in each of fiscal years 2010 through
2012.
\5\ Assumes increases in funding sufficient to account for increases in
health spending per enrollee and the projected number of enrollees
(due both to population growth and increases in the number of
uninsured). Also assumes no change in eligibility rules or benefit
packages after 2008.
\6\ CHIPRA authorizes SCHIP through 2012. For budget scoring purposes
CBO has projected spending under CHIPRA through 2017, based on the
funding level at the end of 2012--an allotment of $3.5 billion per
year. The 2017 enrollment figures shown there reflect that
extrapolation.
Note: SCHIP = the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIPRA =
the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007,
as cleared by the Congress on September 27, 2007.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentlewoman
from Colorado for 1 minute.
And pending that recognition, I would just like to point out that
under the Republican plan, by 2017 we probably will have killed 20,000
soldiers in Iraq spending $200 billion.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words
be taken down.
{time} 1230
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the words.
The Clerk read as follows:
``I would just like to point out that under the Republican plan, by
2017 we probably will have killed 20,000 soldiers in Iraq spending $200
billion.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The words do not descend to personality
within the meaning of rule XVII. Nor do they engage in such
inflammatory rhetoric as might otherwise breach decorum.
The words are not out of order.
The gentleman from California may proceed.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado is recognized
for 1 minute.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I stand with the 81 percent of Americans
who support this bipartisan compromise bill that gives health care to
10 million poor children in this country. It builds upon the strong
foundation of SCHIP and covers almost 4 million additional children.
You can use whatever words you want to talk about this bill, but
here's the truth and here are the real facts: the bill does not cover
adults, the bill does not cover people who are here illegally, and it
does not cover the wealthy. It is fully paid for.
We in Congress should hang our heads in shame if the wealthiest
country in the world refuses to provide basic health care to the
children of our land. Let us rekindle the bipartisan spirit of the past
and join together to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance
Program. Let us put the working families of this country first. Let us
override this veto.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to yield our last minute
to the distinguished minority leader from the State of the current
number one college football team in the country, Ohio State, Mr.
Boehner of Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that we have reached
this point. I think all of us know that Democrats want to renew the
SCHIP program and Republicans want to renew the SCHIP program. We
haven't been afforded the opportunity to sit down and work together to
resolve the differences we might have in order to keep this important
program alive and available to children in America who deserve and need
good health care coverage. I hope that that opportunity to sit down and
work together comes today after this vote.
In 1997, Republicans and Democrats worked together to create the
State Children's Health Insurance Program. We worked to ensure that
low-income children without health insurance come first. But I think
all of us know that is not what has happened.
Today, there are 500,000 eligible low-income children for this
program who are not covered. Yet there are some 700,000 adults around
America who are covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program.
I think the numbers speak for themselves. In Minnesota, 87 percent of
the people on the Children's Health Insurance Program are adults. In
Wisconsin, 66 percent of the people on the Children's Health Insurance
Program are adults.
Madam Speaker, what we have been working towards is trying to find a
way to say that we ought to insure poor children first. I know States
have all kinds of ideas about how to expand this program, but let's not
let this become another Washington program that starts with one
principle in mind and then becomes something for everyone. Why can't we
refocus the program to ensure that we help those poor children who do
not have health insurance before we get into insuring adults and people
beyond the low-income folks that we are trying to help?
I think the President vetoed this bill because, frankly, I think the
majority sent it to him to ensure that it was vetoed. There were no
conversations in this House between Democrats and Republicans on what
this bill would ever look like. I don't think there was ever any
intention that this bill be sent to the White House to be signed into
law.
It is a point that I have made here before, and I am going to make it
again: the American people are tired of all the political games. They
want us to find some way to work together to resolve our differences
and to help move America forward. What we have seen over the last
several months on this bill, and especially the last two weeks, is an
example of the political games that the American people are tired of.
Madam Speaker, when you begin to look at Congress's approval ratings,
it shouldn't come to anyone's surprise in this Chamber that they are
very low. And why are they low? Because I think Americans are tired of
the rhetoric, they are tired of the political games, and they want us
to find some way to work together to address their needs and their
concerns.
Two weeks ago, when the President vetoed this bill because we didn't
put poor children first, we could have had this vote right then and
there. We could have had the override vote. Then we could have sat down
and begun to resolve our differences. By now we could have had them
resolved and we could actually be here today on a new bill that makes
sure that the poor children who don't have health insurance actually
get it.
Madam Speaker, what I would say to all of my colleagues is that I
would hope that the political games will come to an end.
On behalf of House Republicans, I again extend this invitation to all
of you: let's sit down and work together in a bipartisan manner to
resolve our differences. Secondly, let's make sure that we put poor
children first.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, before I yield to our Speaker to close, I
yield myself 30 seconds.
[[Page H11746]]
Madam Speaker, I will submit for the Record a letter from Peter
Orszag, Director of the Congressional Budget Office. That office notes
several things. First of all, one, this bill actually saves money for
the Treasury; two, it is fiscally responsible; three, it is fully paid
for.
The bill also covers approximately 10 million children in 2012, but
it authorizes that only through 2012. In my Republican colleague's
comparison with events in the year 2017, those comparisons are both
impossible and bogus. I would note that the legislation covers 4
million more children than the administration's proposal.
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, October 18, 2007.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to questions that we have
been asked about the enclosed enrollment table that CBO
circulated yesterday regarding the State Children's Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP), two points are worth noting.
First, as indicated in footnote 2 of the table, the
enrollment figures are for SCHIP only. The Children's Health
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) would also
raise enrollment in Medicaid by 1.3 million in 2012 relative
to the baseline. Second, as indicated in footnote 6 of the
enclosed table, CHIPRA authorizes SCHIP only through 2012,
and the figures for 2017 are therefore based on an
extrapolation of CHIPRA beyond the legislation's
authorization window. Under that extrapolation of CHIPRA
through 2017, SCHIP and Medicaid enrollment combined would
rise relative to the baseline.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to
contact Keith Fontenot at 226-2800.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Orszag,
Director.
Enclosure.
CBO PROJECTIONS OF SCHIP AVERAGE MONTHLY ENROLLMENT (BY FISCAL YEAR, IN
MILLIONS) \1\ \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 2012 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2007 Baseline \3\............... 4.1 3.3 2.1
President's FY 2008 Budget \4\........ 4.9 4.0 2.9
Maintain current programs \5\......... 5.0 5.3 5.6
H.R. 976, CHIPRA \6\.................. not available 7.8 1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The figures in this table include the program's adult enrollees, who
account for less than 10 percent of total SCHIP enrollment. These
figures represent the average number of individuals who could be
covered in a typical month. The total number of individuals enrolled
at any time during the year would be about 170 percent of these
figures. These figures do not include enrollment in the U.S.
territories.
\2\ These enrollment figures are for SCHIP only. Relative to the
baseline, the President's proposal and maintaining current programs
would reduce Medicaid enrollment by shifting some children to SCHIP.
In 2012, CHIPRA would also shift some children from Medicaid to SCHIP;
however, in 2017 the reduced SCHIP funding levels under an
extrapolation of CHIPRA would cause a shift in children from SCHIP to
Medicaid. CHIPRA would increase Medicaid enrollment overall by
providing financial incentives to states to enroll additional
children.
\3\ Title XXI of the Social Security Act authorizes SCHIP through 2007.
Consistent with statutory guidelines, CBO assumes in its baseline
spending projections that funding for the program in later years will
continue at its 2007 level of $5.0 billion.
\4\ The Administration proposes funding of $5.0 billion in 2008, $5.3
billion in 2009, and $6.5 billion in each of fiscal years 2010 through
2012.
\5\ Assumes increases in funding sufficient to account for increases in
health spending per enrollee and the projected number of enrollees
(due both to population growth and increases in the number of
uninsured). Also assumes no change in eligibility rules or benefit
packages after 2008.
\6\ CHIPRA authorizes SCHIP through 2012. For budget scoring purposes
CBO has projected spending under CHIPRA through 2017, based on the
funding level at the end of 2012--an allotment of $3.5 billion per
year. The 2017 enrollment figures shown there reflect that
extrapolation.
Note: SCHIP = the State Children's Health Insurance Program CHIPRA = the
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, as
cleared by the Congress on September 27, 2007.
At this time it is with great pleasure and privilege that I yield the
balance of my time to our distinguished Speaker for purposes of
closing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 1 minute.
Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I commend him for his exceptional leadership on this issue.
The issue of health care for Americans has been a signature issue for
the Dingell family. Mr. Dingell, the distinguished chairman's father,
was the author of legislation for access to health care for all
Americans. He continues that tradition. He was in the chair the day and
gaveled the vote on Medicare. So thank you for your years of experience
and leadership, and, again, your leadership on this important issue of
insuring our children.
This isn't about an issue; this is about a value. Thank you, Mr.
Stark, thank you, Mr. Pallone, for your leadership, and thanks to the
distinguished Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, for
his important and relentless leadership on this issue.
My colleagues, as I listen to the debate today, I hear a lot of
subterfuge and distractions; but the fact is that this is a discussion
about America's children and it is a discussion about America. There is
no industrialized country in the world that anyone respects that does
not provide health insurance for its children. We are the exception.
This is not a designation to be proud of.
But the American people in their wisdom have this not as an issue,
but as a value, as an ethic. That is why I am so proud of what has
transpired since we took our first vote on this bill. That day I said
we could establish ourselves as ``the Children's Congress,'' and we
did. Work remains to be done to bring that to fruition.
In the meantime, across our country, Democrats and Republicans,
Governors and mayors, people who work with children or have the
responsibility of delivering a system of health care have been
advocating for this reauthorization of SCHIP that we have before us
today. Every organization you can name, from AARP to YWCA, and
everything in between, the American Medical Association, Catholic
Hospital Association, Families USA, every organization you can name is
supporting this legislation.
I am so proud, because earlier this week Easter Seals representatives
covered the Hill with hundreds of advocates visiting Members' offices.
We were pleased to hear from the president of Easter Seals, President
James Williams, who said, ``Without health care coverage, our early
intervention in other programs for children cannot be successful.''
That is why the Easter Seals organization was here.
{time} 1245
He was very eloquent in his advocacy, but no more eloquent than the
young children who were here to tell us their stories.
Today, representatives of the March of Dimes, over 400 of them, are
visiting offices on Capitol Hill. And Jennifer Howse, president of the
March of Dimes, has stated that SCHIP ``is the health insurance
lifeline for millions of low-income children who have no other way to
obtain coverage.''
Our country has put poor children first; that's called Medicaid. The
poorest of the poor children in our country are able to receive health
care through Medicaid.
I wish you could have heard the stories of some of the parents who
told us, Bethany's parents who were in the other day. The press asked
them if they were afraid their family would come under attack because
they were lobbying for SCHIP. They said we are already under attack,
but we are proud to come forward to support this initiative. We are not
proud of the fact that we are low income, they said. We are trying very
hard to lift ourselves up into the middle class. We work very hard not
to be on Medicaid, but to be among the working poor, it is not
something that we brag about, but SCHIP is something that we need.
So when the President wants to have 4 or 5 million children instead
of 10 million children in his initiative, is he the one, the decider,
who wants to go to that family and say, Your child is out? Bethany had
heart problems from birth. She was 2 years old in July. They have been
told by some people as they lobbied, The baby is better now; you don't
need SCHIP anymore. Well, she does.
They said, We are not just lobbying for Bethany; we are lobbying for
all of the children.
As far as the March of Dimes is concerned, and I am proudly wearing
their pin, they deal with children with birth defects, and it might
interest you to know that one of eight children in America each year is
born prematurely, around half a million babies born prematurely. Many
of those children, I am not saying all, but many of those children have
ongoing conditions and preconditions that bar them from
[[Page H11747]]
getting any health insurance. Those children need SCHIP. They are in
the category that makes them eligible.
And that category does not include people earning $83,000 a year. So
while some of you may use that as an excuse not to vote for the
program, I hope you know intellectually it is not a reason to vote
against this initiative. There are currently no children enrolled in
SCHIP with family income of 400 percent of the Federal poverty level,
$83,000 for a family of four. In fact, 91.3 percent of the children
enrolled in SCHIP are in families of four that make less than 200
percent of poverty. And 99.95 percent, just a hair under 100 percent of
them, are in families under 300 percent of poverty.
So this is a sad thing. We are asking people who are working hard and
playing by the rules, they are taking care of their families. They
could have stayed out of work and stayed on Medicaid, but that is not
what we are encouraging people to do in our country. We are encouraging
them to move on and upward. And these families have to come forward and
say why they have not attained the American Dream of enough wealth to
afford $1,200 a month in health insurance premiums, and that's a big
order.
I am so pleased, though, that with the work they have done, Easter
Seals, Red Cross and all of the organizations I mentioned earlier, and
the Governors and mayors, et cetera, that now 82 percent of the
American people support this initiative. If I said it before, I want to
say it again.
And let me also say that there are some myths about SCHIP. Well, I
don't think that they are myths; I think they are excuses not to vote
for the bill. I mentioned one of them. Another one is about illegal
aliens.
Clearly, the bill states ``no Federal funding for illegal aliens.''
It says it, but it is also the law of the land. Illegal aliens do not
get benefits, so don't use that as an excuse to deprive 10 million
children in our country who are eligible for enrollment in SCHIP that
they shouldn't get it.
This has been a bipartisan effort, and some of what has been said
about SCHIP is simply not true. But don't take it from me. Senator
Orrin Hatch, former Chair of the Health Committee in the Senate, now
the ranking member, said: ``I believe that some have given the
President bad advice on this matter because I believe supporting this
bipartisan compromise to provide health coverage to low-income children
is the morally right thing to do. If we were truly compassionate, it
seems to me, we would endorse this program.'' Senator Orrin Hatch,
Republican of Utah.
Senator Charles Grassley, former chairman of the Finance Committee,
another committee of jurisdiction and now the ranking member said:
``The President's claims about SCHIP are flatly incorrect. The SCHIP
bill is not a government takeover of health care. Screaming `socialized
medicine' during a health care debate is like screaming `fire' in a
crowded theater. It is intended to cause hysteria that diverts people
from looking at the facts.'' Senator Grassley, Republican Senator from
Iowa.
So, my colleagues, we have a decision today to override the
President's veto, which would be, in my view, the right thing to do for
our children and for our country. It is not about compassion. It is
about fairness. It is about fairness. And this is a bill again that has
been bipartisan in its development and required enormous sacrifice from
the Democrats in the House of Representatives. We had a much higher
goal. This is what is achievable for the children. It should have been
signed by the President. There is no reason that he has given that is
consistent with the facts.
And so I urge my colleagues to think about the children, to think
about Bethany and think about a little boy, Zeke, who was in my office
this morning. He is the ambassador of the March of Dimes for 2007. He
is 8 years old, born prematurely at a pound and a half, and now going
out and speaking on behalf of the needs of other children.
The President is isolated in this. Don't join him in his isolation.
Come forward on behalf of the children and let's truly send a signal
that we are about the future. I tried to do that when I was sworn in by
being surrounded by children. It was a spontaneous moment, but it was
one that was clear in its message: We are gaveling this House to order
on behalf of the children.
There is nothing more important that we have to do in our work than
make sure that our children are healthy and safe. Today we have an
opportunity to do that. Let's not miss that opportunity. Let's give a
vote for the children and against the President's veto.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for
overriding the President's veto of the State Children's Health
Insurance Program Reauthorization. This bipartisan legislation would
provide health coverage for 10 million of our most vulnerable children.
It is supported by over 80 percent of the American public, as well as
bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and 43 of our Nation's
Governors.
The fact that the President and the House Republican leadership
continue to oppose this critical, life-saving legislation is difficult
to comprehend. All of the excuses that they have trotted out for
blocking this bill--that it would cover the rich, or illegal aliens, or
that it would institute ``socialized'' medicine--have been exposed as
false. This bipartisan program puts poor kids first, as reflected in
the fact that 90 percent of families covered by SCHIP live under 200
percent of the poverty level. It bars coverage of illegal immigrants,
as is spelled out clearly in the bill's text. In fact, the bill does
not even cover legal immigrants. Finally, the SCHIP reauthorization
does not institute ``socialized'' medicine. Seventy-seven percent of
children in the SCHIP program are covered by private insurance
companies, and the American Association of Health Insurance Plans, as
well as the American Medical Association and PhRMA, all support this
bill. The Republicans' other excuse for opposing this bill--that we
can't afford it--is disingenuous. This legislation is fully paid for
with a tobacco tax. I also find it interesting that those who raise the
cry of ``fiscal responsibility'' when it comes to a few billion dollars
for poor children do not seem to have any objections to providing
hundreds of billions for the President's disastrous war.
Having revealed that the Republicans' stated reasons for opposing
this legislation are patently false, one is forced to wonder what is
actually motivating them. I believe that the President and his
supporters are blocking this legislation because they are afraid. They
are afraid of SCHIP because it demonstrates that health care guaranteed
by the government is workable, it is affordable, and it is popular.
They worry that if SCHIP is expanded, even more Americans will begin to
demand that the government guarantee health care to all our citizens,
not just to poor children. After all, every other industrialized nation
does so, while spending less than we do and while achieving better
health outcomes for its citizens. The Republicans will apparently use
every means at their disposal to ensure that health care in this
country remains a privilege for those who can afford it, rather than a
right guaranteed to all.
Madam Speaker, today's vote raises a moral question. Simply put: will
we, as a nation, take responsibility for ensuring that all our children
have necessary health coverage? All other issues raised in this debate
are obfuscations meant to hide the fact that the party claiming the
mantle of ``family values'' is in fact unwilling to back that slogan
with substance. There is only one vote today that truly supports
America's families. It is a vote to override this shameful veto.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today for one main reason:
the 10 million low-income children in this Nation whose health, health
care and wellness are very much at stake. This is especially true today
as the House votes on whether to override the President's inhumane,
unethical and irresponsible veto of the Children's Health Insurance
Program.
We honored the promises we made to this Nation when we not only
passed the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act, the CHAMP
Act, but when we exercised the art of compromise and passed a
bipartisan CHIP bill that, though more modest than the CHAMP Act, still
represented a respectable step in the right direction. In fact, the
CHIP bill that so many of us stood behind would have provided health
insurance coverage to nearly 4 million currently uninsured, low-income
children. Unfortunately, despite our tireless efforts, the President
opted to veto the bill that would have reduced the number of uninsured
children in this Nation by nearly half.
Madam Speaker, we can and should do better, not only because we
promised to, but because this Nation's children deserve it. We cannot
and should not shortchange the most vulnerable among us, and we cannot
and should not relent in our efforts to ensure that our Nation's low-
income children have reliable
[[Page H11748]]
access to the health care services and treatments that they will need
to be healthy and to pursue their life's destinies.
Madam Speaker, today we have yet another opportunity to reach across
the political aisle and stand together to do the right thing for
America's children. As I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
well know, the children who are currently enrolled and would be newly
enrolled in CHIP are not undocumented residents; they are legal
American citizens. Efforts to try to derail our intention to override
the veto by inundating CHIP in an immigration debate are both
unconscionable and inaccurate.
And, the children who are and would be covered by CHIP also are not
children from wealthy or even middle-income families who could
otherwise afford health insurance. The mythical $83,000 CHIP family is
just that: a myth. They are no more real than the weapons of mass
destruction we invaded Iraq to find.
The reality, however, is that more than 9 in 10 children enrolled in
CHIP are from families with incomes that are below 200 percent of the
Federal poverty level. That means, Madam Speaker, that CHIP kids are
coming from families earning less than $41,300 a year for a family of
four. These are not financially comfortable families. And, these are
not families living lavishly off the backs of taxpayers. These are
hardworking American families whose children's health care needs often
exceed their financial means. They deserve better and their children
deserve better, and we ought to override this veto to ensure that the
CHIP program captures these kids and keeps them from joining the ranks
of the uninsured.
It is has never been lost on me or my colleagues in the minority
caucuses that CHIP is a key minority health issue. In fact, 8 in 10
currently uninsured African-American kids and 7 in 10 Hispanic children
are eligible but not enrolled in the program. Without health insurance,
children suffer worse health outcomes and are less able to enjoy their
childhoods because of illnesses that are often preventable. Overriding
the President's veto, therefore, not only will help reduce uninsurance
among our Nation's most vulnerable children and improve their health,
but also will help us reduce the racial and ethnic health disparities
that plague our health care system.
I urge all of my colleagues to override the President's veto. We not
only can and should do better, but we should demand that the President
do more for our children. Let's do it now for all of America's
children.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise as a supporter of the
State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, which focuses on
covering children in families at or below 200 percent of the poverty
level, $41,000 per year. I have voted to extend this program and to
provide additional resources to ensure that those living in families
below 200 percent of the poverty level, $41,000, have access to
affordable health insurance through the SCHIP program.
Before sharing my concerns over the bill that was vetoed by the
President and that we are voting on today, I would like to share with
my colleagues an overview of the SCHIP reauthorization bill that I am
joining in introducing today. Our bill will provide families with
health care choices, health care transferability and health care
security.
The bill I have cosponsored would ensure that all children between
100 percent and 200 percent of poverty are eligible to enroll in SCHIP.
In addition to being able to enroll in SCHIP, these families could also
decide to use their SCHIP credit to pay for the additional costs of
enrolling their children in the parent's employer provided health plan.
For those making between 200 percent and 300 percent of the poverty
level, our bill would provide a $1,400 per child health care tax
credit. This credit would be refundable for those who have tax
liability less than the amount of the credit. Parents could use this
credit to pay the additional costs of enrolling their children in an
employer provided health care plan or in another state licensed health
care plan. This plan borrows from the proposal put forward by a broad
range of organizations that run the political spectrum--from the
liberal Families USA, to the Chamber of Commerce, and the American
Medical Association, AMA.
The biggest question remaining after this vote is taken today is
whether or not our House Democrat colleagues will do something that
they have by and large failed to do so far with regard to SCHIP: invite
House Republicans to participate in developing the legislation. To
date, House Democrat leaders have abused the rules of debate to totally
shut Republicans out of the legislative process.
Two weeks ago, rather than having an up or down vote on the
President's veto, the Democrat majority chose to put off the final vote
for two weeks in order to engage in political posturing and partisan
attacks. Today we are holding that vote and the outcome today is no
different than what it would have been two weeks ago. So, why the
delay? Solely for partisan posturing. Madam Speaker, our children
deserve better and it is time to stop using them as political pawns.
Unfortunately, recent press reports are filled with quotes from
Democrat leaders stating that they want to keep this alive as a
political issue, calling for ``repeated votes'' and temporary
extensions of SCHIP over the next year, rather than approving a long-
term bipartisan bill that secures SCHIP coverage for those it was
intended for--children in low-income households with family incomes of
less than 200 percent of the poverty level.
I would now like to address once again, why I cannot support the bill
before us. This bill: 1. Fails to place a priority on first enrolling
uninsured children in households earning less than $41,000 per year,
200 percent of the federal poverty level; 2. Expands government SCHIP
subsidies to those making far more than the Federal poverty level; 3.
Spends half of the additional SCHIP dollars to enroll children in the
government SCHIP program who are already enrolled in private insurance;
and 4. Uses budget gimmicks--like booting millions of children off of
the program in 2012--in order to fool the public into believing they
can fund the program for the next 5 years.
It is fiscally irresponsible to expand this program by enticing
millions of children in families earning far above the poverty level to
drop private coverage and enroll in the SCHIP program that cannot be
sustained. In August, House Democrat leaders forced an earlier version
of SCHIP through the House that cut over $150 billion from Medicare and
moved that money into SCHIP so that they would have a way to pay for
millions of new SCHIP enrollees over the next 10 years, including
millions of currently insured children from middle and upper middle
class families.
Their plan to cut Medicare was rejected not only by Republicans but
by the U.S. Senate, and most importantly by the public at large. The
bill that the President vetoed is a bait and switch. This nearly
triples the size of SCHIP over the next 5 years--including enrolling
millions of children currently insured by private plans--only this time
they have chosen to hide from the public how they plan to pay for the
program for the next 10 years. They ramp up the annual SCHIP budget to
nearly $14 billion a year, and then they simply leave it to a future
Congress to find a way to continue paying for the massively expanded
SCHIP program. And they hand the bill to future generations of
Americans. It turns out that their nearly tripling of the Federal
cigarette taxes still leaves them tens of billions of dollars short.
Americans should be on notice that in 2012 the Democrats will ask for
another $180 billion to continue SCHIP for another 10 years.
Particularly troubling is that by significantly expanding SCHIP
enrollment eligibility to those far above the poverty level, the
Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that millions of new SCHIP
enrollees will be children that move from private coverage to the SCHIP
program. By moving children from private insurance onto the government
program, this bill essentially enrolls 5 uninsured children for the
price of 10. Enticing millions of children to drop private coverage and
sign up for SCHIP is shortsighted and irresponsible, particularly given
the multibillion dollar SCHIP budget shortfall that hits in 2012.
What we should be doing is focusing this program on enrolling
uninsured children in households earning less than $41,000 per year.
Madam Speaker, our children and the American taxpayers deserve better
than what the Democrat leadership has put before us today.
In February of this year, States that had overspent their SCHIP
funding grants came to Congress begging for more money to ``insure
uninsured poor children.'' The root problem in many of these States was
the fact that they had used their Federal grant to enroll children in
the SCHIP program who were neither poor nor uninsured. New Jersey, for
example had used their grant to enroll children in families with
incomes of more than $72,000, even though there were and still are over
150,000 children in New Jersey in households earning less than $41,000
who are uninsured.
I offered an amendment in February that would have refocused SCHIP to
make sure that children in families under 200 percent of the poverty
level were covered first. My amendment was rejected by the liberal
majority on the Committee, who Stated that they had no intent to
refocus SCHIP on lower income children. Rather, they planned to
continue expanding the program to those well above the poverty level--
to include adults and illegal immigrants--as a step toward universal
government-run health care. A recent op-ed in the Washington Post, by
liberal columnist E.J. Dionne Jr., removes any doubt of this goal by
writing: ``This battle [over SCHIP] is central to the long-term goal of
universal coverage.''
While the press releases about today's bill focus on uninsured low-
income children, the language in the bill is about much more than
uninsured low-income children. If the bill before us was focused on
low-income uninsured
[[Page H11749]]
children, I would be voting for it. The bill before us does the
opposite. It repeals recent rules requiring States to ensure that at
least 95 percent of those under 200 percent of the poverty level are
insured under their State SCHIP programs. Democrat leaders in Congress
have responded to the rule by arguing that there is no way to ensure a
95 percent enrollment rate of uninsured children in households earning
less than $41,000 per year. They argue that since they cannot achieve
the goal we should simply expand the program to those in households
earning more than $60,000 a year or more.
They use budget gimmicks to say that their bill is balanced and paid
for through higher cigarette taxes. The Heritage Foundation has
estimated that the amount of money Democrats estimate they will raise
from higher cigarette taxes comes up billions of dollars short and that
over the next 10 years they will have to find 22 million new smokers to
bring in the amount of cigarette tax revenue they hope to raise. It is
also noteworthy that lower-income Americans pay a higher percentage of
cigarette taxes, but it is middle-income Americans that will receive
most of the expanded SCHIP benefits under this bill.
I am also concerned over provisions included in the bill that repeal
the requirement that individuals must prove citizenship in order to
enroll in Medicaid and SCHIP. This opens the program to fraud and the
enrollment of illegal immigrants. In 2006, the Inspector General, IG,
of the Department of Health and Human Services found that 46 States
allowed anyone seeking Medicaid or SCHIP to simply State they were
citizens. The IG found that 27 States never sought to verify that
enrollees were indeed citizens. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
estimates that repealing this requirement will cost $1.9 billion.
And finally from a Florida perspective, Florida taxpayers come up
short. Florida taxpayers will send $700 million more to Washington than
we will receive back in SCHIP allocations. Where will Florida taxpayer
dollars end up going? Residents of California, New York, Texas, New
Mexico, Arizona and New Jersey will be the biggest recipients of
Florida tax dollars. Yet, Florida has a higher rate of uninsured
children than several of these.
Florida voters will also be asked to foot part of the bill for a $1.2
billion earmark inserted into the 300-page bill at the last minute by
the powerful chairman of the committee for his home State of Michigan.
Madam Speaker, let's open up the legislative process and develop a
strong bipartisan bill. It is time to end the politics around this
issue and ensure that low-income children have access to this program.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Madam Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote to
override the President's veto of H.R. 976, which extends and expands
the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP.
We have a moral obligation to cover all our children so every child
in America can grow up healthy. It's the right thing to do; it's also
the cost-effective thing to do.
The great Minnesotan Hubert H. Humphrey once said that a key moral
test of government is how we treat those who are in the dawn of life,
the children. We must not flunk this moral test.
My home State of Minnesota started covering children through its
medical assistance program even before SCHIP was created, but we still
have far too many children without coverage--73,000 kids.
That's why I strongly support extending and expanding SCHIP. I also
hope we can work together to provide greater access to private
insurance coverage for America's children and other uninsured
Americans.
I urge my colleagues to support overriding the veto. We cannot afford
to wait any longer. It's time to break down the barriers to health care
for our kids. It's time to reauthorize SCHIP. It's time that all kids
have a chance to grow up healthy.
This legislation passed both the House and Senate with strong
bipartisan support, and it deserves to become law.
Let's put children's health first and do the right thing. Let's
override the veto of the SCHIP reauthorization and reduce the number of
uninsured children by at least 70 percent.
There is no better investment than to invest in the health and well-
being of America's children.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Speaker, since its inception in 1997, I
have been a steadfast proponent of SCHIP, known in Georgia as PeachCare
for Kids, and I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in
sustaining this successful program by voting to override the
President's veto.
Let me first say that, while my support of children's health care has
been unwavering, this is not a perfect bill. Like many of my
colleagues, some provisions in the bill concern me. But let us not let
``perfect'' be the enemy of the ``good.''
On health care, our country faces a tremendous challenge, and while
disagreement still impedes finding creative solutions to encourage
responsibility for health care to solve problems of access for adults,
it is our moral imperative to rise up and meet these challenges for our
Nation's children. Furthermore, as Members of this body, it is our
solemn duty to protect the youngest and most vulnerable among us. This
legislation presents us with such an opportunity.
It is disappointing to see the administration throwing up so many
roadblocks. Indeed, this administration has proven its willingness to
``rise up and meet'' other challenges. Beyond that, it has proven its
willingness to sign blank checks for a military operation with an ever-
changing, increasingly expensive mission. For the past 4\1/2\ and years
we have been engaged in an overseas conflict that has taken a large
toll on this country--in terms of both human life and taxpayer money.
While it is of utmost importance to ensure our troops continue to have
every dollar, dime, nickel, and penny they need to fight this war, we
must not neglect our domestic priorities.
The SCHIP reauthorization asks the administration to rise up and meet
the challenge of one of those domestic priorities. Plainly, the bill
asks for just 41 days worth of Iraq war funding to embark on a clearly-
defined, targeted, and morally justifiable mission--providing American
children from low-income families with comprehensive health care.
That's right--just 41 days worth of Iraq war funding would pay for
the entire SCHIP bill. Just one week of the Iraq war would pay for 1.7
million children. That's enough to cover all the children eligible for
SCHIP in Georgia, as well as several other States. One week of war
funding would do all that.
To my colleagues opposing this legislation, let me reiterate
something many know very well: the President, recently, asked for
compromise legislation.
This bill, in fact, represents a compromise, as evidenced by its
broad bi-partisan support. Forty-three of our Nation's Governors,
including Governor Sonny Perdue of Georgia, support this legislation,
as do 270 organizations representing millions of Americans, 68 Senators
and a majority of Congress.
I urge my colleagues to join the bi-partisan majority and vote in
favor of overriding the President's veto.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I will vote to override the President's
veto of H.R. 976. As the only former State schools chief serving in
Congress, my life's work has been to provide for a better future for
the next generation, and health care is critically important to that
effort. There is no doubt that the State Children's Health Insurance
Program, or SCHIP, has served this Nation well and must be reauthorized
and expanded. The Congressional Research Service reported this week
that, at current funding levels, 21 states would run out of SCHIP money
before the end of the current budget year, and funding for North
Carolina would only provide coverage for needy children through May
2008.
In North Carolina, over 250,000 children who would otherwise have
gone without insurance have been served by North Carolina's Health
Choice. The services they get through Health Choice--regular checkups
and preventative care, doctor and hospital visits when they are sick,
and ongoing dental and vision benefits--make sure that North Carolina's
children are as healthy and productive as possible and grow up to
fulfill their best potential. Untreated illnesses can have long-term
consequences, and ensuring access to health care, as SCHIP does in
North Carolina and across the country, allows children to remain
healthy and strong and head off expensive treatments down the road. As
a nation, we must follow through on the promise of SCHIP to protect our
most vulnerable citizens.
SCHIP is not government-run medical care as some have falsely
claimed. SCHIP is an effective initiative to extend health insurance to
working families who otherwise cannot afford to send their children to
the doctor when they are sick. In North Carolina, this has meant
providing a physician-directed managed care system modeled on health
insurance for children of state employees and teachers. North Carolina
has about the best child health programs of any state, providing
seamless cost-effective care for thousands of at-risk children, each
year reducing costs and becoming more effective at providing health
care.
The funding increase in H.R. 976 is necessary to address shortfalls
in the current SCHIP funding plan, and to allow states to reach more
eligible but uninsured children. The bill expands health care coverage
to 10 million children in America over the next five years. In North
Carolina the $35 billion in this legislation translates into 210,000
covered children, an increase of 90,000 children. Only kids aged 6-17
with families below 200 percent of the poverty level are covered by
SCHIP in North Carolina. Even if some of these children have had
private insurance for some of the time, their parents only were able to
afford it by cutting back on other necessities. We owe it to these
children to ensure
[[Page H11750]]
that they are continuously covered and can get the health care they
need when they need it. I wholeheartedly support the increased funding
and the guidelines for states in this legislation.
I have withheld my support for this bill in the past due to my
concerns about the bill's funding mechanism, and I continue to be
concerned about the impact of a tobacco tax increase on North
Carolina's rural communities. I am working with the leadership of the
House of Representatives to craft an effective disaster relief package
that will assist North Carolina's farmers and help to counter any
negative impact. As the Chairman of a key Agriculture Subcommittee, I
will continue to work to address the needs of farm country, including
finishing the Farm Bill with a real safety net for farm families and
pursuing disaster relief for drought-stricken regions like North
Carolina. Should the veto override fail, I will continue to urge the
Congressional leadership to write a new bill that funds SCHIP without
placing the burden of funding on the backs of North Carolinians.
After careful consideration, I will vote to override the President's
veto, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the children of
America's working families.
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, for the last two weeks the Democrats have
continued their political games. They have failed to correct the
inherent flaws in this legislation and at a closer section by section
look it is clear this legislation contains numerous errors.
Section 101: provides an appropriation of $9 billion in 2008, 25
percent more than governors of both parties have told CMS would be
necessary to fully fund SCHIP next year.
Section 211: provides a new citizenship documentation option, but
what this new provision does is completely erase the stricter
citizenship requirements enacted in the Deficit Reduction Act. The
Social Security Administration states that this provision will not
guarantee that applicants who use false Social Security Numbers will be
identified thus clearly opening the door for millions of illegal aliens
becoming enrolled.
I hope the other side stops using these children as political pawns
and crafts sound legislation that does not throw away tax dollars for
votes.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of overriding
the President's veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2007.
I was deeply disappointed that the President exercised his veto pen
on a bicameral and bipartisan bill. Not so long ago, the President
pledged to expand coverage of CHIP to include eligible children who are
not yet enrolled in the program. In his September 2004 speech to the
Republican National Convention, the President stated--and I am quoting
here, ``We will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor
children who are eligible but not signed up for the government's health
insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention, of
information, to stand between these children and the health care they
need.'' With this veto, the President has reversed course and turned
his back on America's children.
The CHIP Reauthorization Act would reauthorize and improve the very
successful Children's Health Insurance Program for 5 years. This
bipartisan bill would preserve coverage for the six million children
currently enrolled who otherwise would have access to health insurance
while extending coverage to 3.8 million children who are already
eligible, but not enrolled in the program. The bill also includes
guaranteed dental coverage and mental health parity in the CHIP
program. By reauthorizing this very important program, we will
strengthen CHIP by improving the quality of health care children
receive and at the same time increase health insurance coverage to one
of the most vulnerable segments of our society.
This legislation is paid for. It increases the tobacco tax by 61
cents to a total of one dollar. Increasing the tobacco tax will save
billions in health costs and is one of the most effective ways to
reduce tobacco use, especially among young children. In short, raising
the tobacco tax will prevent thousands of children from starting to
smoke and the proceeds of the tax will be used to provide health
coverage for children. That is a win-win result.
Madam Speaker, we should do the right and moral thing and override
this veto. I strongly urge my House colleagues to override the
President's veto on this bipartisan legislation.
Mr. EVERETT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to
this attempt to override the President's veto of the Children's Health
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (H.R. 976). This bill expands a
good program far beyond its original intent, and opens the door to
government controlled healthcare. The SCHIP program was created 10
years ago under a Republican led Congress to fill a gap of uninsured,
low-income children whose families fell into a salary bracket too high
to receive funds under Medicaid. This bill, however, takes this money
and gives it to adults, illegal immigrants, and children whose parents
are currently making up to $82,000 a year. This bill would encourage
more and more children to move from private health care to health care
coverage from the Federal government. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, as many as two million children would make this shift.
The Liberal spin machine has tried to frame the veto as ``anti-
children'', while denying the American people the facts. This bill
would cost the American people $60 billion over 5 years. This is a $35
billion increase over the current program, and is $30 billion more than
the President said he would support. Even the funding sources of this
bill have been hidden from the general public. This bill would add a 61
cent tax to every pack of cigarettes, which the Democrats claim will
curb smoking among children. This line of thought, however, is
intrinsically flawed by the fact that 22 million new smokers will be
required to pay for the cost of this bill. How can anyone be anti
smoking when they need the very revenue it creates to pay for the
healthcare of children? In addition, in 2012, the funding for this
program will all but disappear. After a 5-year campaign of signing up
as many middle-class children, adults and illegal immigrants as
possible, program funds will be cut by 80 percent. This will cause
millions of children to be dropped from their healthcare programs, or
require an even more extensive funding expansion and burden on the
taxpayers.
While supporters of H.R. 976 claim the bill does not allow Federal
payments for illegal residents, it severely weakens Federal law to
leave those individuals a gaping loophole. Existing law requires
documentation proving one's citizenship in order to be covered under
Medicaid and SCHIP, however, this bill would merely require a name and
social security number. According to Social Security Administration
Commissioner Michael Astrue, a Social Security number would not keep
someone from fraudulently receiving coverage under Medicaid of SCHIP if
they claimed they were someone that they were not.
Two weeks after the President vetoed the bill the Democrat Leadership
has decided to play politics and gamble on the health of these children
before having this override vote. This stalling tactic has done nothing
but shorten the time we have until this program expires. I am proud to
sustain the President's veto and I sincerely hope that my friends on
the other side of the aisle care about these children enough to create
a bill that everyone can stand behind, as it was when the program first
began. I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to override the President's
veto.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the
President's veto. It is important for the American people to understand
that this debate is not about whether or not to reauthorize the
Children's Health Insurance Program, but how we reauthorize it. This
bill completely misses the mark. It is a massive expansion of a
government-run program that takes resources away from the very children
it was meant to help.
In this country there are millions of low-income uninsured children
who are currently eligible for government help, but are not enrolled. I
firmly believe it is our responsibility to cover the neediest of
America's kids first.
The bill the President vetoed did just the opposite.
The Democrats' bill diverts money away from those who need it the
most in order to cover kids who already have private health insurance.
One in every three kids covered under this bill already has private
health insurance coverage. Because the Democrats care more about how
much they can expand taxpayer funded entitlement programs rather than
helping those who actually need help, I will vote to sustain the
President's veto.
Out of respect to the American taxpayer and the uninsured kids who
need our help--Congress can and should pass a more fiscally sound bill
that puts the poorest kids first.
Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of reauthorizing a
program that has proven to be crucial to the lives of children across
the Nation. The State Children's Health Insurance Program--or SCHIP, as
it is known--provides access to health care for 6.6 million children.
Through bipartisan efforts, Congress is trying to expand eligibility to
nearly 4 million additional underserved and uninsured kids, but the
President a few weeks ago decided to ignore the will of the people and
veto the bill to renew this popular, worthy and socially responsible
program.
I can't overstate how extraordinarily troubling this veto is. Rather
than spending the $3.50 a day it would cost to provide health insurance
for these children, the President instead has cynically claimed the
mantle of fiscal responsibility. Had he not already presided over the
largest increase in government spending since the New Deal, this claim
might not ring as hollow as it sounds. Let's be clear: the President
has chosen insurers and tobacco companies over the well-being of more
than 10 million children and their families.
This is the wrong issue and the wrong time to pander to business
interests.
[[Page H11751]]
Madam Speaker, it is unconscionable that American families must
choose between buying a warm coat for the winter and having their
children immunized. No American families should have to choose between
putting food on the table and getting a life-saving operation for their
son or daughter.
We go back to our respective districts and meet the people who are
forced to make these sorts of decisions on a daily basis. We feel and
see the utter insanity of vetoing $3.50 a day for health coverage for
our neediest children. As members of the House of Representatives, we
speak directly for the American people and we come to the floor to vote
with their hopes and wishes foremost in our minds.
Each day that we fail to provide basic health care to kids, is a day
we have failed as leaders.
Congress is The People's House, and we have a duty to represent the
needs of the American people, not of multi-billion dollar international
insurance companies. This administration has sided with big business
too many times and at too heavy a cost to the little guy.
Republican President Calvin Coolidge once said, ``The business of
America is business,'' and it seems that the current President agrees
with him. I say that this Congress' business is the people's business.
I urge my colleagues to override the President's veto and allow an
entire generation of America's children to grow up healthy.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, the day is finally here. Today, the
American people will see what this body is really made of and where
members stand on the issue of children's healthcare. Is this body
willing to stand up to the President and override his veto? Or are my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle going to fold like a house of
cards and follow this President right off a cliff?
The choice is easy--you are either for healthcare for 10 million
children or you are not. You can equivocate all you want and come up
with an excuse that is politically expedient, but when it comes down to
it, there is no way to hide from your vote.
When that voting board lights up this afternoon, we will know and
remember those who let 10 million children and their families down. The
President and most of the Republicans in Congress will tell you that we
can't afford this bill, but don't let them fool you. This bill is fully
paid for, unlike the half a trillion dollars that we have already spent
in Iraq.
And keep in mind, the members that vote against this bill today are
going to turn right around and vote for $190 billion more dollars for
the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, it's the children that end up with the
short end of the stick. The children the President is refusing to
insure today are the same ones that will be forced to foot the bill for
the war in Iraq tomorrow.
But you have a chance to make things right today, to set the record
straight. You can show your constituents and this country that you care
about the millions of uninsured American children more than continuing
this disastrous war.
Please, don't let these children down. They need your vote. Vote to
override this misguided veto.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the
vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 976, the Children's
Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. While the bill vetoed by
President Bush was a watered down version of the bill passed by the
House, it was at least a step in the right direction.
The SCHIP bill that Congress sent to the President was a bipartisan
effort that renews and improves the Children's Health Insurance
program, providing health care coverage for 10 million children. This
bill preserves coverage for the 6 million children currently covered by
SCHIP and expands coverage to nearly 4 million more uninsured children.
Madam Speaker, two-thirds of Americas' uninsured children are
currently eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid but are not enrolled for
various reasons. This bill gives states the resources and incentives to
enroll, those children.
The President's budget proposal would have increased SCHIP by $5
billion over the next 5 years. This increase fails to cover the costs
of simply maintaining the current SCHIP enrollment of 6 million
children. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, over
the next 5 years, the President's budget would result in over 1 million
children losing their SCHIP coverage.
Madam Speaker, the SCHIP reauthorization is supposed to be a bill to
expand coverage, not reduce it. I urge my colleagues to support this
bill.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the vote to
override the President's veto of SCHIP. I do so because the President's
objections to government health insurance for low income children are
outrageous.
That said, I still believe, the bill's failure to provide coverage
for legal immigrants is reprehensible. All children deserve health care
coverage. Health care is a right, not a privilege. The denial of a
lifesaving service based on an arbitrary length of citizenship is
simply wrong.
It is the responsibility of Congress to address the main difficulties
that prevent legal immigrant children from gaining access to health
care. This bill does exactly the opposite. Thus I felt compelled to
vote against the bill after the Senate negotiators refused to provide
health benefits to legal immigrant children. Negotiating away health
care for 400,000-600,000 children as a political compromise is not
acceptable.
The President has vetoed the bill because he calls it a step toward
socialized medicine. This perennial straw-man is trotted out when
meritorious arguments are lacking. In fact, SCHIP uses private doctors
and private health care plans. More importantly, however, the President
is fond of ignoring the volumes of literature showing that government-
run health insurance programs that use private hospitals and doctors
like Medicare and Medicaid, deliver higher quality care at lower costs
with higher rates of satisfaction than private insurance plans.
According to a 2007 article in the journal, Health Affairs,
administrative costs of private plans were about twice as much as those
for Medicaid. Medicare's overhead costs are approximately 3 percent
while those of the private sector are closer to 31 percent.
That is one of the main reasons that H.R. 676, the Expanded and
Improved Medicare for All Act, is the best cure for our health care
ills. It captures the enormous savings to be had if Americans had
health care provided through Medicare and uses them to cover everyone
for all medically necessary services with no copayments, no deductibles
and now premiums. That is how wasteful private insurance is. Providing
cheaper coverage through the private sector simply leaves Americans
with dangerously weak coverage. About 50 percent of all bankruptcies in
the U.S. are related to medical bills. Of those with medically related
bankruptcies, about 75 percent had insurance before they got sick.
Their so-called ``coverage'' did not cover them. They were, in fact,
underinsured. The President chose to ignore this crisis by vetoing a
bill that would have not only covered uninsured children but provided
better coverage for many who are one illness away from losing their
money and their home.
The provisions in the bill would make substantial and crucial
progress in providing health care for all American children. It would
provide coverage for 3.8 million more children than are covered now and
preserve coverage for 6.6 million more. It would help ensure Ohio can
expand its program to include an additional 20,000 children. It targets
the lowest-income uninsured children for outreach and enrollment,
ensures dental coverage and mental health parity.
The President was fundamentally wrong to veto the SCHIP bill. He
needs to understand the economic and moral realities behind SCHIP. I
cast my vote to express that.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I will vote to override the
Presidents veto of this urgently needed legislation.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said ``of all the forms of inequality,
injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' H.R. 976
does not end health care inequality, but it would have provided
continued coverage for children not covered by Medicare but whose
parents cannot afford to buy insurance and whose employers do not
provide it.
These children--currently 6 million of them--are now eligible for
coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)--but that
program is set to expire and the President should have accepted this
compromise legislation. Because the President does not accept this bi-
partisan compromise bill, these 6 million will no longer have access to
quality, affordable health insurance.
This legislation would assure continued coverage for those now
enrolled and would provide coverage for an additional 4 million
children who currently qualify, but who are not yet enrolled under
CHIP.
I believe that health care should be a right, not a privilege, and
this act is a step in the right direction toward that goal. So, I
support this bill although I wish it went further.
Despite claims by some, this bill does not change the basic nature of
the CHIP program. Instead, it maintains current eligibility
requirements for CHIP. The majority of uninsured children are currently
eligible for coverage--but better outreach and adequate funding are
needed to identify and enroll them. This bill gives states the tools
and incentives necessary to reach millions of uninsured children who
are eligible for, but not enrolled in, the program.
Earlier this year, I voted for the ``CHAMP'' bill to extend CHIP. The
House of Representatives passed that bill, and I had hoped the Senate
would follow suit. It would have increased funding for the CHIP program
to $50 million, instead of the lesser amount provided
[[Page H11752]]
by this bill. The CHAMP bill would have also addressed major health
care issues, first by protecting traditional Medicare and second by
addressing the catastrophic 10 percent payment cuts to physicians who
serve Medicare patients.
However, the bill vetoed by the President represents a compromise
between the House and the Senate and deserves support today. It will
pay for continued CHIP coverage by raising the federal tax by $0.61 per
pack of cigarettes and similar amounts on other tobacco products.
According to the American Cancer society, this means that youth smoking
will be reduced by 7 percent while overall smoking will be reduced by 4
percent, with the potential that 900,000 lives will be saved.
H.R. 976 has the support of the American Medical Association,
American Association of Retired Persons, Catholic Health Association,
Healthcare Leadership Council, National Associations of Children's
Hospitals, American Nurses Association, US Conference of Mayors, NAACP,
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, and United Way of
America.
It is imperative that we vote to override this veto in order to
protect those that are most vulnerable in our society by increasing
health insurance coverage for low-income children. I hope that we have
the opportunity to take up the other important Medicare issues
addressed in the CHAMP bill soon.
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this effort to
override the President's veto of H.R. 976, the Children's Health
Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization bill.
Virtually everyone with a stake in public health and health care is
calling for this bill to be passed. There are 270 groups supporting
this bill: 43 Republican and Democratic governors, including Governor
Schwarzenegger, the American Medical Association, AARP, America's
Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the Healthcare Leadership Council, and
Catholic Charities, among others.
There are at least 10 million reasons to insure the children of our
Nation because 10 million children don't have healthcare coverage
today.
The bill provides dental care, mental health benefits, and other
medically necessary benefits that are part of the program.
The bill provides coverage to expectant mothers.
The bill allows States to provide assistance for CHIP-eligible kids
to secure private insurance through a parent's employer-sponsored
coverage.
The bill is fully funded by a 61-cent per pack increase in the tax on
cigarettes.
The opponents of this bill are hiding behind the thinnest arguments.
They say there are only 500,000 uninsured kids who are eligible for
CHIP that we need to enroll. This is incorrect. According to the Urban
Institute, there are more than 6.6 million low-income children who
qualify for CHIP but are yet to be enrolled. This bill provides States
with the resources and incentives to ensure these kids get the coverage
they're eligible for.
The President says the program will cover children in families with
incomes of up to $83,000 a year. Senator Grassley, the Ranking
Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, disputes this charge,
saying ``the president has been served wrong information about what our
bill will do.'' In fact, the bill provides incentives for States to
enroll children below 200% of poverty and any State that chooses to
provide more generous coverage must get approval from the
Administration.
Opponents assert that the bill increases taxes on ``working people.''
The truth is it increases taxes on smokers. Not only does this help pay
for the program, but according to the Institute of Medicine, by
increasing the tobacco tax, there will be a decrease in tobacco use,
particularly among young people.
Opponents assert the bill will cover adults not children. Although
the program has been used to cover adults in the past, this practice
will be phased out over the next two years.
Opponents assert that the bill gives coverage to undocumented aliens.
There is nothing in the bill that would provide such coverage. In fact,
the bill says, ``nothing in this act allows federal payment for
individuals who are not legal residents.''
The moment has arrived for the House of Representatives to override
the President's veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program, and
when we do, we will stand next to the children and on the side of a
brighter future for them and our entire country.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, this is the choice we have to make
today. We stand up for our children and their future or we stand down
with the President and tobacco companies. Good health or no health for
millions of poor and disadvantaged children across America--that is
what's at stake today.
The President will spend $50 billion in 5 months on a war in Iraq,
but he won't spend $35 billion over 5 years on poor and vulnerable
kids. We pay for SCRIP but we will keep paying for the war for decades
to come. We take care of our children while the President passes his
war costs on to our children, and grandchildren.
We can vote to provide access to quality, affordable health care for
our Nation's children by voting to override this veto, or we can vote
to sit back and watch the economic security of our working families
erode day by day, as this Administration has done.
The President said he is using his veto pen on SCRIP to show he is
relevant, but with the stroke of a pen he has merely shown he is
irresponsible with the health and welfare of America's future.
Let's set a good example for our children and support a bipartisan,
fiscally responsible, health care bill that will get us one step closer
to universal coverage for all Americans.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, in Massachusetts, we have begun to
address the crisis of the uninsured. We believe health care is a right,
not a privilege for the wealthy.
The president's veto of the bipartisan SCHIP compromise abandons 11
million children, including 90,500 Massachusetts children. That is
unacceptable.
I wish President Bush would take the time to meet hardworking
families like the O'Neils of Fall River. They were just blessed with
their first child, Sean. Dad works several jobs while his wife recovers
her health.
But the cost of all those doctors' visits and immunizations add up.
Thanks to SCHIP, Sean is a happy, healthy baby.
But thanks to the President's veto, my proactive State exhausted its
SCHIP allotment on October 1. Even with the extension, all of its funds
will be gone by January 11.
To justify his position, the President has decided to distort what
this good bill actually does. It doesn't cover well-off families. It
doesn't cover illegal immigrants. What it does do is give a hand to
millions of families who are struggling to provide health care for
their kids.
I simply don't understand the President's priorities. He's more than
happy to sign bills giving billions of tax breaks to oil companies and
multi-millionaires, but he won't sign a modest, fully-paid-for bill
that helps millions of low-income children? He's willing to spend
hundreds of billions of dollars--none of it paid for--in Iraq but is
unwilling to sign a bill that is paid for and will keep children from
losing their health care?
That makes no sense to me.
This bill has the support of the medical community, children's
advocates, and even the insurance industry. There is simply no reason
for the President to reject it, other than partisan politics.
I will continue to fight for this important program, and I urge all
of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to do the same.
Mr. ORTIZ. Madam Speaker, this is a defining moment for the state of
health care in this Nation . . . a defining moment for this Congress .
. . and a moment when the country will watch this government take
sides.
The State Children's Health Insurance bill is one of the best pieces
of bipartisan legislation the House has considered in a decade. It lays
bare the most significant difference between what this Congress
supports and what the President--and those who stand with him in
support of his veto--supports.
Supporters of SCHIP stand with working families and children . . .
opponents here in Congress--and the President--stand with insurance
companies. The President's veto cut off health care for over 120,000
kids in Texas.
There's just no lipstick to pretty up this pig. The President's veto
was downright mean. He leaves a legacy of a war he won't pay for and
children he won't give health care to. Being for war and against kids
is an awful record and a horrible legacy.
Those who stand with the President today in sustaining his veto of
this bipartisan bill will bear the ridicule of that record the next
time they face the voters.
Those who do an unpopular thing--knowing it is the right thing to
do--are rewarded by history. History will accurately note that those
supporting the President in this veto are doing the bidding of the
health insurance companies, at the expense of our children. Those
supporting the President's veto are doing the wrong thing for the wrong
reasons.
Congress created SCHIP in 1997 with broad bipartisan support. This
year, 6 million children have health care because of SCHIP. The program
has worked well in Texas. This has been an excellent investment for our
nation, given that health care costs without insurance would be much
more expensive.
The President highlighted his support for SCHIP while running for re-
election in 2004. Today he--and those who stand with him in sustaining
this veto--show their true colors: say one thing in political
campaigns, do another when the moment comes to record your vote . . .
when the rubber hits the road.
I urge my colleagues to override this veto. We are the last hope of
children and families all over this country. They are watching us--all
of us.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, today the House of Representatives has
an historic
[[Page H11753]]
opportunity to provide health insurance for 10 million children from
low-income families. In fact, when the House takes up a motion to
override the President's veto on the State Children's Health Insurance
Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act, it will be the second time in as
many months that Congress votes to provide low-income, working families
with health insurance for their children.
This legislation, passed by Congress in September, is an essential
step in providing better access to healthcare for the 47 million
uninsured individuals in this country, 5 million of whom are children.
One could argue that the state of Texas, which has the highest
percentage of uninsured individuals of any state in the Nation, needs
this bill the most. Texas is home to a staggering 1.4 million children
who lack even the most basic health insurance.
The CHIP Reauthorization that President Bush vetoed provides health
insurance for 10 million underprivileged American children. The bill
adds $35 billion for the CHIP program over the next 5 years. It
maintains coverage for the 6 million children who are already enrolled,
and allows for an additional 3.8 million who are already eligible for
the program to start receiving benefits.
Instead of supporting this modest expansion, President Bush wants to
increase funding for CHIP by a mere $5 billion over the next 5 years.
Such a proposal would not allow for any new eligible, uninsured
children to enroll in the program. In fact, according to the non-
partisan Congressional Budget Office, President Bush's proposal would
result in 840,000 children losing their CHIP coverage.
We cannot in good conscience enact a program that will push children
from the CHIP rolls. I will stand behind the Congressionally-passed
CHIP authorization and hope that my colleagues in the House of
Representatives join me and override the President's veto today.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, it's disappointing that the
Administration and many Republicans can't get their priorities in order
and support an expansion of SCHIP. The Administration's veto of H.R.
976, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act, shows just how
far its priorities are from the rest of this country.
The Administration said it's too expensive. Yet the Administration
has had no trouble spending half-a-trillion dollars on the occupation
of Iraq. The Administration's priorities are clear: Unlimited money for
occupation, no money for kids. Currently, we're spending about $14
million dollars per hour on the occupation. That means we could provide
medical, dental, and mental health care to more than 10,000 low-income
children for the cost of just one single hour in Iraq.
This bill was an opportunity for us to stand up and say that 10
million of our Nation's children deserve health coverage and access to
dental and mental health services. In California, that would have
provided 607,000 additional children with health insurance. By vetoing
this bill, the Administration has turned its back on these children.
Additionally, the Administration has abandoned its promise to our
Nation's military service members and their families. This legislation
amends the Family and Medical Leave Act, the landmark workplace
protection legislation passed 14 years ago, to provide the spouse,
child, parent, and next of kin of an injured service member with six
months of unpaid, job protected leave to care for their wounded loved
one. This language is identical to the bipartisan bill, H.R. 3481, the
Support for Injured Servicemembers Act, which Chairman George Miller
and I have championed in the House and Senators Christopher Dodd and
Hillary Rodham Clinton have fought for in the Senate. We have a moral
obligation to honor our military families, who should never have to
choose between keeping their jobs and support and meeting the needs of
their loved ones. As the Chairwoman of the Workforce Protections
Subcommittee, I believe we can no longer afford to deny these dedicated
men and women the urgently needed protections included in this bill.
Children are 25 percent of our population but 100 percent of our
future. I look forward to working with my fellow Members to continue to
protect the health and well-being of our Nation's most valuable
resource: its children.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, despite all the rhetoric
about the State Children's Health Insurance Program which was created
by Republicans, the fact remains that we all want low-income children
to have access to health care. The only difference is that Republicans
have stood by the principle of covering poor children first and not
covering adults, illegal aliens, and those already covered by private
insurance.
The President's SCHIP proposal provides an increase of $5 billion to
cover those who are currently enrolled and the 500,000 children
eligible but not yet covered. The billions more in spending that the
Democrats are requesting will use taxpayer dollars to provide health
care for individuals SCHIP was never meant to cover. Additionally, the
Democrat proposal pulls the rug out from underneath these children when
funding to the program is drastically cut in 2012.
When you take the Democrat legislation at face value and look past
the political rhetoric and the demagoguery, the Republican proposal to
promote SCHIP is best for families and children.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September 11.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the
contrary notwithstanding?
Under the Constitution, the vote must be by the yeas and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 273,
nays 156, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 982]
YEAS--273
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
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
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--156
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
[[Page H11754]]
Duncan
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
NOT VOTING--4
Carson
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
King (NY)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). The Chair will remind all
persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or
other audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
{time} 1317
So (two-thirds not being in the affirmative) the veto of the
President was sustained and the bill was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, due to the sudden circumstances
regarding my mother's health, I will not be present during today's
rollcall vote on the override of the Presidential veto of the
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (H.R. 976). If
I were present, I would vote ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The veto message and the
bill will be referred to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways
and Means.
The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.
____________________