[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 158 (Thursday, October 18, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11769-H11773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SCHIP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mitchell). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the privilege to address
you here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.
There have been a number of times that I have come down here to
convey a message to you and the American people. And after having
listened to the gentleman from Florida and his 30-Something colleagues,
my material has just gotten so massive, I'm not sure I can rebut all
that in the time that I have, let alone convey the message that I came
here to convey, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, there seems to be great confusion on the Democrat side
of the aisle about the difference between health insurance and health
care. They seem to believe, or at least would like to have the American
people believe, that kids in America are being denied health care.
This debate about SCHIP has never been about health care. I would
draw this comparison: You will hear often in the debates in this
country about people are pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant. And when I
say that, Mr. Speaker, people draw up an image about being pro-
immigrant and anti-immigrant. Some people think illegal immigrants;
some people think, appropriately, legal immigrants. When we say
``immigrant,'' we should imply legal immigrant, and when we talk about
illegal immigrants, we should say so.
The same goes with health care and health insurance. To interchange
the terms and, I think, willfully inform the
[[Page H11770]]
American people that this debate is about health care and to stand on
the floor of the United States Congress and convey a message, Mr.
Speaker, to the American people that there are kids in America that are
not getting health care is not an accurate statement. And the gentleman
from Florida, if he would examine his words and the meanings of the
language, would know it's not an accurate statement.
This is a debate about how many Federal dollars we are going to
extract from hardworking Americans to put into federally subsidized
health insurance, hopefully for kids. That's what SCHIP is about. But
it is not even about all kids, because today, under the current
program, the program that was drafted up in 1997 and became law in
1998, was created by a Republican Congress, and it was created in the
immediate aftermath of welfare reform.
Remember welfare-to-work? We had generations of people that had
become so dependent on welfare that they forgot about working. We
needed to move them off of welfare, and we called it ``workfare'' part
of the time.
We also recognized that people that were low income, the working
poor, when you would take them off of welfare, they didn't have enough
funds to fund the health insurance for their children, so we created
the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That's SCHIP. It's 10
years old now today and we are talking about reauthorizing it. That is
federally funded health insurance premiums for kids.
But this program, even under the current law, has morphed into a
program that if you go up to Minnesota and take a look, 87 percent of
the recipients of SCHIP are adults. And most of those adults are not
parents; they are single adults. And if you go to Wisconsin, 66 percent
of those who are on SCHIP are adults. They have changed this program
and they have morphed it away from being a program that was about
health insurance premium subsidy for kids. That's a discussion they
can't name.
And I challenge anyone over here, stand up now, I will yield to you.
Name one kid in America that doesn't have access to health care, one
health care provider that slammed their door in the face of a kid in
America or anyone in America because they didn't have health insurance.
No. We take care of everyone's health care needs in America. That is
not the crisis. If it was, you can bet the Pelosi side of the aisle
would have marched them down here and maybe brought them up into the
well for a photo op. But that population of this country doesn't exist.
Everyone in America has access to health care, legal or illegal, for
that matter.
{time} 1600
And every child especially has access to health care.
Now, we would prefer that they all have health insurance because we
believe that those who have health insurance do a better job of going
for their regular check-ups, and the medical providers will track their
cases and be able to monitor them and be able to get early warning
signs of chronic diseases or illnesses, and be able to maintain their
health in a far more effective fashion for two reasons.
One is it improves the quality of life for the children in this
country, and the other is it saves money. That's why we established the
SCHIP program in the first place. But it wasn't designed to take hard-
earned taxpayer dollars and put them into the pockets of people who
could afford health insurance for their own children; and especially it
wasn't designed to be able to put the Federal incentive in place to
push kids off, to talk kids off, to put an incentive so that their
parents made a decision or their employer made a decision not to insure
them when they were already insuring them.
And yet if you look at the numbers, the Congressional Budget Office,
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that the gentleman from
Florida would have to acknowledge gives us the most objective number we
have, says that under this proposal that the President appropriately
vetoed and that this Congress refused to override would take 2 million
kids today that are funded with private health insurance and push them
off of that onto the government roll.
Now, why would we want to do that? What would be our incentive? If
nobody's going without health care, if we have kids that don't have
health insurance that are getting health care, why would we create a
program or why would we grow a program that's going to take 2 million
kids off of the private rolls and put them on the government? You have
to be somebody that believes in socialized medicine to advocate for
such a thing.
And when Republicans bring a policy that recruits more of the
uninsured to go on the rolls at 200 percent of poverty and below, where
I have voted and consistently supported this program and voted to
appropriate funds to this program, both as a State senator and as a
Member of Congress, 200 percent of poverty, I can take you to where it
is in my State today, that's an example I know to be fact, we can
always discuss what's fact and what isn't, but in my State today a
family of four, that's mom and dad and two kids, qualifies for SCHIP,
that in Iowa we call it Hawk-I, premium subsidy if they're making less
than $51,625 a year, Mr. Speaker. Now, that's probably a little above
what's middle income for a family of four in the State of Iowa.
And so if we've already gone above the line of where the median is,
this Pelosi Congress passed this SCHIP legislation, not over here at
300 percent of poverty, passed it over here at 400 percent of poverty,
Mr. Speaker. That was the vision of the San Francisco values that have
been brought here to the gavel in the chair where you're seated right
now, 400 percent of poverty. Now, was there a clamor from the public
that we should take their tax dollars and subsidize health insurance
premiums for already insured kids that families were making over
$103,000 a year? I didn't have a single letter that said so. I got a
few that said, I think we ought to have socialized medicine. I think
the Canadian plan is pretty good, the British plan is pretty good. The
European model is all right.
They disregard the long lines and the poor care. They disregard the
fact that when you go to socialized medicine you have companies created
in Canada for the purpose of facilitating access to American health
care systems, companies that have sprung up because the Canadian is
barred from having any special pass to go in front of the line; they
all have to get to the back of the line. And so people don't always
live long enough to get to their health care provider in places like
Canada. That's what I want to avoid.
And the companies in Canada that are created will set up this package
and it will be, well, if you need a hip replacement, here's how we will
do this. We will set it up so you can go to a clinic for a check-up,
and we'll fly you down to whatever city it might be, let's pick one,
let's say Minneapolis, and there we will give you a hotel room, or
let's go to the Mayo Clinic, that's even better, in Rochester. We'll
fly you down there. Here's the package; here's your hotel room; here's
what it's going to cost you to go to the clinic; here's the surgeon,
here's the anesthesiologist; here's the whole package.
Now you figure out you can write the check to take the weekend tour
to go down to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester and get your new hip
replacement and go back to Canada, because they can't get access to
health care there because they have socialized medicine. That's what
this debate is about, Mr. Speaker. It's about laying the cornerstone
for socialized medicine in the United States of America.
Here we are in a country where every kid, every person, every adult,
legal or illegal, has access to health care, and we would like to
increase the numbers of insured. But a Nation that has the highest
quality health care in the world, one who is the most innovative of all
nations in the world, the ones that has produced more new
pharmaceuticals, more new surgical techniques, more new medical
technology than any other nation, however you want to measure it, as a
percentage of our GDP, as a percent of our population, measure it just
as the sum total of the contribution to health care in the world, this
country's medical practitioners and providers are the ones that have
done that.
And this cornerstone to socialized medicine that is attempted to be
laid here by this Pelosi Congress undermines that innovativeness, that
service, that quality that we have. And
[[Page H11771]]
that's why 150-some of us voted ``no'' on overriding the President's
veto. That's why the President vetoed it, because your health care,
Americans, is more important than the political demagoguery that's
going on here on the floor of the United States Congress.
The confusion between health care and health insurance, this debate
is about health insurance, it's about us on the Republican side wanting
to increase the percentage of covered kids under SCHIP under the 200
percent of poverty here, those that are not covered now that can be and
still qualify, and us, as Republicans on this side, wanting to roll
down the numbers of adults that have found their way into this system
to be 87 percent of the recipients in Minnesota, 66 percent in
Wisconsin, and a dozen or so other States that have crossed this line.
That's a standard that we're for, and it's something that they are
opposed to. They won't speak up to the real issue that's here, Mr.
Speaker, but this isn't about health care. It's about Federal subsidy
of health insurance; it's about taking dollars out of people's pockets.
And so at this level over here, Mr. Speaker, I will submit that it
works this way: we have this thing called the alternative minimum tax,
which was created to tax the wealthy. They weren't paying enough tax,
so Congress created a new tax, the alternative minimum tax. And under
this SCHIP proposal there will be, the one that passed Congress the
first time, that's over here, 70,000 families in America would qualify
for SCHIP subsidy, Federal taxpayer funding, and still have to pay the
alternative minimum tax, the tax on the wealthy, at the same time
they're being subsidized and they can't afford the health insurance for
their kids.
Now, figure that out. Think about how the circle has crossed. One
circle over here is those that are so poor they need help, and the
other circle over here is those that are making so much money we've got
to give them an extra tax. But when you cross those two circles
together, Mr. Speaker, and where they cross, that crescent in the
middle, is 70,000 families, 70,000 families paying the alternative
minimum tax and qualifying for Federal benefits for health insurance. I
think that tells you that the loop for socialized medicine would be
closed with this, and that's another reason the President vetoed it.
Another subject matter that was brought up by the gentleman from
Florida is this subject of the billions of dollars that are spent on
the global war on terror, and of course he would focus it on Iraq,
which is a battle ground in the global war on terror, billions of
dollars. And the argument is we can spend billions of dollars on the
war, but we can't spend $35 billion subsidizing health insurance for
middle-income and upper-income children of those parents that are
middle- and upper-income.
Now, think about this: How cynical would you have to be to draw a
diabolical argument that here we spend money over here on the war, if
we've got enough money for the war, we surely have enough money for
health insurance for these kids? I mean, if that's the case, if the
gentleman from Florida is drawing a legitimate comparison, then you
have to look at the resources over there for our soldiers, sailors,
airmen and marines and say, well, I'm sorry, we're going to have to
take $35 billion out of your resources and put them over here to
subsidize health insurance for these kids, these kids that are getting
health care, by the way.
So how many fewer bullets, how many fewer bullet-proof vests, how
many MREs, how much tank fuel or aircraft fuel, how many repair parts
for a Blackhawk helicopter, how much surveillance equipment out there
we would have to sacrifice to take away from those soldiers to fund
this Pelosi plan for SCHIP? That's the other side of the argument.
So if they're sincere, and I have heard Member after Member, Democrat
after Democrat, come to this floor and go to the media and send out
press releases that we're spending money on the war, we ought to be
able to spend the money on the kids, well, if this is a zero sum game,
then how many bullet-proof vests do they want to take away from our
soldiers? How many Humvees? How much armor protection personnel? How
much training, how much communication, how much human intelligence
would we be willing to take away and how much risk would we be willing
to put our soldiers through so that we could justify this program?
I think when they're confronted with the reality of that argument,
they would have to confess that they would never allow an amendment on
the floor that would cause them to have to put up a vote and go on
record to make that decision. But they will ask you to believe that
somehow, that because we spend money on war, that gives justification
to create a socialized medicine program here. We know what the agenda
is: it is socialized medicine.
And then I would argue, also, that to lay this thing out clearly, I'm
going to go down through these, if I can, Mr. Speaker. This is a bit of
a surprise package, I'm not sure what's underneath here, but we'll go
with what we have, and that is, how do we fund this SCHIP according to
the Pelosi plan?
Well, we're doing it with an increase on tax on cigarettes. Right
now, the Federal tax is 39 cents a pack. This bill that the President
vetoed, that this Congress refused to override, adds 61 cents a pack to
cigarettes. So now the Federal tax will be $1 a pack. The States can do
whatever they want. The idea is if you raise the price of cigarettes,
people will smoke less. Well, that's kind of a good thing, I would
think, Mr. Speaker.
But if we're going to fund this SCHIP program, these $35 billion
worth of increases, then over this period of time, as we see here in
this chart that is laid out, it takes it out to 22.4 million new
smokers have to be recruited in order to fund this expansion of this
socialized medicine program of laying the cornerstone by SCHIP; 22.4
million new smokers. Now, that runs directly against the belief, and
probably to some degree of fact, that the more it costs, the less
people will smoke. So we add $1 a pack, and now we have to still raise,
and even though the price goes up by a 156 percent increase, we still
have to recruit 22.4 million new smokers. Now, I don't want to be
involved in that, Mr. Speaker. I don't want that on my conscience. I
don't want to have to bring Joe Camel back and run him through the
schools so we can get new smokers to fund insurance for these kids.
And another thing I would add is that, if this is about the kids,
every dollar that is added to this program is added to the national
debt. Now, who is going to pay that national debt? Somebody that's 58
years old or somebody that's maybe 8 years old? And I'm going to say
that the ruse that this is about the kids, while at the same time
pushing that $35 billion into the national debt and asking those same
kids that you say you're trying to help to pay the debt they incurred,
I think is where the real hypocrisy lands, Mr. Speaker. 22.4 million
new smokers? Not a very sound plan.
This chart tells you what happens when you start raising the premium
subsidy up for health insurance. When you get up here to this level and
you get to 400 percent of poverty, which this Congress passed, then 95
percent of the kids that are on private health insurance will drop off
of that private health insurance and they'll go on government. So even
if they're making $1 million a year, 95 percent of those kids go to the
government premium side.
If you take it on down to 400 percent of poverty and below, it's 89
percent. And as we go down lower to where we are now, it's 50 percent.
I contend that, if the parents have a job and the health insurance is
with the job and the employer has put a health care package out, their
health insurance package out there that includes the family, and most
do, why would you put a program in place that's going to cause the
employer to do this calculus: I don't know why I'm paying for that if
the government will pay for that. I'm going to offer a proposal here
that's going to save me money. I can take that and put it in my bottom
line as an employer and call it profit and tell my employees, we're
going to sign you up for SCHIP.
I had a conversation with my son and daughter-in-law a couple of
weeks ago. They blessed us with two little beautiful granddaughters, so
they're a perfect model family of four. And I said here in Iowa, where
this number right here, Mr. Speaker, if this bill had been overridden
today that the President vetoed, in Iowa, a family of four would
qualify for SCHIP funding at $77,437.50,
[[Page H11772]]
to be precise. Now, that's that family of four, that's my son and
granddaughters and daughter-in-law. The calculus is pretty easy for
them. They just say, well, we're self-employed, I guess we could do
this. We could set our wages up to make sure that we don't break the
cap on SCHIP and the kids would be funded then by the government,
wouldn't they? And I said, I don't want to hear about that.
{time} 1615
It was a bit of a levity kind of a conversation because they are
going to take care of their responsibility and they have and they will
continue to do that. But if that can be figured out in 5 seconds in the
kitchen of my family, think how it can be figured out in every
boardroom across America that will see an advantage here to push the
kids, the children of their employees, off of their own privately
funded health insurance, put them on the government-funded one, and put
the profit, the savings, in their bottom line. You know that is going
to happen. The people that will be the most believers of that have to
be those on the other side of the line that don't believe in much for
ethics and the free enterprise system that we have.
That is how that is going to work. You push people off health care
and so you get to this, Mr. Speaker, and this is what this is really
about, SCHIP. Some might think that is for the State Children's Health
Insurance Program. But I will submit that the real motive behind this,
we have Presidential debates going on and candidates all over this
country concentrated in my State, New Hampshire, and others, and you
can feel and sense they have been pushing health care 6, 7, 8 months to
bring this debate to a head, and a delay in this Congress in coming to
the negotiating table so we can actually extend this program in a
responsible fashion is partly rooted in the Presidential politics and
in the partisan politics in this Congress. I think the majority of it
is rooted in that. So I will submit SCHIP really stands for Socialized
Clinton Style Hillary Care for Illegals and Their Parents. And I hope
the camera is on this so it doesn't get missed. SCHIP, Socialized
Clinton Style Hillary Care for Illegals and Parents.
By the way, I did not get to that illegal component that was laid out
by the gentleman from Florida. Well, one can point to language in the
bill that says ``you don't get to send any of this money to people who
are otherwise deportable.'' That language is in the bill. But, Mr.
Speaker, I will inform you, this body, the people in this country, that
there is additional language in the bill that weakens the citizenship
standards that exist today, not just for SCHIP, but for Medicaid as
well. We have citizenship requirements for Medicaid that you have to
demonstrate, you have to prove your citizenship. And of those
conditions that will be producing a birth certificate and another
document, a photo ID perhaps or a passport or a list of other documents
that demonstrate your lawful presence in the United States and your
eligibility for SCHIP and for Medicaid; those are current law
requirements. This bill that says in one paragraph ``this money can't
go to illegals'' says in another paragraph ``but if you know how to
write down a Social Security number, that will be all that is
required.''
The Social Security Administration has put out information that says
you cannot verify citizenship by a Social Security number. There are
millions of Social Security numbers that are not numbers for citizens.
There are millions out there that are nonwork Social Security numbers,
and there are millions out there that have been given to people that
are here on work visas, student visas, visitors, you name it, for one
reason or another, so they can get a driver's license or buy insurance,
or maybe qualify for a benefit, millions of Social Security numbers
that do not connote citizenship. And the only standard that is left,
that is required in this current bill is you have to submit a Social
Security number. And it is implied, it might even be specific, that it
be a valid one. But we know how well that works when we have 20 million
illegals in America and we have somewhere between 7 and 12 million
working illegals in America, many, in fact most of them, using phony
Social Security numbers. So if they can get a job and that number can
report their wages every week and we can't figure out where they are,
how in the world can anyone over hear say, ``well, none of this money
is going to go to illegals'' when the Congressional Budget Office has
made it clear and issued their report that the net cost to taxpayers
because of the opening up of the citizenship standard is 6.5 billion,
that is with a B, $6.5 billion, Mr. Speaker.
There isn't an argument on this that is seriously grounded in the
facts. We take our facts from the Congressional Budget Office.
So I will roll this together. In my State, currently a family of four
qualifies for hawk-i, SCHIP funding, for their health insurance. This
isn't health care, remember; it is health insurance, at $51,625 a year.
A family of four. That is off the Web page of Governor Culver, by the
way. And if this bill had passed, it would have qualified that same
family of four at $77,437 a year. But this Congress first passed 400
percent of poverty, which would have qualified that same family of four
at 103,250 or so dollars in that legislation, over $100,000, and not a
fiscally responsible peep out of the Speaker, out of the Democrat side
of the aisle that I heard, out of my Governor. No one stood up for the
taxpayer on that side of the aisle. That is because they are actively
engaged in laying the cornerstone for socialized medicine.
I will continue, 2.0 million children, taken off of their own private
insurance, nudged off, because the government will pay for it, why
would you pay for it? If it is free or you have to write a check, which
line are you going to get into? There will still be a lot of patriotic
Americans who will get into the ``I will pay for my own line.'' God
bless you for that. That is, by the way, 2.0 million children. That is
a Congressional Budget Office number, the highest standard we have
here; $6.5 billion for illegals to go on Medicaid and SCHIP? That is a
Congressional Budget Office number.
You can't convince me that this isn't going to legalize access to
health care services for illegals who, if we had the voucher delivered
by ICE, the Immigration Custom Enforcement, would be compelled to pick
them up and send them back to their own country. Think about that. If
we made the couriers for vouchers for SCHIP to be ICE, they would have
to come along and say, ``Well, okay, here's your voucher, but you're
not going to be able to cash it in because I am sending you back home
again because that is the law.''
How bizarre is it to hear the rhetoric coming out of that side of the
aisle? These are the facts, Mr. Speaker. It weakens the citizenship
requirement. It is a net loss to my State of $226 million, more tobacco
tax paid sent to Washington, we get $226 million less. Bad deal,
Governor Culver. You ought to understand that. That is also a number
that is put out by a government office, and that is the Centers for
Disease Control produced a number of a minus $226 million just for
Iowa. Other States did worse. Other States were net gainers. The
tobacco tax, 156 percent increase, and then, Mr. Speaker, not
forgetting about the 22.4 million new smokers that we will need to get
this program funded.
So, all in all, Republicans have taken care of this. We created this
program. State Children's Health Insurance Program is about providing
help in health insurance premiums for the children in lower income
families that don't qualify for Medicaid. It is about the transition
off of Medicaid on to private, on to self-reliance, on to all the
dignity that comes with carrying your own load, helping transition
gradually and easily off on to that. It is about that.
It is about protecting and preserving our private health care system
that is the best in the world. That is where we are on this side of the
aisle, Mr. Speaker. That is where the President is on this. The other
side of the aisle is about laying the cornerstone for socialized
medicine, because once you get 95 percent of the people dependent on a
program, they consider it an entitlement. Democrats know that. The
Democrat leadership knows that at least. And that, I believe, Mr.
Speaker, is the strategy.
I don't know how, when they come back with the next argument that was
laid out by here by Bill Clinton that they wanted to lower Medicare
eligibility to 55 years old, then you look at
[[Page H11773]]
this universe of people, people collecting SCHIP today at age 25,
remember all those adults in places like Minnesota and Wisconsin, up to
age 25, and if we lower Medicare eligibility to 55, now who is paying
the bill for all the health insurance and health care in America? Well,
it would be those folks between the ages of 25 and 55, Mr. Speaker. And
don't you think that side of the aisle knows the resentment that will
build when someone writes their own check for their health insurance
premium and their check for the alternative minimum tax and their check
for their income tax and they realize that they are paying for theirs
and everybody else's. If they can't say no to this, then they are going
to come back to us and say, ``Give us the Canadian plan. I give up. I
capitulate. Because I just can't fund it both ways. You have made it
too easy for too many people. Now it is too hard for me.''
That will be the calculus among the American people. That will be
what ultimately closes this and builds this socialized medicine that
they are trying so desperately to build. And by the way, there is no
provision to fund this thing past these years that I have shown here,
Mr. Speaker. That cliff in the funding drops off. It drops down to a
very small percentage of the overall revenue stream. The reason is they
believe that they will have a President and a majority in the House and
in the Senate that will have given us the full-ride socialized
medicine. So they don't have to worry about funding this through this
program. Watch as this unfolds. Bill Clinton stood back in this well
September 22, 1993, and he gave about an hour speech, 12 pages long,
that lays out the game plan. Now his wife is poised to carry out the
balance of it.
I stand here in resistance to socialized medicine or laying the
cornerstone for it, but I stand with my colleagues in protecting the
kids in America, protecting their freedom, protecting an investment in
them. I refuse, I refuse to put this burden as a national debt upon
those same kids and ask them to pay it when they get to be the age of
adults.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________