[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 163 (Thursday, October 25, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H12031-H12042]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3963, CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE
PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentlewoman from New York
is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H. Res. 774, and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 774 provides a closed rule for consideration of
H.R. 3963, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
of 2007. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided among and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Energy and Commerce and the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, I stand before you on the floor this afternoon with
mixed emotions. I along with a majority of Members of the House are
disappointed that we have to reintroduce a bill, passed by enormous
bipartisan support, which would have provided millions of children
across the Nation with access to health care.
The memory of what took place here on the House floor a week ago
today will not soon be forgotten. On that day, we saw a few Members
stand in lockstep with the President and with that deny health care
coverage for millions of our children.
However, coupled with my disappointment, Mr. Speaker, is the
consuming feeling of promise. I have hope for those children, along
with a belief that those Members who were unable to break away from the
President's mistaken rhetoric will stand for what is right today and
vote to overwhelmingly pass this vital legislation.
I feel strongly that what motivated me and so many of my colleagues
to come to Washington in the first place was the thought that on any
day a vote could be held that would improve the lives of millions of
people throughout our country. And that is exactly the chance that we
have been given here today.
We are again granted the chance to vote for a bill that will advance
medical care in this country, improve the health of our youngest and
neediest citizens, and offer new hope for literally millions of
children who would otherwise be left without either.
I think everyone listening today recognizes the reality of the
situation we face. Should we not act, the health care of millions of
children will be yanked away on November 16. Not providing health care
to millions of children when given the opportunity to do so is
appalling, but to strip away benefits from those who currently have
them is simply indefensible.
Mr. Speaker, in our vote to expand SCHIP last month, we made a
genuine dent in one of the most shameful inadequacies of our health
care system: the lack of coverage for millions of America's children.
Congress created the State Child Health Insurance Program in 1997
with broad bipartisan support, including some of my colleagues who now
oppose it. As a result, over 6 million children currently have health
care coverage that otherwise would not. In my home State of New York,
over 400,000 children are enrolled, the second highest in the Nation.
The SCHIP reauthorization bill would preserve access to health care
for 6 million children already enrolled in the program, while bringing
desperately needed health care coverage to almost 4 million more
children. As a result, in my home State of New York, an additional
268,000 children who need it will have health care coverage. That means
they will be able to get their immunizations before starting school, or
see the dentist when they have a toothache.
This new bill also makes changes by phasing out childless adults
after 1 year, and also puts in a cap on children whose parents' income
are over 300 percent above the poverty level. The bill also requires
States to develop plans and implement recommended best practices for
addressing crowd-out.
Make no mistake, 43 Governors from red States and blue, 69 Members of
the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, 273 of my
colleagues from both sides of the aisle in the House, and 81 percent of
the American public, including a large majority of Republicans, support
our bipartisan expansion of SCHIP.
Yet, presented with this overwhelming support from all sides, the
President decided to dust off his veto pen and with it deny millions of
children access to health care. In spite of the unquestionable benefits
and in spite of the overwhelming popularity and accomplishments of this
program, SCHIP is under attack.
We saw reprehensible smear attacks on families who were brought into
the public eye to showcase the benefits of the program. In the face of
the lifesaving chance that was bestowed on the family due to this
program, the harshest rhetoric was not cast against the bill, but
against this family, including the children.
We saw persons go to the home of one of the families and harass them
in public, talk radio and blogs made wild and audacious accusations,
and we even saw staffers on Capitol Hill who clearly intended to assist
this fabricated, coldhearted smear campaign.
It is simply beyond comprehension to me that many are willing to
score political points by denigrating our Nation's children,
particularly those who owe their very lives to this program.
But the American people saw through the attacks. They understood that
the health of our Nation's children is simply not worth scoring a few
political points.
Mr. Speaker, the President chastises the $35 billion bill, which is
fully paid for, as ``too expensive.'' And with the same breath, he
seeks an additional $190 billion for the Iraq war, all of which is at
the expense of the taxpayer.
This is simply unconscionable when you realize the amount of money it
takes to provide the health care for 10 million children for an entire
year is what we spend in Iraq in just 41 days. We need to get our
priorities straight.
I am enormously proud of the accomplishments we have done this year,
from education to health care, but nothing means more to us than SCHIP.
The American people expect us to tackle this health challenge before
us. Last week we fell short of overturning the veto by just 13 votes.
To those Members who know that providing health care to vulnerable
children is the right thing to do, I say to you: Join with Democrats
and Republicans and with the American people in passing the bill today.
[[Page H12032]]
Healthy children make a healthy Nation, Mr. Speaker. I hope every
Member takes a long and hard look at the bill that we are presenting
today and sees not just the words and the numbers, but the faces of 10
million children whose fate they hold in their very hands.
It is time to put principles before politics. It is time to stand in
defiance of misplaced priorities. And it is time to vote with our
Nation's children and provide them with the health care they need and
deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
40th completely closed rule to be reported by the Rules Committee in
the first session of the 110th Congress, a rule that fails even to
provide the minority with a substitute amendment and to the underlying
legislation that the minority did not receive until 7:30 p.m. last
night.
Might I also add, perhaps the American public is sold on this, but
there is not one cosponsor of this bill in this body. And when the bill
was presented to the Rules Committee last night, no one even took
credit for it. Those that brought the bill forward said, ``Not my bill,
this is the Senate bill.'' An interesting twist of fate.
Mr. Speaker, once again, for the third time in as many months, I
oppose the way this legislation has been brought to the floor without a
single legislative markup. I oppose the fact that despite Speaker
Pelosi's promise to run the most honest, open and transparent House in
history, today we are being provided with a process and a product that
is none of the above.
Mr. Speaker, what we do have is a bill that neither the Republican
leadership nor the Republican members on the Energy and Commerce
Committee nor the administration had any opportunity to participate in
crafting.
What we do have is a process that has been politicized and
mischaracterized over and over again by the new Democrat majority in
the hopes if the same skewed numbers and faulty facts are repeated
enough times, then somehow they must be true.
Last night in the Rules Committee, we learned that when it comes to
playing by their own PAYGO rules, the Democrat majority wants to have
things both ways. We learned that this majority only agrees with the
facts presented by the Congressional Budget Office when it suits their
needs. When the CBO estimates that the bill raises taxes enough to pay
for the additional $35 billion in spending that it creates, they would
be for it. However, when confronted by the fact that CBO estimates that
this legislation falls 26 percent short of the often-repeated claim of
covering 10 million children, all of a sudden the CBO's calculator is
broken and their ability to estimate anything accurately is certainly
put at dispute.
The CBO also estimates, as my good friend and colleague from Texas,
Dr. Michael Burgess, points out in his testimony late last night in the
Rules Committee, this legislation will move 2 million children who are
already being covered by private health insurance into a Washington-
based system that deliberately undercompensates physicians for their
services by approximately 40 percent, creating a net loss for the
overall quality of patient care.
What we do have is a process that for the third consecutive time
still increases government spending and dislocates the private
marketplace, diverting much-needed funds away from helping our Nation's
poorest children.
One new bit of information which has been represented about this
legislation is that it finally prevents undocumented workers and adults
from receiving those funds intended to pay for the medical cost of
children of the working poor.
{time} 1245
Since we got this 293-page bill just a few hours ago, I will have to
take the Democrats at their word. But if this is the case, it means
that despite all of their protests to the contrary, and consistent with
now-vindicated Republican criticisms, the first two SCHIP bills passed
by the House did cover undocumented workers and adults.
I would like to congratulate Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the new
Democrat leadership team for finally agreeing with what Republicans
have been saying all along, because we all began at the same point, and
that is, you can't have a fix if there's no problem to begin with. We
knew there was a problem, and they finally admitted it in this new
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I'm not here to oppose the idea of SCHIP. It was a
Republican-controlled Congress that created SCHIP; and I support its
original, true mission statement. But H.R. 3963 is yet another thinly
camouflaged attempt at slowly siphoning Americans from insurance plans
in the private market into a Washington-based, government-run, single-
payer health care system.
Mr. Speaker, today we have failed to address one of the most serious
issues facing our Nation, how to make the health insurance system more
affordable and accessible for all Americans. So, most of all, I rise to
oppose the Democrat leadership playing political games with children's
health in order to score electoral points.
It is a well-known and often-cited axiom that ``success has a
thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.'' That statement is no more
true than in Washington, D.C. today, where everyone clamors to be
associated with success but sets new land-speed records in distancing
themselves from responsibility.
You see, last night in the Rules Committee, we were told time and
time again that the bill being brought forward by this rule is not a
House product; it is a Senate compromise that we all just have to
support. The chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my good
friend Mr. Dingell, reiterated the point over and over again to the
committee in his testimony.
In fact, despite asking for one, I'm still unable to find one House
Democrat willing to take responsibility for all the shortcomings of
this bill. And if we can't find one Member of the House, much less a
thousand, willing to take credit for this bill, then I guess if we're
simply judging the bill a success or a failure, it's pretty obvious
which category this falls into.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to oppose this completely
closed rule that breaks every promise made in Speaker Pelosi's ``New
Direction for America,'' and this politically motivated and ill-
conceived legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, the
distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, and I thank you for
bringing this opportunity to the floor where Congress again will have
to make a decision about our priorities. The Congress will, I know, in
a very strong bipartisan vote, support the children of America because
this has always been, as the gentlewoman indicated, a bipartisan
initiative.
I first want to acknowledge the distinguished chairman of the Energy
and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, for his work over the years. I
believe his committee had seven hearings on the legislation regarding
SCHIP. And the distinguished Chair of the Health Subcommittee, Mr.
Pallone, is with us here.
I also want to acknowledge the great work of Charlie Rangel, the
Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, who has been such a strong
advocate for America's children in every way and, in particular, in
this. He, too, had his markups on the bill, which improved the bill;
and I want to acknowledge him and his distinguished Chair of the
subcommittee, Mr. Stark.
But my highest praise goes to Republicans. Without the Republicans we
wouldn't even have SCHIP. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah really is the
father of this initiative. As he tells us, two families in Provo, Utah,
visited him in his office. Both of these families have two wage-
earners, both of them making minimum wage, trying to support their
families of four each. They pled with him that they could not provide
health insurance for their children. Because they were working and they
were above the poverty line, they did not qualify for Medicaid, and so
their hard work was rewarded, not so, by not having health insurance
for their children and that was where this all began.
[[Page H12033]]
Ten years ago, under a Democratic President, President Clinton, and a
Republican Congress, this initiative, SCHIP, State Children's Health
Insurance Program, became the law of the land; and God bless that
bipartisan effort for making that possible for the health of our
children.
So Senator Hatch was very much a part of putting this legislation
together, and the gentlemen are right, this is largely a Senate
initiative. Senator Grassley, the former Chair of the Finance Committee
from Iowa, also a distinguished Republican Member of the United States
Senate, has worked harder than anyone to make this the law of the land
again, to reauthorize this SCHIP, this children's health initiative, by
his intellect, and helped shaping the bill, by his persuasion in
talking to Members, including his persuasion of many of us who had a
far different bill in mind but agreed to the compromises that he has
put forth for the good of the children.
That bill was vetoed. The original bill was vetoed by the President,
as we all know. The veto was not overridden. So here we are again with
another SCHIP in the image of the bill that received all of the
attention before, but improved upon by suggestions made by our
colleagues in the minority, our Republican colleagues.
It wasn't that these issues weren't covered in the bill; but the
clarity sought by the Republicans, and agreed to by all of us, I think
are a definite improvement on the bill, and these fall into three
areas.
First, there was the question of the now-famous unlimited amount of
wealth that a person could have in order to be able to avail themselves
of SCHIP. I hesitate to even repeat the charge because it was so untrue
and was known to be untrue, because none of the waivers for such action
were ever given by President Bush.
So that factual statement did not exist, but in any event, the fact
is now and I thank our Republican colleagues for insisting upon the
clarity that says no one making over 300 percent of poverty, no State
can allow people to receive the benefits of SCHIP. So there's a cap, a
300 percent of poverty, as to who may receive the benefit.
Secondly, the question of undocumented, those people who are in our
country but have not been here that length of time that would qualify.
So the undocumented are one category, and the undocumented are not
allowed to receive benefits from this initiative. It was clear in the
first bill. It's even clearer in the second bill.
So the cap on who can receive it, stronger language as to
undocumented, and, third, the issue of adults. Adults were in the
program because people thought as a lure to families they could get
children in the program. Republicans objected to that. There was an
exaggeration of the number of adults who are in the program; but,
nonetheless, in the interests of the children the new legislation
contains a provision that adults, under one circumstance, will be
phased out in 2 years and, in another circumstance, in 1 year, so that
it's a faster, faster removal of adults from the system.
As a mother of five, though, I have to insist that Governors still be
allowed to provide health care to pregnant women because we cannot talk
about the health of our children, especially getting one out to the
earliest, healthiest start, unless we talk about the health of pregnant
women.
So, again, three areas: the cap, 300 percent; no illegal aliens, to
use your term, I prefer undocumented, are able to get benefits; and
adults are phased out of the program. The adults were only in the
program because the Bush administration gave the waiver to enable them
to be in the program; but, nonetheless, that is now out of the
question.
So we have this opportunity, once again, for this Congress to speak
and vote in support of children. This is so important. It's a very
positive day for me because when people ask me what are the three most
important issues facing the Congress, I always say the same thing--our
children, our children, our children: their health, the education, the
economic security of their families, a safe and healthy environment in
which they can thrive, and a world at peace in which they can reach
their fulfillment.
And on every one of those scores, this Congress has acted in a strong
bipartisan way on behalf of the children. The health, we're talking
about today. The education, this Congress in a strong bipartisan way
passed the biggest package for college affordability since the GI Bill
of Rights was signed by Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, over 60 years ago,
and this Congress said we are standing with the children in terms of
expanding their opportunity.
The health today, the education and many other educational
initiatives. I point that one out because it's a start. The economic
security of their families, this Congress voted in a very strong
bipartisan way to raise the minimum wage, the first time it was raised
in 10 years, and with a strong bipartisan vote.
Also, in a very strong bipartisan vote, we voted for the Innovation
Agenda, the COMPETES Act, our commitment to competitiveness to keep
America number one, keep good-paying jobs and businesses in the United
States, helping the economic security of our families.
And then the environment in which they live, again in a strong
bipartisan way, we passed legislation to make the air they breathe, the
water they drink cleaner. All of this was done, again strong bipartisan
votes, highest ethical standard, no new deficit spending, all of it so
that none of the advantages that we were conveying to children would be
accompanied with a bill heaping mountains of debt onto them into the
future.
Part of that also was to operate in the most honest and open way. In
a strong bipartisan way, we passed our ethics reform bill so that we
are here for the children's interest and not special interests.
So this Congress this year has had a strong bipartisan record in
support of our children, and I thank both the Republicans and the
Democrats for supporting those initiatives. Almost all of that except
this SCHIP has been signed into law by the President of the United
States.
Some mention has been made about the fact that there is a fire in
California, and as one who has had the privilege of representing the
great Golden State of California for 20 years in the Congress, one who
understands we had an earthquake in San Francisco, an earthquake in Los
Angeles and now these disastrous fires, we all understand how important
it is for Members to be at home with their constituents at a time of a
natural disaster, a time of tragedy. But that doesn't mean we don't
continue with the work of government.
As Mr. Taylor so eloquently said earlier, he was with his
constituents in Mississippi while we passed legislation that affected
those people here in the Congress, and that was the appropriate way to
go. It was then; it is now.
As a matter of fact, I spoke to Governor Schwarzenegger the other day
and acknowledged his leadership and the rapid response of the
California emergency services team, which is the gold standard, a model
for the country. I wanted to find out from him what needs he had from
the Federal Government. At the time we had emergency designation. Now
we have a major disaster designation by the President, and I salute the
President for making that designation, and I thank him for visiting
California today.
According to Governor Schwarzenegger, all of the Federal resources
that are available to those affected by the disaster, those resources
are accessible to those who can help people with that, but we will be
taking a bipartisan delegation of appropriators and others who can help
meet their needs and get a better picture of what's on the ground there
after the fire subsides.
So this is something that is a very high priority for this Speaker of
the House, the first Californian to ever serve as Speaker, with great
love for our great State.
{time} 1300
The Governor in that conversation then said, How are we doing on
SCHIP? He told me of the calls that he had made, and how important it
was to pass this legislation. That's why we are here today.
This is important not only to California's children, but children
across the country. The Governor knows a million people have been
displaced in California in this natural disaster, and 1.2 million in
California will benefit from
[[Page H12034]]
this SCHIP bill that we are passing in the Congress today. The Governor
understands that. He has been a strong supporter of it, and he is
helping us to pass this legislation, recognizing that we have to get
the job done. Again, I salute him for his leadership, and I thank him
for his support on SCHIP.
Earlier this year under the chairmanship of George Miller,
Congressman Chaka Fattah and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro we had a
summit, a children's summit, where we had hundreds of scientists from
all over the country who came and spoke about our children again, their
health, their education, housing, really, every aspect of their lives.
One of the people who spoke there was Dr. James Heckman, who is a Nobel
laureate, received the Nobel Prize for his work on economics. He is the
Director of the Center for Social Program Evaluation, Harris School of
Public Policy at the University of Chicago.
What he said that day was that the accident of birth is the greatest
source of inequality in American society. He said, a good public policy
for our children makes good economic sense. That is from an economist.
I know, as a mom and a grandmother that it makes good sense to care
for the health of our children. Our Members, I am sure, across the
aisle and all of us here know how important the health of our children
is. People across America have understood it.
Easter Seals was here last week to advocate for this legislation. The
March of Dimes was here on the day of the vote last week to advocate
for this SCHIP legislation. Every organization from AARP and the AMA,
the American Medical Association, to YWCA and everything in between
alphabetically, Catholic Hospitals Association, Families USA, are out
there beating the drum for the passage of this legislation.
Imagine Easter Seals and March of Dimes, within 1 week, both sending
hundreds of people to Capitol Hill to lobby for this legislation. It
was astounding.
I hope today, when our colleagues have to make a decision about this
vote, that they will be thinking about the record of bipartisanship on
behalf of America's children and families that this Congress already
has. Sometimes it is eclipsed by the disagreement that we have on the
war, but it is a fine record, and it is stronger because it is
bipartisan.
I hope that our colleagues will be thinking about the children. Some
of these little children, one of them, Zeke Taylor, he wasn't a
beneficiary of SCHIP. March of Dimes helped him through his early years
when he needed health care. But he wanted other children to have that,
because he, at age 8 years old, as the ambassador for the March of
Dimes, knew that it was important to him and, therefore, it was
important to other children as well.
As my colleagues, we are pretty blessed, when you think of it. Think
of those of us who will be voting today. We all have health insurance
for our children. In my case, it's grandchildren. My children are
grown, so it's not a question of that. But you who have children who
are still, God bless you, I am so jealous, have your children home, you
have health insurance for your children.
The people we are trying to reach with this health insurance can't
afford it. By the way, nearly, over 90 percent of them make one-fifth
of what a Member of Congress makes, one-fifth of what a Member of
Congress makes. So we are talking about people who are playing by the
rules who are working to lift themselves into the middle class or to
sustain their place in the middle class.
We are talking about a country who has not as an issue, not as a
piece of legislation, but a deeply held value, an ethic, that to be a
great Nation we have to take care of the health of our children. It
should almost go without saying, but it doesn't, and we need the public
policy, as Dr. Heckman said, good public policy for our children. We
say it is necessary for their health and well-being. He also says that
it is essential to our economy.
So there is every compassionate, humanitarian, motherly, fatherly,
family reason to be for this legislation, but it also makes good
economic sense. By the way, it also makes good national security sense.
Again, we have had our moment. We are like a family here. We have had
our moments. It's time to put the children first.
I urge all of you to support this legislation that is before us for
America's children, for all of America's children, to take our country
in a new direction for them.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party does support SCHIP.
We do not support taking 2 million children that today are in private
health insurance programs and moving them to the government,
Washington-based/run health care program. That is where we offer our
differences today on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pasco,
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to thank my friend and colleague
on the Rules Committee from Dallas for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, this is the third time the House has considered
legislation to renew the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It
is the third time that it is being considered under a closed rule that
denies each and every Member of this House an opportunity to offer an
amendment to improve it. It's the third time that we Republicans first
saw the text the night before it comes up for debate. It is the third
time that the Rules Committee has met at all hours of the night on
these suddenly appearing bills.
Last night, it was almost until midnight. The second time we met, it
wasn't until almost 10 p.m. And the first time we met on this bill, it
was from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. in the morning. It is the third time the
Democrat bill allows thousands of adults to sign up for children's
health care. It's the third time it moves those with private insurance
into a government-run program. And it's the third time it doesn't focus
on caring for thousands of the poorest kids in our country who are
eligible for coverage today but who haven't been signed up by the
individual States.
Last night, from 9 p.m. until nearly midnight, the Democrats claimed
this bill was really different, that they had changed it to address the
problems. But the nonpartisan analysis by the Congressional Budget
Office says that they are flat wrong.
Under this bill, we would have more adults on children's health
insurance than we do today. SCHIP would actually cost more than the
previous bills while covering less kids, and that several million
enrollees in the program today would leave their private insurance for
tax-funded programs. This bill isn't a true effort to reach a new
accord to renew SCHIP. It is a political game being played out at its
political worst.
Speaker Pelosi, who just spoke very eloquently on the floor, her Web
site still has a statement on it, and I quote from that statement,
``Under Democratic leadership, this Congress is changing the way we do
business in Washington--restoring accountability and working together
to get the job done.'' I wish this promise wasn't being broken every
time the SCHIP bill is brought to the floor of the House, but it is a
promise that is being broken.
I want to go on, since the Speaker spoke so eloquently. In her ``New
Direction for America,'' she states, ``Regular meetings between Chairs
and ranking members of committees and staff should be held.'' That
didn't happen on this bill. That's another promise that was broken.
Further, in her ``New Direction for America,'' she states, and I
quote, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure
that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment
process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives,
including a substitute.'' That's another promise that was broken.
To my Democrat friends, I must say that you can't reach an agreement
by only talking to yourselves. You don't work together by ignoring
Republicans, hiding the text of the bill from the Republicans until the
night before the debate, shutting down any opportunity for amendments
to be made in order to improve the legislation on the floor.
In 1997, a Republican Congress and a Democrat President actually held
discussions on creating SCHIP. They talked together, worked together
and reached an agreement to provide health insurance to the poorest
kids in
[[Page H12035]]
our country. That approach was successful, and it created this program.
That is the right approach to reach agreement to renew SCHIP and to
keep the focus on caring for kids that are most in need.
The tactics last night and today by Democrat leaders aren't about
bipartisan talks; they are about partisan posturing. To me, it's
terribly disappointing. SCHIP should be renewed, and it will be renewed
as soon as an honest effort is made on a bipartisan agreement.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of SCHIP and the millions
of children from poor families who would be covered by this bill. It is
critical that we take action immediately to save this important
program. I wholeheartedly supported earlier versions of the SCHIP
reauthorization, which would have enhanced and preserved a successful
program that has made health insurance a reality for over 6 million
children from low-income families.
I was tremendously disappointed that the President did not agree that
strengthening SCHIP was a national priority. I could not disagree more
with him.
But in response to his opposition, the House leadership has put forth
the compromise version of this bill, one that addresses lingering
concerns while retaining the core principles of this important program.
This bill will protect the existing coverage for children and ensure
that the lowest income children who are currently eligible but not
enrolled would gain coverage, an additional 4 million children on top
of the 6 million who are already covered.
It is the right thing to do. It is the moral and compassionate thing
to do, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the
accompanying legislation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the distinguished
gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton).
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are here once again on an issue
that should have been solved, like, March of this year.
An emergency meeting of the Rules Committee was noticed at 7:30 last
evening to be commenced at 8:30. That meeting lasted until midnight.
Dr. Michael Burgess, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee,
attended with me to represent the Energy and Commerce Committee in the
negotiations before the Rules Committee. He offered an amendment to
this bill and was told it was not in order because he didn't get it in
time. Didn't get it in time. An emergency meeting that is noticed at
7:30, that starts at 8:30, that lasts till midnight, Dr. Burgess shows
up with his amendment and is told, I am sorry, we can't have your
amendment in order because it wasn't in time. We didn't even know there
was going to be a meeting until 7:30.
Once again, we have a closed rule, which means there are no
amendments made in order. Once again, we have a bill that was not seen,
at least by those of us on the minority side, until approximately 7 to
7:15 last evening. Once again, we have a bill where there have been
really no bipartisan negotiations. There have been some consultations
with certain members of the minority party, I have to admit that.
I don't know what the distance is from here to there, but I am going
to guess it's about 12 feet. Let's see. It's 18 feet. Now, if I really
wanted to negotiate, and I was in the majority, I would say, let's get
together and talk. I would reach out to my left and I would reach out
to my right, each of us come about 9 feet, we could negotiate.
But here is how the Democrats do it. They haven't even said we wanted
you to negotiate, but if they did, they head out the door. They are
going around the world to meet us halfway when they could just do it 9
feet apart. I don't understand that.
Let's vote the rule down. Then let's get together and really
negotiate.
Now, I want to give Ms. Slaughter some credit. She was born in Texas.
Her instincts are right. We did get a motion to recommit today, for the
first time. When we get to the motion to recommit, we are going to have
an opportunity to put forward a proposal that is positive for SCHIP
that has been put together by the Republicans.
I will tell my friends on the majority side, it's not going to be a
gimmick. I think it will say ``forthwith,'' which means if we adopt it,
we vote on it.
{time} 1315
So I look forward to the debate, and I look forward to the motion to
recommit. If we really want a bill the President would sign, I would
say vote for the motion to recommit. But right now, vote against the
rule so we can get some amendments made in order and have a real
debate.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could ask how much time is remaining
on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentleman from Texas has 16
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 20\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4
minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to
sometimes look back and see how we got to where we are.
On March 13, 1996, I was in the Florida Senate. I pulled up an old
newspaper article that talked about ``the million-dollar team of
tobacco lobbyists figured they had their votes yesterday to override
the Governor of Florida. Then Senator Ginny Brown-Waite of rural
Hernando County stood to address the chamber. Her vote was crucial to
the tobacco companies who wanted to scuttle Florida's tough anti-
tobacco law. They thought they had her. But they didn't know that in
the last 26 years she had lost her mother, father and sister, all
smokers, to cancer.''
I stood up and said, and it's quoted in here:
`` `I can't sit here any longer and play the tobacco game,' Brown-
Waite said in a hushed emotional voice. `I was awake all last night
laboring over this.' ''
``Minutes later, pro-tobacco forces withdrew their motion.''
Ladies and gentlemen, the reason I am bringing this up is this is
where the money came from for the original SCHIP bill. It was because
of overturning that vote and other States then followed to go after the
tobacco companies for funds for third-party reimbursement. That's where
the money came from for the SCHIP program. I was proud of that vote. I
was very, very proud of that vote. I think the tobacco companies, for a
long time, lied to the American public.
So after that, that was in 1996, after that, in 1997 Congress created
the SCHIP bill. Great use of the tobacco litigation third-party
reimbursement money. Great, great use for it. In Florida we created our
own program from it.
But what we have here today is kind of what a farmer in my district
once told me. He said, You can take horse manure and roll it in
powdered sugar and it doesn't make it a doughnut. That, ladies and
gentlemen, I think is kind of what we have here today.
It's a magnet for illegal aliens. We have income disregards in here
that will encourage States to disregard anything at all. There are no
guidelines. They can disregard any form of income, child support, child
care costs, anything that they want to get to that 300 percent of
poverty level.
This is not about supporting the President and the override. Lord
only knows, this President knows he can not rely on my vote because I
have stood in this Chamber and voted to override his veto of the stem
cell bill. I disagreed with him on many, many issues.
Madam Speaker is absolutely right. This is about the children. Like
her, I'm a mother and a grandmother. Wasn't it interesting that she
couldn't use the word illegal. It was undocumented. Whether she prefers
to call
[[Page H12036]]
them undocumented or illegal, this is a magnet which will draw even
more people illegally, I don't have a problem using that word,
illegally into our country.
If children really are what my friends on the other side of the aisle
care about, then why did they hold up this vote for 2 weeks? Now kids,
on November 16, unless we can really, really compromise, they will be
without health care. I think that is cruel. I think we need to get
serious.
I told Majority Leader Hoyer this morning that this bill is just so
outrageous. I almost wish I could turn back the clock and change my
vote. I never thought I would say that. I absolutely, Mr. Speaker,
never thought I would say that. I was very proud of that vote.
We need to make sure that we do cover kids and that we get serious
about seriously negotiating a good bill, not a bill called a doughnut.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Space).
Mr. SPACE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the SCHIP bill that we
will, again, today, be passing with bipartisan support. This is a bill
which is not intended to be a handout. This is not a form of welfare.
This is legislation that will provide assistance to working families,
specifically 10 million children of working families who have had a
very difficult time in today's economy, a difficult time with high gas
prices, high prices of natural gas, electricity, struggling to make
ends meet.
In Ohio we lead the Nation in foreclosures or are near the top. We're
near the top in bankruptcy. In Ohio's 18th district there's an air of
desperation, given the loss of manufacturing jobs.
The working families of this country need help. And this is a chance
to give it to them. To call this a magnet for illegal immigration, to
classify this legislation as Washington, D.C.-based health care is a
gross misstatement of the facts, and nothing more than a red herring.
The truth is this legislation will enhance the lives, the quality of
lives of 10 million young Americans. We have an obligation as a
government to do that.
I thank those Republicans with the courage to vote to override the
almost certain looming dark cloud of a Presidential veto and urge those
with the foresight and courage to do so again as we proceed on this
important legislation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my wonderful friends on the
other side that if they are serious about this bill maybe they would
start by trying to negotiate with the administration, or by reaching
across just 9 feet, as the gentleman from Texas said, Mr. Barton. Why
not try? It's amazing what you would maybe get, maybe some bipartisan
help.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from the Intelligence and Energy and Commerce
Committees, the gentleman, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how
disappointed I am in my colleagues across the aisle. Many of us reached
out and said we'd like to help craft the language that solves the
problems that we all agree are problems.
Even the Speaker of the House acknowledged that illegals in that
other bill was a problem; that adults on the bill was a problem; that
people collecting over 300 percent, in some cases $83,000 or up to
$100,000, that was a problem. The fact that we're taking millions of
children and forcing them off of their private insurance and onto a
government program was a problem.
All was acknowledged. But not one constructive meeting happened where
we actually sat down and said, we all agree that those are problems.
You agree and we agree. Let's work out the language so that we can get
a bill that takes care of poor children. That's what we believe.
But, Madam Speaker, I would encourage you to read the bill. As a
matter of fact, she was proud to say that they capped it at 300
percent. We got the bill last night. We're still finding some real gems
in here.
Denial of payments for expenditures for children health care
assistance for children whose effective family income extends 300
percent of the poverty line. Basically, they said, we capped it, see?
And then you read down a little bit, under rule of construction:
``Nothing in these amendments made by this section shall be construed
as changing any income eligibility level for children under this
section.''
You didn't change anything. As a matter of fact, you made it worse,
actually made it worse. So you know that same $83,000 family that we
all agreed and the Speaker stood right on this floor and said is a
problem is still a problem in this bill.
I encourage all of you to read the bill. The rhetoric is great. Who's
against poor kids? Nobody. But if you want to do something that has
meaning, if you want to say that everybody's vote counts, that
everybody should participate in this process, and you want to stand for
kids and not behind them, then we need to reject this rule and come
back and write a bill that doesn't allow illegals to have welfare
benefits, that doesn't take these 2 million kids and throw them off
their private health care, that doesn't have families making $83,000
subsidized by hardworking middle-class families. We can do it if you
just try. You didn't even try.
The only people that are welcome now on that side of the aisle's
leadership offices are pollsters, focus groups, people who are running
TV ads. Last night we had Members getting calls on the bill that we
didn't see, advocating for the bill. Oops.
To say that this has been honest and fair and open is a disgrace to
this institution, and it is a great institution.
There's lot of people over there I have just so much respect for, and
so many of them were trying to reach out and do this; but they were
completely cut off from anything that resembled reasonableness.
I just want to cover quickly, Mr. Speaker, the things that the
Speaker said again. No illegals. CBO says that, in fact, is not true,
and you confirmed in a meeting earlier with your leadership that no
proof of citizenship is needed in this bill. Reason enough.
Adults, you said we took care of the adults issue. CBO scores 10
percent of all the participants by 2012 will be adults.
Nothing over 300 percent. You heard the language in there that
actually obliterates that. We don't take these working-class families
off of their private health care insurance. CBO says 2 million will
lose it.
If you honestly believe by your words in this well that these were
problems before that you tried to fix, we need to reject this bill,
start talking, cooperating and negotiating; and we're going to have a
bill that truly helps poor children.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Ms. SOLIS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. And I ask
my colleagues to please rise with us today on behalf of the many, many
children, 10 million children, that will benefit from the
reauthorization and on this rule so that we can hear the discussion and
the debate on the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization
Act of 2007.
We can't afford not to help those 10 million children. These families
here will be the ones that benefit, and future generations, Americans,
citizens, will benefit. The SCHIP Reauthorization Act will help reduce
what we call health care disparities that currently exist in our
communities and in this country.
And although programs such as SCHIP and Medicaid have decreased the
number of uninsured children over the last few years, there still has
been a lack of funding and outreach efforts that have left millions of
eligible children just like these without any form of health care
coverage. In fact, 70 percent of Latino children are eligible for
health care coverage through public programs, but remain uninsured.
This bill that we are going to debate will reduce the number of
uninsured children of color by supporting community health care workers
who are better known to give advice to many in our community. These are
people that they can trust. These are people that can help inform them
on how to go through the process of receiving this type of aid and
assistance through the SCHIP program.
[[Page H12037]]
While we're doing that, we're going to reach millions of people who
have otherwise not been enrolled in the program, particularly those
communities that speak other languages, not just bilingual, but also
people from different ethnic background like Armenians, Russians,
Pacific Islanders and, yes, of course, Latinos.
{time} 1330
The compromise legislation, as I see it, before us today is a step in
the right direction, and we have an opportunity and a moral obligation
to do what is right for our children and our families. These are the
most vulnerable communities in the United States. Children of all ages
and of all communities of color are counting on us to do the right
thing.
I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this rule for the sake of
the 10 million children and their families that will benefit from the
increase in funding for health care coverage for the most vulnerable
populations in our society.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca).
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3963.
This bill is not about politics. It is about hardworking families,
the poorest amongst us. It's about 10 million children who will
benefit, 10 million children that we have to put a face on. Our
children.
As Christians, as humanitarians, we must think of the individuals who
need help, children like Kristofer and Felecity Famutimi from San
Bernardino County who were hospitalized because they needed sickle cell
anemia care. Their families were financially strapped. SCHIP is the
only reason that they were able to pull through.
For a month now, SCHIP has been under attack in the news. Enough is
enough. Our children must come first. Our children must come first.
We have worked hard on a bipartisan basis to include provisions by
the other side. We have included language to minimize substitution of
employer-sponsored coverage with SCHIP and phase out childless adults
after 1 year and even clarify that CHIP is only for U.S. citizens. Only
for U.S. citizens. They are trying to use scare tactics by saying that
undocumented children will be able to receive it. It is only for U.S.
citizens.
This bill is not perfect, but we have done our part to work out the
differences. Let's get our priorities straight. We spent a lot of money
on the war, a war we should have never been in. Now we are talking
about our children right here in the United States who need help. It is
our responsibility. Our children deserve it. We must do better.
I ask my colleagues to support this bill. It is important for the
poorest children. Support H.R. 3963.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, just so that the Members of Congress that
are around understand this, that 10 million figure cannot be
substantiated. As a matter of fact, the last bill had 7-some million.
This new bill, 7.4. So for the Members that want to talk about 10
million, that's not truthful. That is just not true. CBO says it will
serve 7.4 million people; about 10 percent will be adults, and 2
million children will go from private insurance into government-run
Washington, D.C.-based health care.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida, Dr. Weldon.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As a physician who practiced medicine for many years prior to coming
to the House, I dealt with the issue of the uninsured on a daily basis.
Indeed, I used to see it regularly, up close and personal. And
certainly I think it is a noble endeavor for this body to try to
address this issue.
But I would have to say I think it is really shameful and disgraceful
the way the majority has proceeded in this whole process. The first
time they brought the bill forward they gave it to us at the 11th hour
with no opportunity to amend it. They did it the second time. They did
it the third time now. Never, as I understand it, sitting down and
seriously trying to discuss this issue with the President. The
President needs to sign it.
And people keep coming to the floor and saying we need to do this for
the children. What about the children who have to pay for this? I mean,
let's talk about all of the children. The way this bill is crafted, the
nonpartisan CBO has estimated it will migrate 2 million kids in middle-
class families who currently have insurance onto the government
payroll. And, jeepers, we can't afford Social Security. We are told
that that is going to be insolvent. We can't afford Medicare. Under the
current Medicare formula, doctors in this country are supposed to get a
10 percent cut in reimbursement. And now we are going to expand this
program.
And the other thing I just want to point out, we are really creating
a new entitlement. And one of the very reasons I came here is that this
body year after year was creating entitlements that it didn't have the
ability to pay for. And all I can say is here we go again. We are
expanding this program, we are making it like an entitlement, and we
are saying over and over again we are doing it for the children.
What about the tens of millions of children, the hundreds of millions
who are going to have to clean up this mess?
I am against this rule. I am against this bill. I'm going to vote
against it again.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
chairwoman for her leadership, along with Chairman Dingell and Chairman
Rangel.
You know, as I listen on the floor, it is so curious to hear us
quarreling over helping children, falling down on incorrect facts,
details, while our country is facing tragedy. Our friends in California
are suffering because of a natural disaster, and here we are on the
floor trying to help our children, many of them who live in a suffering
State because they have no health insurance.
Today I will vote in a bipartisan manner with my colleagues to
support this bill, and I will again hope the President will sign it.
But I will join my bipartisan colleagues, 72 percent of the American
public who support it, two-thirds of the Senate, the majority of the
House. We will stand for the children.
And in particular, as I come from the State of Texas, this is a bill
that we need. This bill will provide and is capped at 300 percent of
poverty. This bill is standard law. We will cover legal immigrants, and
the law already indicates that those who are undocumented will not be
covered.
In my own particular community of Harris County, we started in
September of 2006 being able to do 56,000. This is a county of 4
million people, and now in the metroplex we are up to 62,000. Do you
think that is enough? Absolutely not. In our own State, the Center for
Public Policy Priorities Associate Director says Texas will need
additional Federal funds in coming years if the State wants to cover
the 300,000 children eligible. We are a State that is 20 million plus,
but not enrolled in the program today is a mere 300,000. The State is
20 million plus, but we have 300,000 that can't get health insurance,
as well as pregnant women. We need this bill. The Texas version of
SCHIP covers children and families with incomes at or below 200 percent
of the Federal poverty level.
Our State representative, Representative Coleman, has said this veto
handcuffs Texas' ability to continue to reduce the number of uninsured
children in our State.
You can bet your bottom dollar I'm going to stand with the majority
of this Congress in a bipartisan way, not quarrelling over serving our
children.
Vote for the SCHIP bill. This is the best way to save our children
here in America.
Mr. Speaker, as the Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I
rise to announce that I will proudly cast my vote in support of
[[Page H12038]]
H.R. 3963, the ``Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
Reauthorization Act of 2007.'' I rise in strong support of this
legislation because I am listening, and responding to the will of the
American people. Last November 2006, Americans went to polls by the
millions united in their resolve to vote for change. They voted for a
new direction and a change in the Bush Administration's disastrous
neglect of the real needs of the American people, particularly children
who lack health insurance through no fault of their own. The new
Democratic majority heard them and responded by passing H.R. 976,
``State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act
of 2007.'' The President vetoed the bill, basing his decision on the
absurd and laughable claim that the program was thinly-disguised
``socialized medicine'' and that it was too costly to provide health
insurance for America's needy children.
The President's senseless veto of the SCHIP bill suggests that this
Administration is operating under the misimpression that it is entitled
to a continuation of the ancient regime under which the Republican-led
Congress look askance and gave the President a blank check to mismanage
the affairs of our nation.
Those days are over. No matter how many veto threats the President
issues, this Congress is not going to give him a blank check to
escalate and continue the war in Iraq or to ignore the pressing
domestic needs of the American people. It is long past time for change
in Iraq and in the direction of the United States. Just as the people
and government of Iraq must responsibility for their own country, the
people's representatives in Congress must take the lead in addressing
the real problems of real Americans living in the real world.
H.R. 3963 is a necessary step in the right direction because it
provides dependable and stable funding for children's health insurance
under titles XXI and XIX of the Social Security Act in order to enroll
all six million uninsured children who are eligible for coverage today,
but not enrolled. That is why I strongly support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, next to the Iraq War, there is no more important issue
facing the Congress, the President, and the American people than the
availability of affordable health care for all Americans, especially
children.
By vetoing the bipartisan SCHIP Authorization Act, the President
vetoed the will of the American people. By vetoing that legislation,
the President turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to the loud message
sent by the American people last November.
I voted 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 voted to override the President's veto because I put
the needs of America's children first.
Texas Children
I am extremely pleased to know that the children in the State of
Texas stand to benefit tremendously from the SCHIP Reauthorization Act.
Texas has the highest rate of uninsured children in the nation, and
Harris County the highest in the state. The bill goes a long way to
provide coverage for the 585,500 children enrolled in Texas's CHIP
program; and to reach the 998,000 children in families with incomes
under the 200% Federal Poverty Level (FPL) who remain uninsured.
Mr. Speaker, this important legislation commits $50 billion to
reauthorize and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
and cover the six million children who meet its eligibility criteria.
Mr. 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 healthcare. 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 healthcare 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 healthcare as a
result of CHIP. However, stopgap funding for this visionary program
expires November 16. 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 CHIP. 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 healthcare 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 CHIP 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 healthcare 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 six 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 reauthorize this
program. I urge all members to join so that we pass the bill with a
veto-proof majority.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
According to Center for Public Policy Priorities Associate Director
Anne Dunkelberg, Texas will need additional federal funds in coming
years if the state wants to cover the 300,000 children eligible but not
enrolled in the program, as well as pregnant women. Texas' version of
SCHIP covers children in families with incomes at or below 200% of the
federal poverty level.
TEXAS CHIP ENROLLMENT COUNTY/MONTH FISCAL YR 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Name Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher...................................................... 32 29 29 30 30 34 33 31 28 30 29 29
Floyd....................................................... 105 107 122 126 130 130 124 122 113 121 128 129
Foard....................................................... 24 30 32 33 37 39 39 38 36 36 33 31
Fort Bend................................................... 5,009 5,144 5,662 5,728 5,726 5,840 5,843 5,855 5,604 5,573 5,660 5,625
Franklin.................................................... 156 168 170 169 170 176 179 174 166 161 149 121
Freestone................................................... 164 173 165 174 170 170 171 161 148 138 143 148
Frio........................................................ 276 284 299 296 284 286 283 275 268 269 271 263
Gaines...................................................... 471 505 511 506 481 472 455 437 446 453 436 424
Galveston................................................... 2,379 2,435 2,731 2,763 2,845 2,922 2,889 2,839 2,545 2,448 2,473 2,427
Garza....................................................... 74 78 88 84 77 85 85 95 93 86 91 90
Gillespie................................................... 333 351 351 360 354 353 354 363 355 348 343 325
Glasscock................................................... 24 25 22 21 25 25 22 23 17 15 15 18
Goliad...................................................... 55 67 70 71 69 74 75 72 70 69 70 60
Gonzales.................................................... 299 297 301 273 270 262 252 222 224 235 222 211
Gray........................................................ 157 151 163 175 173 185 186 200 179 171 191 178
Grayson..................................................... 1,156 1,175 1,191 1,216 1,196 1,193 1,193 1,188 1,144 1,119 1,098 1,081
Gregg....................................................... 1,856 1,917 1,872 1,820 1,713 1,668 1,654 1,631 1,573 1,560 1,614 1,552
Grimes...................................................... 260 277 270 256 249 249 268 248 239 229 226 218
Guadalupe................................................... 925 964 1,062 1,107 1,101 1,133 1,112 1,085 1,033 1,014 1,022 997
Hale........................................................ 364 364 450 459 462 472 478 479 437 428 458 454
Hall........................................................ 43 42 46 50 56 56 56 57 48 51 36 39
Hamilton.................................................... 147 147 138 141 143 148 138 132 127 118 117 100
[[Page H12039]]
Hansford.................................................... 54 59 70 66 69 71 73 72 74 82 84 83
Hardeman.................................................... 48 48 44 43 45 42 40 33 38 34 31 36
Hardin...................................................... 719 731 779 763 754 735 740 741 692 650 647 651
Harris...................................................... 56,211 58,711 65,292 66,989 66,696 67,701 67,712 67,044 62,581 61,344 62,184 62,390
Harrison.................................................... 751 755 756 751 715 719 733 738 701 706 717 707
Hartley..................................................... 20 24 23 26 30 32 36 35 34 35 22 30
Haskell..................................................... 83 108 105 105 99 103 108 91 91 103 97 89
Hays........................................................ 1,342 1,371 1,460 1,456 1,489 1,480 1,455 1,460 1,358 1,266 1,336 1,330
Hemphill.................................................... 39 35 40 45 45 40 47 46 39 30 30 30
Henderson................................................... 1,064 1,147 1,135 1,123 1,065 1,049 1,064 996 979 997 918 932
Hidalgo..................................................... 16,082 16,874 16,580 16,681 16,124 16,237 16,054 15,835 15,724 15,546 15,367 15,539
Hill........................................................ 534 557 568 580 568 559 556 539 498 487 493 476
Hockley..................................................... 253 246 289 258 267 271 286 304 297 310 293 297
Hood........................................................ 568 577 570 579 578 560 542 566 541 549 545 546
Hopkins..................................................... 488 485 493 486 493 494 488 477 490 484 467 478
Houston..................................................... 194 202 196 199 202 198 189 213 216 208 199 198
Howard...................................................... 422 426 418 409 400 430 433 426 423 410 385 361
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to the former member of the Rules Committee, the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
(Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Children's Health
Insurance Program, but not this program and not this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I have spent 26 years of my life as an OB-GYN physician
delivering over 5,000 babies. I have a number of reasons to be in
opposition to this bill and this rule, but not the least of which is
the way the Democratic majority pays for this, how they raise the $71
billion that they are required to in their PAYGO rules. And, Mr.
Speaker, that is this cigarette tax of 61 cents a pack. If you crunch
those numbers to raise $71 billion to pay for this massive expansion so
that Democrats can now cover an additional 4 million children under
this program when there are only about 750,000 out there in the 100-200
percent Federal poverty level of not being covered, it makes really no
sense. And to pay for it, they would have to have 22 million additional
men, women, and, yes, maybe even some of those children I delivered
take up the smoking habit. So what kind of sense does that make here?
We are trying to provide health insurance for children, but we can only
do it if we can encourage 22 million of their grandparents, parents,
and, indeed, yes, some of these very children I delivered to take up
the smoking habit.
It's like the Pied Piper, maybe being Ms. Pelosi, walking along
heading for a cliff smoking cigarettes and all these adults right
behind her smoking cigarettes and behind them these little children,
and they are headed for that cliff, Mr. Speaker.
This is a terrible bill. I am totally opposed to it. I am not opposed
to expanding the program to cover the uninsured that are eligible or
even increasing a bit, as the President has said he is willing to
increase maybe $10 billion for this program, but I am opposed to the
bill. It's wrong.
Let's vote against the rule and against the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).
Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I rise in
support of it because this is the sole reason I ran for Congress. I owe
this Congress. I owe this Nation for what it did for me. A lot of
people think because I spent 31 years in the military that I got in
because of Iraq. I did not. It was this bill.
In my last year in the military, my 4-year-old daughter was diagnosed
with a malignant brain tumor, my sole daughter. She was given 3 to 9
months to live, and my entitlement from the Federal Government gave her
an opportunity to be here today.
But during that period of time, there was a young boy, Lance, 2\1/2\
years old, who was, as she began her chemotherapy, my daughter's
roommate. And that first day he was there, we listened as the parents
of that child sat with social workers for 6 hours who came and went to
see if that young boy would be given the same opportunity, the same
entitlement as an American citizen, my daughter, had. It is for Lance
that I got in this race.
I owe you because my daughter is here today because of the medicine
that you voted for as a military member. I would like to see every
young child in America have that one opportunity my daughter did, to
have the opportunity to be a productive, healthy child and contribute
to this Nation.
So thank you for the opportunity to speak today and thank you, both
sides, for giving me the chance for my daughter and, hopefully, Lance
in the future to be all they can be. I appreciate it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to this rule and this bill. Mr. Speaker, I
believe that SCHIP should ensure that poor kids are covered first
before providing massive tax increases and coverage for adults and
illegal immigrants.
The Democrats' SCHIP bill before us today has a 5,900 percent tax
increase. It provides coverage to 500,000 adults. And it costs Federal
taxpayers $3.7 billion because of illegal immigration.
Let me be specific. With respect to the 5,900 percent tax increase,
it takes the tax on cigars from a nickel to $3. With respect to the
adults, 500,000 adults whose children are in SCHIP will still be
covered.
{time} 1345
With respect to illegal immigration, $3.7 billion was provided by
CBO.
Since I'm against that, let me tell you what I'm for. I'm for H.R.
3888, which provides the coverage to kids first without having tax
increases or coverage for adults and illegal immigrants. That's what we
need. I urge my colleagues to support that legislation, and not the
bill before us today.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.
(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend for yielding.
As a physician for over 25 years, we've got a diagnosis for what's
going on here today. It's called ``a crying shame.'' Crying shame.
You hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that there
are multiple improvements that are made in this bill. Well, they didn't
improve the portion of the bill that said we ought to take care of poor
kids first. What they did was weaken the requirements for making
certain that you were providing benefits to legal residents in both
SCHIP and in Medicaid, and they did all that with a massive tax
increase. It doesn't sound like improvements to me, Mr. Speaker.
But there is an alternative. It's H.R. 3888. It provides insurance
for the same number of kids that this bill does. It does so in a way
that didn't move kids from personal private insurance to government-run
bureaucratic health care; and it does all of that without a tax
increase, all of it without a tax increase.
So why proceed today? Because, as the majority party knows, this is
about all politics, all the time.
So the diagnosis, Mr. Speaker, ``a crying shame.''
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. This bill
will ensure that 10 million of America's children will finally get the
health care
[[Page H12040]]
they deserve, preventive health care, not expensive emergency room
health care or poor choices.
Recently, my son, Gus, celebrated his first birthday. My whole family
joined in celebrating this occasion. Shortly after I returned to
Washington, my wife noticed that Gus wasn't feeling well; he was
fussing and not sleeping. She was able to take him to the family
doctor, who diagnosed a double ear infection, prescribed antibiotics,
and Gus is a healthy 1-year-old back on the mend. The thought that any
child would suffer through something so preventable in this richest
Nation the world has ever seen and a parent would have to make that
decision is unacceptable.
Budgets are far more than fiscal documents. They are a moral document
that reflects the values of this Nation. Every Member of this House of
Representatives speaking against this bill receives taxpayer-funded
health care, and their children don't have to make these choices that
10 million do.
I ask that my colleagues join me in doing the right thing,
reauthorize with an overwhelming bipartisan majority.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the
previous question so that I may amend the rule to have Speaker Pelosi,
in consultation, that's called bipartisanship, with Republican Leader
Boehner immediately appoint conferees to H.R. 2642, the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill for 2008.
The American Legion and the VFW already have, along with multiple
requests from Republican Members, including this Member of the House,
urged both Speaker Pelosi and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Reid to
end their PR campaign and begin conference work on the Veterans
appropriations bill. Unfortunately, it appears as though all these
commonsense requests have fallen on deaf ears, and our Nation's
veterans are being forced to pay the price for continued Democrat
partisanship and lack of leadership on this issue.
I ask all of my colleagues to support this motion to defeat the
previous question so that we can put the partisanship aside and move
this very important legislation forward.
I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and
extraneous material appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend this bill and the
children of America.
It has been painful for me to hear the mischaracterizations again of
this bill. In the first place, adults will have 1 more year on this
bill. And let me remind everybody listening that the only reason adults
are on there is because the Bush administration gave States the right
to do it. They will all be gone within 1 year. Nobody will be moved off
of private insurance onto the Federal insurance. The bill even allows
States to give money to private insurance companies to keep the
children on those rolls.
I've never heard so much obfuscation, even praising tobacco for
medical people to try to stop taking care of America's children. A
healthy group of children growing up in this country will absolutely
redound on every one of us by the benefits that we will get from it.
It is a tragedy to me, it is something that none of us should be able
to even tolerate the thought of, that there are children in this
country that don't have the vaccinations, that don't have the health
care they need, that they are prevented from getting doctors
appointments because they have no way to pay for them.
It is an obligation if ever there was one. We have an opportunity to
do it. It is paid for. We're not asking to increase the debt or
anything else. It is a bill that deserves the vote of every Member of
the Congress, and the President's signature, if ever there was one.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 774 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the
bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by
the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees
immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of
rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader
prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees
otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees
instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the
Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional
legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution--[and] has no substantive legislative
or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what
they have always said. Listen to the definition of the
previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 774, if ordered; and
approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 188, not voting 23, as follows:
[[Page H12041]]
[Roll No. 1006]
YEAS--221
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--188
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Bilbray
Boren
Buyer
Calvert
Carson
Davis (CA)
Dreier
Feeney
Filner
Gallegly
Hastert
Hunter
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (CA)
McHenry
Moran (VA)
Shea-Porter
Tancredo
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in the vote.
{time} 1412
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1006, I was not present
because I was helping my constituents cope with the fire crisis in San
Diego, CA.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215,
nays 187, not voting 30, as follows:
[Roll No. 1007]
YEAS--215
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--187
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
[[Page H12042]]
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--30
Bilbray
Boren
Brown, Corrine
Buyer
Calvert
Carson
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Dreier
Filner
Gallegly
Gohmert
Hastert
Hinojosa
Hunter
Israel
Issa
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (CA)
McCarthy (CA)
McHenry
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Saxton
Shea-Porter
Tancredo
Wilson (OH)
Young (AK)
{time} 1420
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1007, I was not present
because I was helping my constituents cope with the fire crisis in San
Diego, CA. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. McCarthy of California. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1007, I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``nay.''
____________________