[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 190 (Wednesday, December 12, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H15382-H15391]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007--VETO
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 110-80)
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto
message from the President of the United States:
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 3963, the
``Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.''
Like its predecessor, H.R. 976, this bill does not put poor children
first and it moves our country's health care system in the wrong
direction. Ultimately, our Nation's goal should be to move children who
have no health insurance to private coverage--not to move children who
already have private health insurance to government coverage. As a
result, I cannot sign this legislation.
The purpose of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
was to help low-income children whose families were struggling, but did
not qualify for Medicaid, to get the health care coverage that they
needed. My Administration strongly supports reauthorization of SCHIP.
That is why in February of this year I proposed a 5-year
reauthorization of SCHIP and a 20 percent increase in funding for the
program.
Some in the Congress have sought to spend more on SCHIP than my
budget proposal. In response, I told the Congress that I was willing to
work with its leadership to find any additional funds necessary to put
poor children first, without raising taxes.
The leadership in the Congress has refused to meet with my
Administration's representatives. Although they claim to have made
``substantial changes'' to the legislation, H.R. 3963 is essentially
identical to the legislation that I vetoed in October. The legislation
would still shift SCHIP away from its original purpose by covering
adults. It would still include coverage of many individuals with
incomes higher than the median income in the United States. It would
still result in government health care for approximately 2 million
children who already have private health care coverage. The new bill,
like the old bill, does not responsibly offset its new and unnecessary
spending, and it still raises taxes on working Americans.
Because the Congress has chosen to send me an essentially identical
bill that has the same problems as the flawed bill I previously vetoed,
I must veto this legislation, too. I continue to stand ready to work
with the leaders of the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, to reauthorize
the SCHIP program in a way that puts poor children first; moves adults
out of a program meant for children; and does not abandon the
bipartisan tradition that marked the
[[Page H15383]]
original enactment of the SCHIP program. In the interim, I call on the
Congress to extend funding under the current program to ensure no
disruption of services to needy children.
George W. Bush.
The White House, December 12, 2007.
{time} 1900
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The objections of the
President will be spread at large upon the Journal, and the veto
message and the bill will be printed as a House document.
Motion Offered By Mr. Hoyer
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hoyer moves that further consideration of the veto
message and the bill, H.R. 3963, be postponed until January
23, 2008.
The SPEAKER tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) each be
allowed to control 15 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent
that we shorten the debate to 15 minutes on each side. We don't have
that many speakers and the hour is late. I have a feeling people's
minds are not going to be swayed by the eloquence on either side on
this debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman for
his comments. I think perhaps we may not need to have a vote on this, I
would agree, but there are some number of speakers on our side who
would like to speak. I don't know whether we will have 10, maybe 15
speakers cumulatively. If the gentleman might prevail on his side,
maybe we wouldn't ask people to come back for a vote, but we do have
Members on our side who want to speak.
Madam Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I thank Mr. Hoyer for his leadership on this very important
legislation. He has worked very hard to try to achieve a level of
bipartisanship on this legislation that could override the President's
veto. In the United States Senate, there is a substantial bipartisan
majority large enough to override the President's veto. I hope that we
could achieve that in this House. We are not going to take up that vote
tonight, as has been indicated by Mr. Hoyer. That debate and that vote
will take place on January 23.
It is just very interesting to hear the reasons why the President of
the United States said veto to the children of America. Veto in Latin:
I forbid. I forbid the children of America, the children of working
families who play by the rules and want the best for their children,
who are struggling to make ends meet and who need health care and the
health care that keeps them in the workforce and off of welfare and off
of Medicaid.
Madam Speaker, it is particularly interesting to hear in this debate
on the omnibus bill where there is talk of hundreds of billions of
dollars more for the war in Iraq. For 40 days in Iraq, we can insure 10
million children in America; 40 days in Iraq, 10 million children in
America. This is not an issue. This is a value. This is an ethic of the
American people. The Democrats and Republicans, people of no party
affiliation, everybody cares about the children of America. Over 80
percent of the American people support the SCHIP expansion that we want
to do to double the number of children.
So when the President says we have not met his objections, he is
moving the goal post. In his first veto message, he said he is
concerned about the fact that people making $80,000 would be eligible
for SCHIP. Not so. The only way they could be eligible is if the
President of the United States himself gave them a waiver. The
President has given waivers to families making 300 percent of poverty.
The President himself has given that waiver. And now he is complaining
about that level of income for families, hardworking families to
receive SCHIP.
The President said he is concerned that there are still adults in the
program. The Democratic response, bipartisan, strong, with 45
Republican votes, said that the adults would be phased out. The reason
some of them are in there in the first place is that in order to get
the children into the program, Governors had thought that it would be
important to bring families into the program, and the President of the
United States, President Bush's policy allowed that to happen. So he is
turning his back on his own policy. He is turning his back on these
children by saying their families should be off of SCHIP.
So when the President says he is opposed to the bill because it
raises taxes, then we get to the heart of the matter. This bill is paid
by an increase in the cigarette tax, and this is really why the
President is vetoing the bill. The President is saying that rather than
raise the cigarette tax, he would prefer to prevent an additional 5
million children in our country from getting access to quality health
care.
The President has also said in other comments about this legislation,
everyone in America has access to health care; they can just go to the
emergency room. That was probably one of the most ill-informed, with
stiff competition for that honor, but nonetheless probably one of the
most ill-informed statements that could ever be made by anyone dealing
with public policy and access to health care.
So again, I think all the Members of Congress who voted for this in a
very strong bipartisan way in the House and the Senate can take great
pride in setting a high watermark for what this Congress should be
doing for children of working families in America.
I salute Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Stark
for their exceptional leadership. I also salute Mr. LaHood for what he
tried to do to bring bipartisanship to all of this. I commend Senator
Grassley and Senator Hatch for their courageous leadership in the
Senate, in leading the way to a veto-proof majority of Democrats and
Republicans in the United States Senate.
Whether you are talking about Easter Seals or the March of Dimes, the
Association of Catholic Hospitals, AARP, AMA to YWCA, to everything
alphabetically in between, everyone supports SCHIP except the President
of the United States and those in this body who will side with him on
this vote.
What a sad day. What a sad day that the President would say, rather
than insuring 5 million children, I don't want to raise the cigarette
tax. What a sad day when we would spend in 40 days in Iraq what it
takes to insure 10 million children in America for 1 year. But we are
not going to let this veto stand. We will act upon it and we will
continue to fight the fight until 10 million children at a minimum in
America have access to quality health care under the SCHIP program. It
is the wish of the Governors.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished minority leader from the great State of Ohio (Mr.
Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding.
On the opening day of this Congress, the Speaker of the House said,
let's have partnership, not partisanship. And over the course of this
year, I have been looking for that partnership to occur. There is
probably no better example that the partnership has never occurred over
the course of this year than this bill.
On this bill, there were no hearings in the relevant committees.
There was no markup through the regular legislative process in the
Energy and Commerce Committee. And then the bill was brought to the
floor in what I would describe as a very partisan way. The majority
prevailed, but there was
[[Page H15384]]
a significant number of people opposed to the bill.
And we are talking about the Children's Health Insurance Program. We
are talking about a program that was developed by Republicans and
Democrats together to go out and serve the needs of the working poor in
America. And yet over the course of the 10 years, I think the program
has gone astray. We are starting to put more adults in a program than
we did children. And what Republicans and I think Democrats want to do
is reauthorize this program in a way that meets the needs of poor
children first. That hasn't been happening, and I think all the Members
know it hasn't been happening.
And so after this veto the first time was upheld, we began some
bipartisan talks trying to find common ground to see if we couldn't
reauthorize this program in a way that the American people expect of
us. They expect us to come here, work together, and find a way to get
this program reauthorized.
We had Members locked in a room for 2 months, a lot of conversation,
a lot of very descriptive things that had to happen. We weren't
expecting miracles. And at the end of the day, my Members looked up and
said, there is no movement. No movement at all. And I think that this
deadlock that we find ourselves in is unfortunate, because there is a
population in America that need this program. We could have resolved
the differences in this program in 10 minutes if the majority wanted to
resolve the differences.
But as we see again tonight, there is no attempt to resolve the
differences. This has become a partisan political game that we are
involved in. The motion that we are debating here is to move the vote
on overriding the President's veto until January 23. Hello. And this
happens to be about 6 days before the President is going to come and
give the State of the Union address.
We can have this vote right now and the outcome is certain. But no,
no, we can't have an outcome that is certain; we have got to continue
to play political games. That is exactly what the American people are
disgusted with when they look at this Congress and we see the approval
ratings where they are.
I think it is time for us to resolve our differences in a bipartisan
way and reauthorize this program and make sure that poor children in
America have the kind of health insurance that they deserve.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, let me say it really pains me to listen to the
minority leader say that no attempt has been made to resolve the
differences on this legislation. I can't think of a single bill in this
Congress where the Democratic leadership has been reaching out to the
Republican side of the aisle on a daily basis. There have been so many
meetings. I mean, there have literally been hundreds of meetings trying
to reach out to the Republican side in the House to try to reconcile
differences on this bill and come up with a consensus piece of
legislation. The Republicans in the Senate have always been willing.
They have been out there to meet. Some Republicans here in the House
have been as well. But the leadership on the Republican side has not
been. So I think it is very unfortunate that, as stated today, that
that has not been the case. We have been reaching out constantly, and I
defy anyone to say differently.
Madam Speaker, today for the second time this year President Bush
turned his back on the health care needs of 10 million children. It was
just 2 months ago when the President vetoed the Children's Health
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, which had passed both the House
and the Senate with overwhelmingly bipartisan support.
After that first veto we came together once again, Democrats and
Republicans, and wrote a different bill that addresses many of the
President's concerns, including enrolling lower income children first.
Today, President Bush vetoed the second effort, saying that it was
almost identical to the first bill. And I would say it was not, and the
President knows better.
{time} 1915
The President's second veto of CHIP legislation is a slap in the face
not only to this Congress but to the millions of children who, without
this bill, continue to be uninsured, or worse, basically lose the
insurance they currently have.
Every day the parents of more than 9 million children worry when
their kids have an earache, toothache, asthma, all this before they
finally have to take them to the hospital emergency room. And the
President seems satisfied with the status quo. In fact, in the past he
has stated that every American has access to health care because they
can always go to the emergency room.
Let me tell my colleagues, this fall I visited an emergency room in
my district and it was not a great place for a kid to visit. It is the
scene of trauma. Children are forced to share space with people who
have overdosed on alcohol or drugs. Most emergency rooms are
overwhelmed with real emergencies and have few resources to treat
people who need regular family care.
The beauty of CHIP is that children get to see a doctor on a regular
basis. And the President is deluding himself if he doesn't think this
veto is going to hurt millions of children. And those Members voting to
sustain the President's veto are just as guilty of turning their backs
on millions of children who will be denied regular visits to see a
doctor.
I urge my Republican colleagues to vote their conscience. Let's
override the President's veto so that we can ensure that 10 million
children receive the health care they need to grow up healthy and
strong. This is the right thing to do for our country.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, everybody has said all that needs
to be said on this debate; we just haven't said it this third or fourth
time that we are here on the House floor.
As the minority leader pointed out, at some point in time it still
may be possible to reach a consensus on reauthorizing the SCHIP program
because people on both sides of the aisle want to keep the program
moving forward. The problem that most Republicans have is that we
support the base program for near low-income children between 100 and
200 percent of poverty. We don't think that the SCHIP program, which
was a children's health program, should be for adults. We don't think
it should be for illegal aliens. We think it should be for children
between 100 percent to 200 percent of poverty, and perhaps slightly
higher than that if a good-faith effort has been made to cover children
in that income bracket.
My friends on the other side of the aisle appear to want to use this
as a surrogate for universal health care. In some versions, the
original version that came out in the CHAMP bill, they wanted to go as
high as 300 and 400 percent of poverty. They continue, although they
say they don't want to cover noncitizens, they won't agree to
enforcement measures that make that possible. And they don't want
adults on the program to have to exit the program in some reasonable
time period, so we have the impasse that we have today.
There haven't been many times in our Nation's history that we have
postponed a veto override. I think less than 10 percent of the time,
maybe even less than 5 percent of the time, but we have done it twice
in a row on this particular bill. So we will postpone the bill until
the week of the President's State of the Union so there can be more
political posturing on the majority side right before the President
comes before a joint session of Congress.
This majority is right to try to postpone that vote to that time. It
would be better if we went ahead and voted on it tonight, sustained the
President's veto tonight so we could then hopefully continue work or
start working in a bipartisan way to actually get an SCHIP
reauthorization that was more than a 1-month extension at a time.
If we have the vote tonight, the President's veto will be sustained.
When we have the vote in January, the President's veto will be
sustained. At some point in time we may yet get together and try to
work out a compromise that both sides can agree to and have a 435-
Member vote. Apparently that will not be any time in the near future.
[[Page H15385]]
Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways
and Means Committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. Let's be very clear about what is being postponed and
who is doing the postponing. When this President exercised his second
veto, he postponed our desire to see that children get the health care
that they need. And tonight, when Republicans in this House and their
nicotine-peddler allies stand in the way of the door at the doctor's
office, millions of children are denied the care that they deserve.
This President's holiday season veto of our efforts to aid these
ailing children is neither sound fiscal policy nor good medicine. And
for the President to make the incredible statement that the children of
the working poor should ``just go to the emergency room,'' that is
neither compassionate nor conservative. With his ideological blinders,
he just doesn't seem to see the children of the working poor who are up
all night with an aching ear, an abscessed tooth, or can't get
antibiotics for strep throat. Those are the challenges working families
face who do not have access to health care.
A healthy body, like an educated mind, is an opportunity that all of
our children should be permitted to share. For as long as the President
and a minority of this House stand between children and the lifesaving,
pain-reducing care that they need, we will work to overcome their
intransigence, whether it takes one time in January or another time
thereafter. We cannot yield to those who would block our children from
the care they need.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Deal), a member of the Health Subcommittee.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Speaker, well, here we are again. When the
bill came up the first time, we had not had a chance to mark it up in
the committee. We were not allowed amendments on the floor. And the
process has been a take-it-or-leave-it because it appears that the
issue is let's talk about children going to emergency rooms rather than
doing something about extending the SCHIP program.
And here we are again saying we don't want to do anything tonight; we
want to reserve the time to talk about it in January.
Well, there is an old saying that we ought to mean what we say and
say what we mean.
If the Democrats really want an SCHIP program, which I think they do,
and Republicans do as well, then there ought to be some principles
which have been on the table all along that should be able to be agreed
to. One is that this is children's health insurance plan, and there
ought not to be either a continuation of nor an expansion of the
addition of adults into that program. And yet that continues to be one
of the issues on which there is no agreement.
Another issue is that it was intended to be for children at the below
200 percent of poverty level. We have said we should have been a
saturation below 200 percent of poverty at 90 or 95 percent of those
children before States start moving up the ladder, not to the working
poor, but in some cases by many States' standards to the very rich or
at least the middle income when you get to 300 and 350 and 400 percent
of poverty. There has never been an agreement to say let's saturate the
low-income children and cover them first as a prerequisite.
And lastly, it is a program for American children and the continued
efforts to create loopholes so that people who are not citizens, who
are not legally in our country, who are not entitled to be covered
under this plan which is for American citizens, they continue to insist
that that loophole should not only be continued but also expanded.
I would urge us to go ahead and vote now. Let's don't just talk about
it. Let's do and say what we mean.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).
Mr. KAGEN. Madam Speaker, I thank our leadership for offering an
opportunity, not just this evening, but during this next month for our
Nation to begin to answer the question of our time, and that question
is this: What kind of Nation are we when we turn our back on our
children on whose future we all depend? And what kind of President
would turn more towards saving the profits of a corporation than the
lives of our children?
The SCHIP bill is good for our Nation's health. It is good for our
children. It is far more economical to have children be seen by their
physicians in their doctor's offices than in the emergency room. It
just makes sense. But sometimes I am coming to find here, if it makes
sense, it may not happen while we have the President that we do.
I have been witnessing a great deal of misinformation about this
bill. I have read every single page of the SCHIP bill, and I have heard
the opposition in the minority speak up regarding with what I call
misinformation. The fact is that this bill provides for children who
are 19 years and under, and yet I have heard them say age 25.
I have read the bill and it says it is two times poverty, $41,000 of
annual income, and yet I have heard them stand up and claim that it
will cover people up to $83,000. That is misinformation.
I have heard them claim it is not really private health care but the
slippery slope to socialized medicine. Well, we don't need socialized
medicine in America. This is private health care. It is private
doctors, private clinics and insurance companies, private hospitals
providing the care that these children require.
It does not cover any illegal immigrants. It covers people who are
here legally. So no more misinformation, no more lies. SCHIP is good
for our children. It is good for our economy. It is good for our
Nation's soul.
Madam Speaker, I ask everyone to understand that the people of
Wisconsin sent me here because they feel the same as we all do. We want
our country back. People all across Wisconsin are saying the same
thing, they want their country back. They want a country that has a
border they can see and defend, and they want a country that believes
in providing access to affordable health care for all of our children,
no matter their economic means. We must have this time to discuss SCHIP
all across the Nation and answer the question: Whose side are we on and
what kind of Nation are we?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) who has been one of the
Republican negotiators on this issue in the informal talks that have
been occurring at various times over the last month.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, as many of my colleagues know and as the
gentleman from Texas has said, I have been part of a group of Members
from both sides of the aisle and from both Chambers who have been
meeting actually over the past few months to try to find common ground
on SCHIP legislation.
I am afraid that some of the facts that the gentleman from Wisconsin
stated, he made some statements that I would hope he would join our
group and we could go over those facts, such as the $83,000.
For my colleagues who have taken part, they know very well that these
discussions that we have been having were productive at times and less
productive at other times. But despite our disagreements and the bumps
in the road, I think we persisted and continued to meet because we
believe this is one of the most important issues that Congress will
address.
The genesis of these meetings originated from a letter that 38 House
Republicans sent to the President on October 18, and in that letter we
laid out principles that we believed would be necessary to secure our
votes on the legislation and make this truly a bipartisan
reauthorization of SCHIP. These basic principles included covering low-
income children first, SCHIP for kids only, SCHIP should not force
children out of private health insurance, SCHIP is for American
children, and the funding should be stable and equitable.
It is important to note that the letter did not mention the tax
increase or the $35 billion in additional spending, two significant
concerns for many Members on this side of the aisle.
{time} 1930
Democrats also had their principles for the reauthorization. With
these principles, we agreed to discuss how we could change the bill in
a way that would gather the support of a significant number of House
Republicans and
[[Page H15386]]
still have the support of the Members on the other side of the aisle.
After weeks of negotiations, we came to a point where I think both
sides realized that if a deal was going to be possible, we both had to
give some ground for the benefit of a bill.
I think that we are and were very close to agreement in principle and
a framework that both sides can support. To be frank, the agreement
isn't a bill that I would write if I had the choice. I am sure that my
friends on the other side of the aisle feel the same way. But this is
how a negotiation works. I think if we both came away with a little bit
of feeling like we hadn't won, then that's a true negotiation and both
sides have compromised.
Unfortunately, I think we've run out of time for this year, and given
that the current reauthorization ends on the 14th and there are a
number of States projected to run out of SCHIP funding next year, I
hope we can agree to an 18-month extension with additional funding to
ensure that States will not have to drop children from the program.
But I would also ask that we continue working on a final bill when we
return in January. I have spoken with the leadership on both sides and
expressed my desire to do so. We need to put partisanship aside, and I
would hope that we can continue to discuss this issue.
Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, at this point I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, a member of the Ways and Means
Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, the President and the Republican
leadership in Congress never miss an opportunity to not miss an
opportunity. There was a bipartisan consensus for 10 million children
to have health care, and because the President didn't agree with it, he
vetoed it.
Now, some people here say that we could have this vote now. We can
have this vote in January.
The truth is the real vote will be in November of 2008. Some of us
disagreed with the President of the United States on stem cell
research. There was an election, and now we have a new Senator from
Missouri, we have a new Congressman from Arizona, all because of that
issue.
And the real vote, and people don't want to talk about it, say it's
political, that's what a democracy is about. And there will be a vote
about this, and the American people will vote on this. And those
Members of Congress that are happy about denying 10 million children
health care will get a chance and an opportunity to explain that vote.
Those of us who think it's important will get that.
My own view, I wouldn't want to mix politics with policy, if there's
going to be a few less Members who vote against 10 million children
because the American people will make a judgment about that. And we
shouldn't deny that.
And so I give you credit. You never miss an opportunity to miss an
opportunity. So, remember, some have talked about for 40 days in Iraq
you could fund 10 million children's health care. Forty days in Iraq.
President Kennedy once said, ``To govern is to choose.'' Well, you've
made your choice. We've made our choice. And the American people in
November are going to make their choice.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I'm going to yield myself 2
minutes.
I want to thank my friend from Illinois for being honest. This is all
about politics. It's not about policy. It's not about the children.
It's about politics. So I commend him.
Mr. EMANUEL. Will my good friend yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I'll yield for 30 seconds, sure.
Mr. EMANUEL. Okay. I come from a family. I believe politics is a good
thing, because we have differences, and you work them out on election
day and the American people make a decision, except for when you do
special redistricting. But usually you let it out on election day. And
I believe in that. I don't have a problem with that.
It's not about scoring points. There's differences. You don't support
this. And I won't go through this. I was in the room when we negotiated
this in 1997. When President Clinton proposed this, the Republican
leadership at the time, and he said there will be no balanced budget
without a children's health insurance program that had eye, dental and
pediatric. The Republican leadership said at that point it was welfare.
President Clinton said there will be no balanced budget agreement
without this. Finally, you guys offered pediatric care but no eye and
dental. And then the deal we cut was the SCHIP we have today. And the
very flexibility that you oppose that our Governors are exploring was
what you demanded back in 1997. But the original children health
proposal wasn't a bipartisan agreement. It was President Clinton saying
there will be no balanced budget agreement without 6 million children
getting their health care. I believe that politics is a good thing, and
that's what it proved.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I respect the gentleman from Illinois. I think
we should do more of this, quite frankly.
Madam Speaker, I'm going to yield myself such time as I may consume
now to respond to my good friend from Illinois. I was in the House when
SCHIP was passed. I was not in the leadership, but I was on the
committee. My recollection is a little bit different than my friend
from Illinois.
There were some Republicans, I think Senator Hatch was one of the
ones in the Senate; Congressman Archer, who was the chairman of the
Ways and Means Committee. This did come out of the effort to reform
welfare as it was then. There was a concern that as we tried to move
primarily women who were single head of households off of welfare, if
they didn't have a job that had health care, their children, in order
for them to work, transition to work, that they needed health care. And
President Clinton and the Republican leadership in the House and the
Senate did agree that SCHIP was the answer. And it was a bipartisan
agreement. I would give the President credit for supporting it, but I
would also give the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate
credit for supporting it also at that time.
The bill that is before us tonight is not the bill that passed in
1997. We have over 600,000 adults on SCHIP, a children's health
insurance program. Rhetorically, my friends on the majority side say
they really don't want adults to be covered. But nothing in this bill
moves those adults off of SCHIP.
We don't know how many hundreds of thousands of noncitizens are
covered. But most people agree that there are hundreds of thousands, if
not millions. Nothing in this bill has an enforcement mechanism to move
children who are not U.S. citizens off the rolls. Not one thing moves
that. And the 200 percent of poverty, the original SCHIP bill was
between 100 and 200 percent of poverty. That's still a good principle.
There are not 10 million children in America between 100 and 200
percent of poverty that qualify for SCHIP. The most authoritative
number is that there may be an additional 800,000.
Now, the current SCHIP bill covers about 6 million children. In order
to get to the 10 million number, you have to go way above 200 percent,
probably above 300 percent and maybe even as high as 400 percent. So
this 10 million number, there are about 80 million children in America.
Most of those children, luckily, have health insurance through some
sort of a private sector employee-sponsored health insurance program.
Six million have it under SCHIP, and then there are several million
that have it under Medicaid. But there are not 10 million between 100
and 200 percent of poverty.
Those of us on the Republican side, we support SCHIP. We support the
original program. We may even support something expanding it beyond the
original program. But we don't support some of the ideas that take it
up to as high as 300 to 350 percent of poverty, that cover noncitizens
and that cover adults. That's what this debate is all about.
So we hope that we have an opportunity. We hope that we have a veto
vote and that we sustain the President's veto, and then maybe my friend
from Illinois and myself can actually enter into a bipartisan
negotiation that does exactly what he wants to do and what people like
myself want to do.
Mr. EMANUEL. Can I ask the ranking member to yield?
[[Page H15387]]
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would yield for 30 seconds.
Mr. EMANUEL. First of all, it wasn't part of welfare reform. Welfare
reform had a 1-year transitional for Medicaid. It wasn't part of that,
which is a point you made.
Second is, SCHIP was so successful, while the rest of the population
actually had an increase in uninsured, the only group in America for
the last 7 years that had actually a decrease in the uninsured was
children until last year. This is a product of answering the
shortcomings between Medicaid and private insurance.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. We support that.
Mr. EMANUEL. The fact is there have been a million additional
children in the last year and a half whose parents work full-time who
don't have health care and this would cover.
And to the other point you said, actually there have been Democratic
and Republican Governors and principally signed by this President where
the adults have come from. This President signed those waivers for
Democratic and Republican Governors.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. That doesn't mean that we need to continue those
waivers.
With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I'm a new Member of this
Chamber, and so I don't know all the history of SCHIP. I don't know all
of the reasons why the bill was written, why it was, the history of
negotiations, and with all due respect to my friends who were here, I
don't really care, because what I know is that right now there are
millions of children throughout this country who go to bed each night
ill, simply because they can't afford to see a doctor. And let me tell
you why I think it's a good thing that we should wait a couple of weeks
in order to take this vote. Because, frankly, I'm a hopeless romantic
when it comes to this House, the people's House's ability to impose the
will of the vast majority of Americans. Call me crazy, but I think that
when 80 percent of Americans, as the CBS News poll told us some weeks
ago, support advancing children's health care, then maybe, maybe, this
House should do something about it. I'm also unapologetically
idealistic about our moral obligation as a society and as a Congress,
because I know every single one of us, if we were walking down the road
and we saw a sick child on the side, we would stop everything we were
doing and try to help that child. And I don't understand why that
argument isn't extrapolated to those children throughout this country
who are sick only because they can't afford health care. We have a
moral obligation to help those kids. And we have a fiscal obligation as
well, because that system of universal coverage that extends only to
people that go to emergency rooms when they get so sick that that's the
only place that they can go, that costs us money. As moral and fiscal
custodians of this great Nation, we have an obligation to pass this
bill, to override this President's veto and to give all the time in the
world to your constituents and our constituents to make that case over
the next 4 weeks.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Let me inquire how much time I have remaining,
Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 14 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to yield 4 minutes to a member of the
committee and also a member of the ad hoc negotiation team, Mr. Walden
of Oregon.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I think it is important to start
by noting there is not, I don't think, a Member on either side of the
aisle that doesn't support continuing the existing SCHIP program,
continuing providing insurance coverage for 4.04 million American
children. What we're debating is how you pay for an expansion beyond
that, how you go from 200 percent of poverty level to a family of four
that would be at 300 percent of poverty level. For the record, that's
$61,950. Some of us believe that before you expand to 300 percent of
poverty, or a family of four making nearly $62,000 a year, we should
make sure that those kids who are in families that make enough that
they don't qualify for Medicaid, that those from there on up to 200 or
250 percent of poverty actually are being insured by the States to whom
we send this money back to.
There has been discussion that 10 million kids will be covered under
the bill that the President vetoed. I wish somebody would give me a
Congressional Budget Office summary that says that, because what CBO
found when they analyzed this bill was that by 2012 there would be a
total of 7.4 million kids insured under SCHIP under the bill we're
debating tonight. If you've got a different document from CBO, I'd love
see it. I've not seen it.
Further, CBO claims that the way this bill is structured, there would
be 2 million children in America, 2 million of this 7.4 that either
already have health insurance or have access to health insurance
through their families or their families' employers. Two million. This
is Congressional Budget Office data.
The effect of the way this bill is structured, those 2 million kids
would probably be shifted onto a government plan. We ought to be trying
to get kids who don't have access to health insurance first, and we
should be trying to get the kids who are at the lower end of the
economic scale insured first. Those are principles that we're fighting
for in this.
Finally, two other points. I don't think it's asking too much that
when a parent brings in their children and their children don't have
ID, that the parent simply present ID, a driver's license, something
that proves who they are when they certify these are their kids. That's
something we're asking for.
The third and final point, this program, the way it's crafted under
this legislation, even with the tax that's proposed, by the next 10
years, the end of 10 years, you have borrowed forward $80 billion, with
a B, that has been borrowed, and in 2013, the program's out of money.
{time} 1945
We have got enough of those Federal programs today. I mean Members on
both sides of the aisle would have to agree that we haven't fixed the
Medicare fix yet for docs. Their funding is going to be cut. I've got
seniors in my district who can't get access to a physician.
Why would we enact a program today that we know, based on independent
analysis, comes up $80 billion short? You take the money for 10 years
and you spend it in the first 5. What happens after that? Isn't it
better to create a program that takes care of kids who are on the
lowest end of the economic scale but whose parents make too much to be
in Medicaid, make sure they're covered first, make sure we're not
crowding out people who have access to health insurance for their kids
through their employer or some other way, and that they don't shift to
save money for themselves from a government-run program?
At the end of the day, I think we all want to take care of kids'
health needs. We want to do it in a responsible way, fiscally
responsible, that can be sustainable so that we don't end up with kids
on a cliff in 5 years because you spent the money that was allocated
over 10 in the first 5 because you borrowed. That doesn't make sense.
I never knowingly in 21 years in small business entered into a
contract that I knew I couldn't fulfill. This is a contract that can't
be fulfilled the way it is crafted. We can do better than this. It
doesn't have to be a campaign and political issue. It can be a policy
issue that works.
Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, this is about health care
for kids. It's an important and humane bill that's illustrative of who
we are as Americans. It's paid for, and moreover, it saves us money. It
saves us money by keeping kids out of the emergency room, and anytime
that you can prevent or cure an illness before it becomes acute, that
saves us money as well.
It's bipartisan, not only in the House and the Senate, but 43
Governors have endorsed this measure. Over 80 percent of the American
people support the SCHIP program.
[[Page H15388]]
We should not let the President deny health care to 10 million kids
of working moms and dads. We're better than that. We need to override
this veto.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I believe we only have two more
speakers, so I'm going to reserve my time at this point.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, a while ago the President of the
United States looked out in front of a very elite crowd and said to all
of them: Some people call you the elite. I call you my base.
You know, we should have listened a little more carefully because he
really wasn't kidding. They were his base. The President has said
``yes'' to them ever since. Yes to Big Oil. Yes to Big Pharmacy. Yes to
anything they want. Yes to tobacco companies. Yes to their tax cuts.
And no to the middle class and no to the poor except for one yes. Yes,
you can pay for them.
And so the President of the United States, with his helpers on the
other side, have made it extremely difficult for the middle class and
the poor not only to pay for their energy bills, not only to pay for
all the other essentials, but now to take their children to the doctor
or to the hospital.
What is wrong with us that we are having an argument about whether
children should be insured and how many children should be insured?
I'm a former social worker. Every single day of my life I had
stories, tragic stories, stories that should embarrass all of you that
you're standing here fighting against these children, and how hard it
was for these families to get their prescriptions, how hard it was for
them and how they had to decide exactly at what temperature do you take
a child to the doctor, at 101, 102 or 103 degrees, because we don't
have the money, and so we're not going to take our child to the doctor
unless we absolutely must.
And yet we stand here tonight and the President tells us that he is
going to not allow this program. Why? Why? Because we put a tax on the
tobacco company. Shame on all of us that are standing in the way of the
children of this country. There's just no excuse for it.
And how many children are we talking about? Somebody on the other
side said there really aren't that many children, maybe 1 million.
Well, the Congressional Budget Office said to the Senate Finance
Committee in July or August that there are about 5 to 6 million
children.
The Democrats are dead on target with this, and the American public
knows that and stands with us.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.
Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra)
has 10\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, this issue boils down to a
practicality of ideology. The Republicans and the Bush administration
has repeatedly shown that they really quite honestly do not get it when
it comes down to health care, and particularly for those who need the
health care the most. This is not just the beginning of this. This
argument started back during the winter when there were 17 States who
came up short, and we fought and we fought to try to get that shortage
fixed. But there was no help until I drafted an amendment, went to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and we attached it to the
Iraq war supplemental. That is the only way President Bush and the
administration signed it.
Now, let me just point out two important points. There are scare
tactics being used here. Anytime the Republicans and those on the other
side want to score a point, they bring up the bogeyman of illegal
immigration; these people are going to be illegal aliens. There's
nothing in this bill. As a matter of fact, there's express language
that prohibits in this bill any illegal immigrant or undocumented
person from being eligible for this children's health program.
You talk about there are adults on the bill. There are no adults on
this bill except an adult who happens to be pregnant with child for
prenatal care. Should they not have that care? That strikes at the
heart of this bill.
I urge everyone to not go with this sad argument and let's sustain
and override this veto coming up on January 23.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I appreciate the gentleman that just spoke, but let's be factually
accurate. There are over 600,000 adults under current law on SCHIP
right now. They're not all pregnant women. Now, some of them may be,
but not all 600,000, and nothing in this bill moves any adult off of
SCHIP. Nothing.
Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).
Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, when I heard that the President vetoed
this bill today, I asked to speak.
After about three-and-a-half decades in the U.S. military, I owe both
Republicans and Democrats a lot. About 2, 2\1/2\ years, little over 2
years ago, my daughter, 4 years old, was struck with a malignant brain
tumor. I'd never had a personal challenge in my entire life, having
only gotten married 9 years ago. I'd had a lot of professional ones,
but after three brain operations, chemotherapy and radiation, she's
here today. I thank you all for that because I had the best health care
plan in America.
We took a pathology slice at Johns Hopkins, Mass General's Hospital.
We took it everywhere. We took it to the ends of the Earth, and you
gave me that health care plan.
But I will never forget living in Children's Hospital oncology ward
down the street, and there was a young 2\1/2\-year-old boy the day my
daughter started chemotherapy after her brain operations, and for 6
hours my wife and I could not help but overhear, because you all have
been in those hospital rooms, social workers come and go to talk to the
parents of the young 2\1/2\-year-old boy from Washington, DC, who had
been diagnosed with acute leukemia that morning, to see whether that
young boy could stay and have the same opportunity my daughter had
because of you.
So this is the reason I got into the race for Congress a little less
than 2 years ago. I owed you. I owed this Nation. You gave me an
opportunity to have my daughter be here today. I didn't get in for
Iraq. I got in for this bill. While it may not be perfect, neither was
TRICARE, and I would just ask everyone to truly think about the
opportunity to give our children, every child, this young boy, the same
opportunity you gave me and my daughter.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from the 5th District of the Garden State of
New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, ``I forbid,'' the Speaker,
Democrat Speaker of the House, came to the floor and gave a translation
of the Latin ``veto'' and explained to us that it means ``I forbid.''
Well, I can tell you the only veto that is occurring with regard to
children's health care and care for the indigent poor is occurring here
tonight at the hands of the Democrat majority.
The Democrat majority is vetoing. They are saying I forbid to move
forward on this legislation. Republicans have expressed the desire to
move forward and reached out and said in willingness to work together.
Just a moment ago, a freshman of the Democrat side of the aisle came
to that podium and cited a figure that 80 percent of the American
public, as he said, quote, wishes to advance children's health care for
indigent poor children. The word ``advance'' means to move forward.
But Speaker Pelosi came to the floor and said, I forbid. I will veto
moving forward tonight. Instead, put it on abeyance, put it on hold and
say we have to put it off for another month.
What are they putting off? Well, they are trying to move forward
later on on a bill that brings us socialized health care for illegal
aliens, for adults, for children, for adults. No one has denied
[[Page H15389]]
that it's for adults. It is for childless couples and, by definition,
is not for the poor. It is for middle class because, as we know, the
median income in this country is $42,000. This bill will allow people
upwards to $62,000 or $70,000 to be eligible for this program. By
definition, therefore, it will provide for a middle-class program for
universal health care.
Now, in conclusion, the Democrat conference leader explains why they
are saying that they are forbidding moving forward and is very clear.
He said, I enjoy politics, and that's what this bill is all about. It
is about politics.
So to those who come to the floor tonight from the other side of the
aisle and with a heartfelt passion that I believe is in their heart
that they wish to move forward on moving advanced care for our
children, I would ask your rank-and-file Members of that side of the
aisle to talk to your leadership and say, Do not veto this effort. Do
not say I forbid moving forward, and allow us to move forward on
providing health care for indigent, poor children in this country
tonight and vote ``no'' on this motion.
Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader,
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I was not going to participate in this debate, but the gentleman from
New Jersey doesn't fully understand what we've been about for the last
2 months. He talked about the rank and file. Mr. Dingell, the senior
Member of this House, myself, Senator Baucus, Senator Hatch, Senator
Grassley, Members of the rank and file on your side of the aisle who
had not voted for this bill and didn't vote to override the veto. Mr.
Barton was in some of those meetings. Mr. Deal was in some of those
meetings. We met for almost 100 hours with rank-and-file Members on
your side because we felt so strongly we wanted to address some of the
issues of concern.
We haven't gotten there yet, but I want to tell the gentleman, first
of all, he says this bill is not for indigent children.
{time} 2000
Medicaid is for indigent children. This is for children of
hardworking Americans who are not making enough because either their
employer doesn't provide insurance or they can't afford the insurance
to cover their children. We tried very, very hard. I defy you, and you
haven't been here that long, I understand that, but I defy you to find
another instance where that many hours has been put in by such senior
Members, including two of the most senior Republicans in the United
States Senate who voted for this bill, as did 18 of their colleagues in
the United States Senate, and 44 of your colleagues here voted for this
bill, and 45 for the previous bill. This is a very significant
bipartisan bill.
And this bill responded to some of the concerns raised by the
President. You continue to talk about adults. There are parents on here
at the States' choice, as you know. Your State's choice, my State's
choice. However, we precluded, as you know, in this bill nonparents,
and rather than a 2-year phaseout, we did a 1-year phaseout. We
responded to the President's concern about $83,000. We capped it at 300
percent. We responded to the question of trying to identify and to make
sure that we add people who are authorized to be in this country.
So I think the gentleman's comments about the Democratic Party, or
Democrat, as he likes to refer to us, is totally inaccurate, I will
tell my friend. We've worked very hard. Why have we worked very hard?
Because we think that 4 million children who the President of the
United States in 2004 got on the Republican National Convention floor
seeking the votes of all of his fellow citizens to be re-elected as
President of the United States, said, I want to add millions of
children currently eligible to this program who are not yet served. I
tell my friend that's what this bill does. That's why we are so
surprised and disappointed that the President rejected this bill and
vetoed it and said, as the Speaker said, I forbid this bill going into
effect and adding those 4 million children.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman.
I appreciate that, and as I said in my remarks, I believe that there
is heartfelt desire on the other side of the aisle to provide for, and
I may have said indigent, poor children in this country. I do honestly
believe that, from both sides of the aisle that the goal is the same
thing, to try to provide care for that particular class of individuals.
What I disagree with the gentleman with is on a couple points you
said. One specifically as far as the issue of a good, fair effort of
negotiations on moving forward in this legislation.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I suggest that the gentleman refer to
Mrs. Biggert to see whether or not she thought they were good-faith or
extensive negotiations and discussions.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman.
I am informed that our side of the aisle, whether through Mrs.
Biggert or otherwise, has presented to you or through your staff or
otherwise a proposal back on November 15 of five pages of
recommendations or suggestions as far as positions that could be done
in this bill to move us both together. And here we are on December 12
and we have yet to receive a response from that.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, and I am not going to get into further
debate on this, I refer the gentleman to Senator Hatch and Senator
Grassley and ask them whether they thought good-faith negotiations were
pursued and whether or not they thought that we had gone as far as we
possibly could in order to accommodate the adding of 4 million
children.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, what is the order of closing?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It will be the Members in reverse order: Mr.
Pallone, Mr. Barton, and Mr. Becerra.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am ready to close after Mr. Pallone.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I just want to reiterate and contradict
some of the things that the President said in his veto message today.
He said that this is the same bill that we sent him that he
previously vetoed. And it's simply not true. We made substantial
changes to it to allay concerns about higher income families enrolling,
adults being enrolled, or even undocumented immigrants being enrolled.
I just want to point out some of the flaws with the President's message
in closing.
First, the President says that our goal should be to move kids into
private coverage and not into public programs. That is exactly what the
CHIP program does, Mr. President. CHIP provides money to States, which
in turn contract with private insurance companies to provide insurance
coverage to kids. It's not socialized medicine, it's not government-run
health care, and the President should know that.
Second, the President says his proposal to reauthorize CHIP would
increase funding by 20 percent. What he doesn't tell you is that his
plan would not help provide coverage to the 6 million kids who are
uninsured and eligible to enroll in either CHIP or Medicaid. I would
point out that the Senate Finance Committee in July received a letter
from the CBO where they said that they estimate between 5 million and 6
million children who are uninsured are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP.
So there are a lot of kids out there, almost twice as many that are in
the program now, that could be insured.
And then the President said that we allow adult coverage. Well, let
me say our bill phases out adult coverage faster than the President
would do by just disapproving his waiver renewals.
Fourth, the President says we don't focus on the lowest income kids,
and that's not true. We provide financial resources for States to go
out and find the lowest income kids first.
Finally, the President has said he's been willing to work with us to
reauthorize SCHIP, and the Republicans in the House said the same
thing. Well, the fact of the matter is that, as our majority leader
said, we have reached out. We have had hundreds of hours of meetings.
We have reached out to the
[[Page H15390]]
President. It's simply not true that we haven't reach out, and the fact
of the matter is that the President has been unwilling to budge even 1
inch from where he wants to go with the SCHIP legislation. Instead of
working with us to provide health insurance to 10 million kids, he's
given us two vetoes now.
All I can say, Mr. President, the holiday season is upon us, but you
are basically becoming the Grinch who stole Christmas from these 10
million kids, in this case at least 5 or 6 million, that don't have
health insurance. It's a shame that we have come to this position
today, and I would urge my colleagues to cast a vote to override the
President's veto.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, there's a great movie from the
sixties or maybe the seventies called ``Cool Hand Luke.'' Paul Newman
is Cool Hand Luke, and he gets imprisoned for some minor infraction and
he just doesn't conform with the regulations of the prison. And finally
in exasperation the prison warden is talking to him in front of the
chain gang and utters the famous line, ``What we have here is a failure
to communicate.''
Well, what we have here tonight apparently is another failure to
communicate. The Republicans in the House of Representatives want to
reauthorize SCHIP. Some of the Republicans in the House of
Representatives even want to expand SCHIP. But what we don't want to do
is make SCHIP the surrogate for universal health care for children that
are not in low-income or moderate-income families. We don't want to do
that. And the bill before us would do that.
It would cover children up to 300 percent of poverty, explicitly,
which is above the median income in this country. And it would not have
any substantial reform on what are called ``income disregards.'' An
income disregard is, some States have said, well, we're going to
disregard this amount of income or we're going to disregard that
particular expense. So for all practical purposes if a State chooses to
disregard income, then there is no cap, and the bill before us doesn't
have reforms in that measure.
The bill before us, in terms of illegal aliens, does have a paragraph
that says no illegal alien can receive the benefit. It has that. But it
has no enforcement. It's toothless. It's like saying don't go over 55
miles an hour or 60 miles an hour but you don't have a radar policeman
to enforce the speed limit.
So what we are saying and what the President of the United States is
saying in his veto message is pretty straightforward. Let's continue
the SCHIP program. Let's find the children that are below 200 percent
of poverty, and let's get them enrolled in the program and perhaps even
go as high as 250 percent or 275 percent. Let's find some way to have a
real enforcement to make sure that SCHIP is for children and for
children of citizens. And then let's find a way to get the adults on
the program off the program.
There are some States that cover more adults than children. And,
again, my friends on the majority agree that that's not an appropriate
thing, but they don't do anything in the bill to reform that.
So when my friend from New Jersey, the distinguished subcommittee
chairman, talks about there may be as many as 6 million additional
children that could be covered, I very carefully listened to what he
said, and I would agree with what he said because he used the words
``Medicaid'' and ``SCHIP.'' Well there are 25 million children covered
under Medicaid right now. There may well be another 5 or 6 million
children that are eligible for Medicaid that we need to work with on a
bipartisan basis to get in Medicaid. But according to HHS, there are
only 800,000 eligible for SCHIP. Even according to the CBO, there are
only an additional maybe 1.3 million that would be eligible for SCHIP
under the bill that the majority is putting on the floor.
So I wish we wouldn't postpone this veto. I wish we would go ahead
and have the veto override tonight because we will sustain the veto.
And then I wish my good friend John Dingell from Michigan and Mr.
Rangel from New York would work with Mr. McCrery and myself and other
Members to really come together on a bipartisan basis.
I would like to point out that these negotiations that Mr. Hoyer
alluded to did, in fact, happen, but those negotiations were not a
conference. This bill is not the result of a conference committee
between the House and the Senate. The bill before us is the result of
some backroom negotiations and then an effort on an ad hoc basis of
some of the senior Members of the majority in this House and some
Members of the other body to work with some of our junior Members who
had really no official standing but did negotiate in good faith to come
up with a compromise. And as Mr. Garrett pointed out, the written
proposal the Republicans put forward, I think, to this day has never
been answered. Now, I could be wrong on that, but I don't think it has
ever been formally addressed.
So I sat in on those negotiations for several days, and what we got
was a lot of good feeling talk. But when it came time to put it on
paper, the majority wouldn't put it on paper.
So let's not postpone this override. Let's vote down the motion to
postpone, and let's have the veto override tonight. And then in the
next week or so if we are still in session, let's really start a
bipartisan process that is based on the formal processes of the House
and the Senate.
With that, I would yield back my time, Madam Speaker.
{time} 2015
Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, let's remember why we're here. Less than 2 weeks
before Christmas, and we're talking about whether or not 10 million
children, the children of hardworking American families, when we know
that the cost of health care has increased, we're talking about whether
or not 10 million children, 2 weeks before Christmas, will have access
to health care.
Madam Speaker, the bill we're attempting to override is a responsible
bill. It does not increase the deficit in providing health care access
to our children. It is completely paid for.
Madam Speaker, this bill speaks for itself. Regardless of what's been
said by either side, read the bill, it speaks for itself. This is about
children's health care. And it's only for children who are citizens,
who are legally in this country. And it is for modest-income Americans
who are in this country.
Madam Speaker, let some numbers speak for themselves: 43, 100, 10
million. Forty-three, that is the number of our Republican colleagues
who voted on a bipartisan basis to override President Bush's veto of
this children's health care bill. One hundred, we have been in the
process of talking to our Republican colleagues and trying to resolve
our differences for over 100 days, as the gentlelady from Illinois
(Mrs. Biggert) herself stated. Ten million, that's the price. Ten
million children in this country who will not have access to health
care if we don't do anything. They simply want to have the same access
to health care, to a doctor, to a clinic or to a hospital the way the
children of every Member of this Congress has access to health care.
No Member of Congress stands up and complains that, at taxpayer
expense, we are making available to each and every one of us a health
care policy which today and on Christmas Day will ensure that our
children will be insured if something should happen and they need to go
to a doctor or to a hospital. Is there any reason why hardworking
Americans who just don't earn enough money to pay for the full cost of
that health insurance shouldn't have the same access as each and every
Member of Congress has for his and her children today?
Madam Speaker, I hope we all keep our eye on the prize; 10 million
children, 10 million children who we're trying to make sure have access
to health care. If Members of Congress can guarantee our children
health care, then we should be prepared to guarantee that anyone who
works in this country can provide health care to their children. That's
what this is about.
We're going to return to the people of this country the Congress that
they feel they've lost. We said a while ago that this Congress would
take a new direction. That's what we mean when we mean to override the
President's veto.
[[Page H15391]]
I urge my colleagues to vote today, to think about 10 million kids
right before Christmas and say to the President, We will override your
veto.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to postpone.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to
postpone will be followed by a 5-minute vote on suspending the rules on
H.R. 3985.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211,
nays 180, not voting 40, as follows:
[Roll No. 1154]
YEAS--211
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
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
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
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
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--180
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
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
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
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 (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--40
Bean
Berry
Boehner
Carson
Coble
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Tom
DeLauro
Dicks
Doolittle
Eshoo
Farr
Ferguson
Fossella
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hunter
Jindal
Kirk
Lantos
Lewis (CA)
Matheson
McCrery
McDermott
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Neugebauer
Paul
Reynolds
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Shadegg
Skelton
Space
Tancredo
Waxman
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 2039
Mr. EHLERS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________