[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 23, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H395-H408]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                             GENERAL LEAVE



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 23, 2008--On Page H395 the following appeared: GENERAL 
LEAVE
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: General Leave


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on the matter under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, stock markets around the world are plummeting. Home 
foreclosures are ballooning. States, without exception, are facing 
budget crises. Employers are cutting jobs. Gas and heating oil prices 
are draining household budgets. The vote of my colleagues today can 
stop tomorrow's headline from saying American children are losing 
health care. This vote to override the President's veto of the 
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 will 
not only bring health care to 10 million children, it will protect 
children and families who may lose their jobs and no longer have health 
insurance. This is not lip service. This is health coverage.
  The bill includes mental health services on a par with medical 
services. It requires dental services be afforded our children. It 
protects school-based health services and rehabilitation and case 
management services for those with disabilities. It provides outreach 
and enrollment grants and new funding for obesity program.
  We know from a recent 2005 study that investing $1 million in State 
funds in Medicaid will generate 33 new jobs and $1.23 million in new 
wages in a year. This bill strengthens that safety net by allocating 
the funds that States need to protect and cover more low-income 
children.
  It should be noted that every complaint that the administration has 
set forth about this legislation has been met. The bill passed with the 
support of 265 Members, including 43 of our good Republican colleagues. 
It passed the Senate with 64 Members, including 17 of our Republican 
colleagues.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto. Vote 
to secure health care for our children. It is right, it is decent, and 
it is necessary.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent 
that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) have 15 minutes of the time 
I control to control as he sees fit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I recognize myself for such time 
as I may consume.
  Well, here we go again. Depending on how you count it, this is 
somewhere between the ninth and the 13th time that we have been on the 
floor of the House in this session of Congress debating the SCHIP 
program. That seems a little ironic since it's a program that both 
sides of the aisle support, and I would support enthusiastically.
  I listened intently to what my good friend from Michigan, the dean of 
the House, Mr. Dingell just said about the program, and I feel 
compelled to point out a few things that he failed to mention. Number 
1, every American in this country, if they're below 100 percent of 
poverty, receives health care if they wish it through a program called 
Medicaid. If you are above 100 percent of poverty and are a child, 
right now a child is defined as an individual between the ages of birth 
and 19 years old, between 100 and 200 percent of poverty, you can 
receive health care through the SCHIP program, which is a State-Federal 
partnership.
  The numbers are somewhat in dispute, but we believe that under the 
current program, in the neighborhood, I believe, of 6 million children 
and 600 to 700,000 adults are receiving health care through SCHIP. If 
you're above 200 percent of poverty, hopefully you have insurance 
through your own health insurance program or through a program provided 
by your employer.
  There are some States that cover children up to 250 percent of 
poverty, and there are some States that cover them up to 300 percent of 
poverty. And there are a few States that have petitioned to cover them 
up to 350 percent of poverty.
  So on the Republican side of the aisle, here are the principles that 
we adhere to in this debate. If you're a child between the ages, up to 
the age of 19 and your family income is over 100 percent of poverty or 
less than 200 percent of poverty, we believe you should have health 
care through SCHIP and we want to fund it, and we want to work with the 
States to get as many children in that category covered.
  If you're an adult, we don't believe you should be covered under 
SCHIP, so we think that the 6 to 700,000 adults should be transitioned 
off of SCHIP and put back on Medicaid.
  If you're above 200 percent of poverty, we want to work with the 
States. We want to work with the private sector to come up with 
innovative plans to cover those children that perhaps aren't covered 
and their family income is above 200 percent of poverty.
  If you're not a citizen of the United States, we don't believe you 
should receive health care coverage under SCHIP.
  So that's what the debate is about. The Democrats want to expand the 
coverage. There are some of them that want to use it as a surrogate for 
universal health care for every American in this country. I don't say 
that all of my friends on the Democratic side do, but some do.
  So the Republicans' position is, continue the existing program, 
perhaps increase coverage somewhat above 200 percent of poverty; cover 
every child in America between 100 and 200 percent; don't cover illegal 
aliens; and transition adults off of SCHIP.
  The law of the land, the Barton-Deal bill that we passed in December, 
extends the basic program that I just outlined, I believe, through 
March of 2009.
  So, once again, we're going to have a vote on the President's veto. I 
predict we're going to sustain that veto. And then I'm still hopeful 
that Mr. Dingell and Mr. Rangel and Mr. Stark and Mr. Pallone, who are 
the leaders on this issue in the House, will convene their various 
committees, and we'll do legislative hearings and then put together a 
bipartisan bill and mark it up in committee and then bring it to the 
floor, and we can have a permanent authorization of SCHIP sometime in 
this Congress.

[[Page H396]]

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I'd like to ask unanimous consent that I 
yield to myself 3 minutes and then be allowed to yield the balance of 
that time to Chairman Stark to control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I stand in support of overriding the 
President's veto, not for the reasons given by Chairman Dingell, 
because it's the right and moral position, because that has existed all 
of the time, and yet we've been unsuccessful.
  But I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) that since 
the last time this has come up, the President has admitted that we are 
going toward a recession and that the economy may be jeopardized unless 
the Congress supported a stimulus package.
  It would just seem to me that if it's recognized that our States are 
going to go into deficit, our Governors are going to have serious 
problems, and that it is very possible, if not likely, that services 
for our kids would be further cut under Medicaid. It would seem to me 
that a legitimate argument could be made that, by providing care for 
these 11 million children, it allows their parents to know that they'll 
be able to be more productive knowing that their kids are covered by 
health insurance.
  It's sad that the poor now have to be used merely as a vehicle to 
stimulate our economy. But had we taken care of these people during the 
robust great economic times, perhaps we would not be going through this 
struggle.
  So it appears to me that this is another opportunity that the 
minority would have, not just to do the moral thing, but to do the 
economic thing, and to be of some assistance to the Governors who are 
screaming out for the continuation of this program, indeed, the 
expansion of it.
  And we're not talking about just adults being restricted, but we talk 
about adults being in a better chance to be productive knowing that 
their kids are being taken care of. So we do have this new opportunity 
for the minority to rethink their position and to do it, again, because 
it's the economic thing to do and to know that being able to detect 
serious illnesses, sight problems, hearing problems for our children at 
an early age, that we really are strengthening the economy so we don't 
have to pay for these health setbacks and sometimes detection of 
chronic diseases at a later stage.

                              {time}  1100

  So instead of talking compassion, which obviously is not a compelling 
argument on the other side, let's talk economically and ask the 
question of economists, whether or not expanding preventative care for 
our children in health care is really strengthening the economy and 
saving money in the future with all the restrictions, you know, kicking 
illegal aliens out and making certain that adults don't participate, 
all of those things that make you feel good, we would go along with as 
we have in the past.
  But let's make certain that every child that can be treated would be 
treated, and so I support the override.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  As Yogi Berra once said, this is like deja vu all over again. I think 
it is important to highlight that this is simply a political exercise, 
that the Congress has already acted to extend the children's health 
program through 2009. So instead of debating real reform on this 
program, we have a political statement being made on the floor today.
  I lost track at seven times we have debated this issue. As the 
gentleman from Texas said, it's somewhere between nine and 13. But it 
doesn't change the fact that expanding SCHIP beyond its original 
mission of covering low-income children is a nonstarter with the 
Congress. Yet the bill the President vetoed would do just that, and it 
would allow illegal immigrants to receive SCHIP, maintains coverage of 
adults in this children's health care program and continues to erode 
private coverage.
  How is it that in my home State of Michigan 87,000 eligible children 
don't have health care while 39,000 adults are in the program. How is 
it that in Minnesota, 87 percent of the enrollees in this children's 
program are adults?
  How is it that this low-income program is covering families in New 
York and families in New Jersey making more than $70,000 a year? No 
wonder New York wanted to go to over $80,000.
  The answer to all of these questions is clear: The majority does not 
want a low-income children's plan. They want what Hillary Clinton 
called for in 1994, the first step toward nationalized, government-run, 
government-controlled health care.
  We should not be diluting this children's program, and we should not 
be diverting money away from these low-income kids.
  I am proud to have introduced the Kids First Act, a bill that would 
return this program to its root in insuring low-income children. It 
covers an additional 1.3 million American children, does not raise 
taxes and is fully funded. That is the kind of legislation we should be 
debating instead of continuing this stalemate time and time again that 
uses children's health as a political pawn.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this veto override. Now that we 
have extended the children's health program, I hope that we can truly 
reach a compromise on this important issue and ensure that low-income 
American children have health care coverage.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), who has been a great leader of health care on 
this, my distinguished friend, 2 minutes.
  Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank the 
chairman for his leadership on this issue.
  I rise to urge in the strongest possible terms that this House of 
Representatives override the President's veto.
  You know, it's really sad that in the greatest country in the world 
we don't provide health insurance for the children of working parents. 
We have 4 million additional children that this bill would cover, 
children whose parents work every day, who work very hard; the children 
of single moms who work every day; some, like my step-daughter with a 
3-year-old son, who go to work every day. But if there is an asthma 
attack or if there is a major accident, she has to either go to the 
emergency room and drive the cost up for all of the rest of us or 
decide not to pay the rent on time so she can pay for the care she 
needs or go without necessary care.
  That shouldn't happen in America, and that is what we are trying to 
do with this very important bill.
  There is another thing that shouldn't happen in America. In America, 
a young child shouldn't die because he can't get dental care. That 
happened in my district. A simple dental infection expanded, grew into 
the brain and resulted in the death of a young man.
  We worked on language in this bill to make sure that children in 
America of working parents could have access to dental care. That is a 
very important improvement, one that seems lost on the President.
  Every day we spend millions of dollars. We are up to $600 billion on 
this war, this black hole of a war. Meanwhile, we tell Americans who go 
to work every day we can't provide you with health insurance. That 
doesn't make any sense, not in the country that we regard as the 
greatest country in the world.
  So today, Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to really think 
about what this means. Don't think about the politics. Think about the 
parents, but more importantly, think about the children who need health 
insurance now.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Denton, Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  You've got to wonder why we're here today. It almost seems like 
another episode of that Bill Murray movie ``Groundhog Day'' where 
people went through the same thing over and over again.
  When this last session of Congress ended in the middle of the night 
the

[[Page H397]]

end of December, I think we all had seasonal affective disorders. We 
went home, but there was a new year and a new day was dawning and a 
genuine sense of bipartisanship that we were going to work together to 
have things done.
  So what's the first thing we consider? A consideration of the veto 
override of the SCHIP bill which we voted on again and again and again. 
Is this the spirit of bipartisanship that we can expect out of the 
Democratic leadership, as we try to craft legislation to help stave off 
what seems to be a serious downturn in the economy?
  Once again, here we are on the floor of the House being forced by the 
Democratic leadership to cast a vote that will serve the sole purpose 
of helping one side of the aisle score political points against the 
President. Do we need to reauthorize this program? No. We already did 
that. The CBO said we did it, and we funded it through March of 2009.
  Then why are we here? The only reason I can think of is the fact that 
next week we are going to hear from the President on the State of the 
Union Address, and after that, the Democrats have decided that maybe a 
little more political theater is in order to influence the press 
coverage of the President's address.
  So that's why we're here, not to do the people's work, to influence 
the press after the President's State of the Union Address.
  This bill was a flawed bill when it came to our committee. My 
chairman referenced the 43 Republicans, but no Republican helped craft 
this legislation. We were not allowed to work on this bill in 
subcommittee. Our committee process was a sham. This bill was written 
in the dark of night in the Speaker's office, and no Republican 
participated. I dare say that no one on your side really understood 
what was in that bill, and we get it back again and again and again, 
and at the same time the American people are wondering when we are 
going to do the work that they sent us here to do.
  Madam Speaker, one of my favorite movies is a delightful comedy 
called Groundhog Day. In this movie, Bill Murray plays a local 
television weatherman who gets trapped in a strange little town while 
covering a news story about a locally famous groundhog. But instead of 
being able to return to his home and get to the other business that he 
needs to attend to, Bill Murray's character is forced to repeat the 
same day over and over and over again. No matter what he says or what 
he does, every day he wakes up just to relive the same day over again.
  And, Madam Speaker, after being involved in the SCHIP debate this 
Congress, I know that most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
are now able to relate to this movie in a very personal way. It doesn't 
matter what we seem to say or what seems to happen with this issue--for 
some reason the Democratic leadership will bring us down here to the 
floor of the House to have the same debate and to vote on the same bill 
time after time after time.
  Once again, we are being forced by the Democratic leadership of the 
House to cast a vote that will serve the sole purpose of helping 
Democrats score political points against the President.
  Do we need to reauthorize the SCHIP program? No, we already 
reauthorized through March of 2009.
  Do we need to increase funding for the SCHIP program? No, the non-
partisan Congressional Budget Office has already said that S. 2499 that 
was signed into law on December 29, 2007, has already fully funded the 
SCHIP program through March of 2009.
  Then why are we here, Madam Speaker? Well, the only reason I can 
think of for this vote is the fact that the President is going to be 
delivering the State of the Union Address next Monday, and the 
Democrats have decided that they need a little more political theater 
in order to influence the press coverage of the President's address.
  Well, Madam Speaker, we're going to sustain the President's veto 
today, and we're going to do it because the President did the right 
thing by vetoing this poorly written expansion of Washington-
controlled, bureaucrat run healthcare that leaves the poorest kids 
behind. And anybody who cares about needy children can vote against 
this bad bill proudly.
  I'm both proud and concerned that Republicans had no part in writing 
this legislation. Proud because this bill is an embarrassment. 
Concerned because we're all supposed to be legislating on behalf of 
children, and as everybody knows, no Republican member of this House 
was even asked for an opinion, much less invited to participate in 
writing the Democratic SCHIP bill.
  I don't even think the Democrats who wrote it understand what they've 
done. I challenge the supporters of this bill to look people in the eye 
and say that they understand all of the provisions that are actually in 
this bill. Because I have some questions for you about some very 
troubling provisions in this bill.
  Madam Speaker, it would be a compliment to say that the so-called 
process which produced this bill is an abuse of our democratic system 
of government. Yet, I'm sure that some will show up here with a handful 
of talking points from your Democratic staffers who actually 
constructed this legislation, and you will explain to us that it is not 
an abomination at all, but a wondrous triumph of bipartisanship.
  Give me the name of one Republican in the entire House of 
Representatives who directly participated in these discussions. Name 
just one.
  I know that the authors of this bill certainly did not consult with 
either Mr. Barton or myself; I know that they have not included any 
members of the Republican leadership in the House; and I'm not aware of 
a single Republican member of the Energy and Commerce Committee or the 
Ways and Means Committee being invited to participate in this process.
  And although we were excluded from the negotiations and the 
Democratic leadership has repeatedly refused to hold a legislative 
hearing on this bill, we have learned a few facts from the official 
projections produced by the Congressional Budget Office, and from what 
I've read, this bill isn't something that I could ever support.
  For example, we know that the vast majority of the people added to 
the SCHIP program under the Democrats' bill will either already have 
private health insurance or they live in families with incomes too high 
to be eligible for SCHIP coverage today.
  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office projects that H.R. 3963 will 
lead to over 1.2 million new enrollees being added to SCHIP as a result 
of an ``expansion of SCHIP and Medicaid eligibility to new 
populations.'' This means that these 1.2 million children live in 
families whose incomes are too high to qualify for the current SCHIP 
program. On the other hand, CBO projects that only 800,000 currently 
SCHIP eligible kids will be enrolled as a result of H.R. 3963. This 
means that 50 percent more higher-income kids will be enrolled than 
currently SCHIP eligible kids.
  And who will be paying for this expansion of SCHIP eligibility to 
higher-income families? Well, according to the Congressional Research 
Service, the vast majority of the $70 billion in additional tobacco tax 
revenues will come from low-income families. In fact, the Congressional 
Research Service said that tobacco taxes are ``the most regressive of 
the federal taxes.''
  So, with H.R. 3963, the Democrats really are taxing the poor in order 
to give to the rich.
  In their defense, I guess it is difficult for the Democratic 
leadership to know exactly what is in their own bill since it has 
neither been subject to a single legislative hearing nor conferenced by 
the House and the Senate.
  Unfortunately, we don't know when the Democrats are going to stop 
playing politics with the health of low-income children and begin the 
process of working with Republicans in a bipartisan manner to produce a 
long-term reauthorization of the SCHIP program. I hope that time comes 
soon, and when it does, I stand ready to work with them. As it stands 
now, I urge all Members to reject this cynical ploy and vote no.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I'd like to take this time just to urge my colleagues to vote to 
override President Bush's veto on what is, in my way of looking at it, 
bipartisan SCHIP legislation.
  We had 43 Republicans in the House who voted with us, and 17 
Republicans in the other body voting with us, many of whom participated 
in the crafting of this compromise. It is not exactly what the 
distinguished ranking member from Texas asked. It takes people below 
300 percent of poverty, below 50-odd thousand bucks for a family of 
three. The adults will be out in a year, not tomorrow. It makes an 
effort to reduce crowding out, and only citizens and legal residents 
are eligible, and there are some means by which States can enforce 
that.
  Children don't choose to be born into families, unlike those of us in 
Congress, who lack health insurance, and we should be able to give the 
children the health care they need to become healthy, productive 
members of society.
  It becomes more urgent now that we're in a recession, perhaps in 
free-fall, and we should provide this safety net for families. It 
probably is the most urgent concern of a parent.
  We're going to soon address a bipartisan economic stimulus package, 
and

[[Page H398]]

it seems to me that if we could come together on that and deal with tax 
credits or tax relief and additional food stamps or additional 
unemployment insurance that somehow I don't follow the logic that would 
say that we shouldn't deal with young children.
  Furthermore, I'm advised today by my 6-year-old son, who I must admit 
started out at about a hundred, so I kept him out of school, this was 
not planned otherwise, and he said, Dad, if we don't pass this health 
insurance they may fire all the Republicans, and I'd hate to see that.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan 
for yielding, and I appreciate the privilege to address this House.
  This is a cynical attempt here to bring up a veto override attempt on 
an issue that's been decided, an issue that's been decided and a bill 
that's been signed by the President, is now enacted into law, to get us 
past the silly season of Presidential politics and on beyond November 
of 2008 so we can then have a legitimate discussion about what, if any, 
better options might be available to the American people. This is a big 
deal. This is already a victory for the taxpayers, and it's a victory 
for the kids that we're trying to take care of.
  I say it this way. I said I would come back and report to the 
American people on how much money was saved because some of us held the 
line, and that dollar figure is $35.6 billion. That's billion with a B. 
How much money is that? The ranking member of Energy and Commerce might 
want to know. We could build 178 ethanol plants at 100 million gallons 
each and quadruple our ethanol production with that kind of capital 
investment money. You could put a new car in every driveway in my State 
for that kind of money, but no kid was even threatened to lose their 
health insurance premium, and we took care of the kids. We're taking 
care of the taxpayers.
  $35.6 billion is what's on the line here. And who's paying the bill? 
Not us, not those of us in my generation, not those of us who are 
serving here in the United States Congress. Maybe our kids, more 
certainly our grandchildren will have to pay this price if we don't 
step up and draw a bright line. $35.6 billion, $6.5 billion going to 
illegals getting access to Medicaid because of the language that's in 
this legislation that erodes the standards that are required.
  This is a responsible thing to uphold the President's veto and turn 
down this veto override attempt.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the chairman of 
the Health Subcommittee, 2 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  I am just amazed at what's going on here on the Republican side of 
the aisle because I know how difficult it's going to be to get the 
votes to override the President's veto.
  Last year at this time, we had all the State health officers coming 
here, many of them from Republican States, you know, where the Governor 
was Republican, demanding the fact that we needed to provide more money 
for SCHIP in order to expand coverage because they did haven't the 
funds. They were taking kids off the rolls, and so we responded.
  We put together this bill to try to increase the number of kids to 10 
million at a cost and paid for it with what I consider a very 
reasonable way to go about funding the program.
  Now, a year later, we're still hearing Republicans on the other side 
saying, well, we don't need this; it's not necessary. And the situation 
is only getting worse. The economy's on a downturn. I'm hearing more 
and more every day from my Governors, my Governor and Governors on both 
sides of the aisle, about what the economic downturn is going to mean 
that more people are unemployed. They need Medicaid, they need SCHIP, 
because they're not going to have health insurance for their kids. So 
the demand is even greater.
  Whatever problem existed last year that we were trying to address 
with this legislation, and it was dire, is going to be aggravated even 
more over the next few months and the next year.

                              {time}  1115

  So, I do not understand those who object to this legislation.
  In addition to that, the administration issued this directive in 
August, August 17, that makes it even more difficult to enroll kids and 
for States to have flexibility. In that directive, the President 
actually says you have to be off health insurance for a year before you 
can apply and get on the SCHIP program. So, here we have the Republican 
administration making it more difficult for States to cover children as 
at the same time that the need becomes greater every day.
  It is an absolute disgrace, in my opinion, that this bill was vetoed. 
It should pass today because of the need. And I call upon the 
administration to stop this negative effort to continue to make it more 
difficult for kids to get coverage.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of 
time that remains on all sides, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 9 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 9 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from California has 10 minutes remaining. And the gentleman 
from Michigan has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
Congresswoman Blackburn of Nashville, Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I am rising today to urge a ``no'' 
vote on the SCHIP veto override.
  You know, it seems like we have done this over and over and over 
again. But to my colleagues across the aisle, the time to have started 
this discussion was this time last year. And if they were so concerned 
about children's access to health care, the timely manner would have 
been last year to start this debate, not the end of the year.
  Now, as we have heard in the discussion here today, this issue is 
decided. This body passed S. 2499, that's Senate bill 2499, which very 
closely mirrors the Barton-Deal bill that the ranking member mentioned 
earlier today, and it came very close to extending the program with its 
original intent.
  Now, how many times in this body do we hear programs have strayed 
from their original intent, they're not what they started out? And that 
is how we went about making certain that this program was put in place 
through March 2009, getting through the Presidential debate so we 
didn't have to come back to the floor and talk about this. But instead, 
the majority wants to keep their focus on H.R. 3963.
  Now, in that bill what you would find is it will increase the number 
of adults on SCHIP, which is the State Children's Health Insurance 
Plan. Why do we need to be putting adults on SCHIP? It would also allow 
illegal immigrants to fraudulently enroll in SCHIP. Why should illegal 
immigrants be getting taxpayer-funded health care? And it would create 
a flawed tobacco tax scheme to the tune of $70 billion.
  Madam Speaker, let's vote to sustain the veto. Let's vote ``no'' on 
this veto override. It is disheartening that the Democrats cannot put 
aside their partisan agenda for children.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), 
who understands that this bill would allow 65,000 Maryland children to 
gain coverage under SCHIP.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.
  Madam Speaker, it wasn't that long ago, in fact, it was September 
2004, that President Bush told the Nation, and I quote, ``We will lead 
an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are 
eligible but not signed up for the government's health insurance 
programs. We will not allow a lack of attention or information to stand 
between these children and the health care they need.'' That's what the 
President said just a little over 3 years ago. He has, with his veto, 
changed his mind. He has turned his back on what he said to America 
just 3 years ago.
  But what hasn't changed since he's changed his mind are the needs of 
a

[[Page H399]]

million American children; in fact, the needs have only grown greater 
over the last 3 years. We see rising gas prices; we see rising grocery 
prices; we see rising prices of going to college; and, yes, we see 
rising prices for health care. In fact, many more people are not going 
to be able to afford health care for their kids today than before as 
people fight a tightening economic squeeze in the months ahead.
  We are trying to work together on an economic stimulus package. We 
worked together on a bipartisan basis when this legislation passed the 
House and the Senate. It is time for us to work together for the 
children of this country and make sure they get the health care they 
need at this very important time.
  You know, the American people are hungry for a change in direction. 
They're hungry for politicians who follow through and do what they said 
they were going to do, and this is something the President told the 
Nation he wanted to do. Now that we need it more than ever and more 
families and more children are struggling than ever before, we need to 
come together and fulfill the commitment that was made.
  Madam Speaker, it's time to say ``no'' to the President's veto. This 
bill is paid for by increase in tobacco taxes. Let's make sure we don't 
spend our time looking out for the tobacco companies. Let's look out 
for the children of America. Let's say ``no'' to the President's veto 
and ``yes'' to this bill.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, this is starting to feel like Ground Hog Day, the same 
debate over and over. By my count, this is the eighth time that we have 
debated SCHIP legislation on the House floor in the 110th Congress. 
Considering that the most recent debate was on the legislation to 
extend the program through March of 2009, it is hard for me to 
understand why the majority finds it necessary to hold this vote. This 
is time and, more importantly, goodwill that could be better spent 
discussing legislation that both Republicans and Democrats could 
support.
  House Republicans have stated repeatedly the principles that we 
believe necessary to secure our votes on the legislation to reauthorize 
SCHIP. Those basic principles include covering low-income children 
first, SCHIP for kids only, SCHIP should not force children out of 
private health insurance, SCHIP for U.S. citizens only, and the funding 
should be stable and equitable.
  As many of my colleagues know, I have been part of a group of Members 
from both sides of the aisle and from both Chambers who met for months 
late last year to find common ground on SCHIP legislation. For my 
colleagues who took part in these meetings, you know very well that the 
discussions were productive at times and less productive at other 
times. But despite our disagreements and the bumps in the road, we 
persisted and continued to meet because we believe that this is one of 
the most important issues that this Congress will address. While I 
believe we were making progress, we ran out of time. However, the 
extension provided by Congress in December gives us another opportunity 
to do the right thing.
  It's the majority prerogative to determine when bills come to the 
floor, but if Democrats are serious about reauthorizing SCHIP, let's 
sit down and finish what we started last fall and write a bill that 
both sides can agree to. Partisan posturing is not going to provide 
relief to the working families and health coverage for kids.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, I listened to a colleague on the 
opposite side of the aisle say, ``Why are we here?'' and I realized 
they don't really know why we're here. We're here for the children.
  And then they said, ``You've been back eight or nine times.'' That's 
right. And we will be back always and forever until we provide health 
care for working families in America.
  We want to protect 10 million children and provide health care 
insurance. They want to protect 6 million. It's as simple as that. What 
happens to the other 4 million? And in New Hampshire, we would have 
enrolled 8,000 more children. What happens to the children in New 
Hampshire and the children of America? Parents will not lie awake at 
night wondering do they now raid the rent budget or the food budget. Is 
the child sick enough now to go to the hospital because they don't have 
health care insurance?
  Who wanted families in America to make this choice? Not the majority 
of the House, not the majority of the Senate, not the majority of the 
Governors, not even the health care industry. But the President vetoed 
this essential bill, and I'm asking my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to join us in an override so that the children of America get 
health care.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee, Congressman Deal of Georgia.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I'm beginning to think the writers' strike in Hollywood has migrated 
to Washington, DC. It sounds like we're having reruns, and, in fact, we 
are; same speeches. But the truth of the matter is the facts themselves 
have not changed.
  The bill that is being considered for an override of the President's 
veto, the fact remains that if we are talking about 10 million children 
being covered by SCHIP, 2 million of those will be in a crowd-out, 
currently having private insurance but being then forced or given the 
enticement, because it is a government program, to move to a 
government-run health care program rather than the private insurance 
that they currently have.
  The fact does not change that the bill does not have stable funding. 
While it dramatically increases the funding for the first 5 years, it 
then falls off a cliff, and the funding is cut by two-thirds.
  The fact remains that this bill fails to prioritize poor children. It 
would repeal the current requirement from CMS that 95 percent of 
children below 200 percent of poverty be covered before you move up the 
poverty scale. It repeals that and gives no priority to poor children.
  It does not cap the income eligibility. While some proponents say 
that it caps it at 300 percent of poverty, States could still enroll 
children and families above that, using what is known as ``income 
disregards.'' And instead of focusing on children, which it is a 
children's program, childless adults could continue to remain in the 
SCHIP program under this bill through September 30 of 2009. And parents 
who are adults could also stay on until September 30 of 2012 in what is 
supposed to be a children's insurance program.
  It provides excess, unnecessary funding. It does not give States the 
incentive to do as they currently are required to do to continue to 
maintain their participation.
  You know, Democrats contend that we should put more money into SCHIP 
because of leaner times. It would seem to me that in leaner times we 
should give the priority to the children in the poor families, and this 
bill does not do that.
  Ronald Reagan is quoted as saying, in talking about welfare, ``We 
should measure welfare success by how many people leave welfare, not by 
how many are added.'' I would suggest the same criteria could be used 
in SCHIP legislation.
  With that, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the veto override.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am happy to recognize the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin, Dr. Kagen, for 1 minute, who recognizes that 
37,800 children in Wisconsin could gain health insurance and not have 
161,000 prohibited, as they would in Georgia, if we don't override this 
veto.
  Mr. KAGEN. Madam Speaker, this is not a political exercise nor is it 
a Hollywood movie, but we can give this a happy ending with a ``yes'' 
vote today to override the President's veto of an essential bill to 
guarantee health care to those children who need it most in America.
  Forty-seven million citizens have no health care coverage at all, 
zero. And the costs for care are simply out of reach for everyone. 
People cannot afford to pay their doctor bills, their prescription 
drugs. They can't afford their

[[Page H400]]

hospital tests, and they can't even afford to pay for life-saving 
cancer therapies. And why? It's simple. They just don't have the money. 
And what kind of Nation are we when children who are most in need are 
not being seen in a doctor's office and instead have to go to the more 
expensive emergency room?
  We need a uniquely American solution to this crisis, and we need it 
now because patients cannot hold their breath any longer. Everywhere in 
the country people are asking, ``Whose side are you on, and why can't 
Congress work together?'' Well, let's work together today, this day, 
and reverse President Bush's veto.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the override. Let's bring an 
end to this national disgrace. This is for our children on whose future 
we all depend.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, we hear from the other side that we are here eight, 
10, 12 times for the children. And certainly we are. On both sides of 
the aisle, we are here for the children. But we are here for the needy 
children. And that's what we did a month ago when enacting in almost 
unanimous fashion Senate bill 2499, which expands this SCHIP program 
for 18 months and not only expands it but increases the spending almost 
20 percent, some 800 million additional dollars to cover, yes, these 
children that President Bush said he was determined to cover.
  But what the Democratic majority wants to do is increase this program 
by 140 percent, cover an additional 4 million children on top of the 6 
million that are already covered. And as my colleague Representative 
Deal of Georgia pointed out, of those 4 million, 2 million would be 
children who are already covered by private health insurance.
  One of my other colleagues on the other side of the aisle stood up 
and said shouldn't we provide health insurance for the children of 
hardworking Americans? Well, no, not if they're making $75,000 a year.
  We are going to come back to this floor in the next week or two with 
a $150 billion economic stimulus package to get us out of a recession. 
We need the money for that. So we don't want to be squandering money to 
provide health insurance for those who could afford to do it for 
themselves. I think the program that we have enacted in a bipartisan 
way said it all, and if we wanted to have this override of the 
President's veto of this bloated program that the Democrats proffered, 
increasing the spending by $35 billion just so you can cover 4 million 
additional children, half of whom do not need that government help, 
then we should have had that override vote a month ago.
  The reason we are doing it today is for political reasons in 
anticipation of embarrassing the President prior to the State of the 
Union Address next week. It's pure and simple politics. Reject this 
vote.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I have the privilege to 
yield 2 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3963, the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program.
  Madam Speaker, hardworking American families are struggling and in 
dire need of assistance. I can think of no better way to help them than 
by providing health insurance coverage for their precious young ones. I 
find it shameful and downright neglectful for President Bush and 
congressional Republicans to turn their backs on hardworking American 
families by refusing to support this reauthorization bill.
  As we speak, the Governor of South Carolina is proposing to cut the 
Children's Health Insurance Program in spite of the fact that last year 
the legislature overrode his veto of similar legislation. He wants to 
deny health care coverage to an additional 70,000 low- and middle-
income children in order to cut the State's income tax on a few of 
South Carolina's wealthiest families.
  We all know, Madam Speaker, that when children are uninsured minor 
health problems can become serious and chronic health problems. Those 
children often end up in emergency rooms, and that means that State 
residents with insurance ultimately will pay in higher medical costs, 
higher deductibles, and higher co-pays for their own care. This 
contributes to a less efficient, more expensive health care system for 
all.
  I implore my colleagues to do as my State's legislators have done in 
a bipartisan way and override this veto. In doing so, you are taking a 
stand for our children and the preservation of our public health 
systems.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Florida, Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak as one of the original members 
of the group of Republican House Members who tried very hard to come up 
with a bipartisan compromise to extend health care insurance to more 
low- and moderate-income children. Our group met many times with 
Democrat leaders in both the House and the Senate with the basic goal 
to give health insurance to more low- and moderate-income children, 
without breaking the bank and also without giving coverage to illegal 
immigrants or childless adults.
  I agree with many of the speakers today here that SCHIP should be 
extended for more low-income children who don't have health insurance. 
But the measure before us today does not target taxpayer funds to those 
low-income children. Instead, it sends billions to illegal immigrants, 
childless adults, and spends too much on middle- and upper-income 
families, not the low-income children originally intended.
  When we stand here and we try to override the President's veto of 
bill when we all know that the SCHIP program has been continued, it's 
no wonder that the American public has such disregard for Congress.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his 
leadership on behalf of insuring America's children and also commend 
the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. 
Dingell, for his leadership on this important subject.
  Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge your exceptional presiding over 
this debate. You have presided over most of the debate for SCHIP, if 
not all. I think you are approaching, depending on what happens in the 
course of this debate, 100 hours of presiding in a very dignified 
fashion, and I want to acknowledge that because of the importance of 
this issue. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  All year we have been talking about the subject of how we make 
America healthier, how we bring many more children who are eligible to 
be enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Program. We've had 
the debates. We've had the outside advocacy of the March of Dimes, of 
Easter Seals, of the AMA, of the AARP, of Families USA, the YWCA, of 
the Catholic Hospital Association. Almost any organization that you can 
name that has anything to do with the health of the American people has 
endorsed the legislation that we have before us. That is important to 
the children, to their families, to their communities, to the economic 
stability of their States which have to provide health insurance for 
these children.
  In the last few days, we have all been working together in a 
bipartisan way to come up with a stimulus package. The recognition that 
we need a stimulus package points to the need further for this SCHIP 
legislation to become law. Let's make our working in a bipartisan way 
on the stimulus package a model for how we approach other issues as 
well.
  This SCHIP package has had strong bipartisan support from the start, 
in the House and in the Senate. In fact, the Senate has a veto-proof 
majority. Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley have been major architects 
of this legislation, two very distinguished Republican leaders in the 
United States Senate.

[[Page H401]]

  The issue comes down to what is happening in America's households 
today. Unemployment is up; housing starts are down. The price of 
gasoline and food and health care is up; the stock market is down. So 
the indicators, some that are felt very closely and intimately by 
America's families and some that are felt by our economy, all point to 
the need for us to take a new direction. And that new direction says 
what can we do that is fiscally sound, that meets the needs of the 
children, that has bipartisan support, and, again, strengthens our 
country by improving the health of our people?
  One of the things that we can do is, again, take the lead, and many 
children who have come here to advocate on behalf of all children in 
our country, whether it was through the March of Dimes or Easter Seals 
or any other organizations, and that is to vote to override the 
President's veto. Let's remove all doubt in anyone's mind that this 
Congress of the United States understands our responsibility to 
children, understands our responsibility to the future. We've had the 
debate. We know the facts. We know the figures. It's just a decision 
that people have to make about what is inside of them about what their 
priorities are. And I hope the message that would lead this Congress is 
the message that we care about children and we care enough about them 
that we will vote to override this veto.
  I thank the gentlemen again for their leadership.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I think it's important to note that this bill allows States to 
document citizenship, and the Social Security Administrator has said 
that changing the law will make it easier for illegal immigrants to get 
SCHIP funds as well as other taxpayer-funded benefits.
  And despite this being a program for low-income children, under this 
bill three-quarters of a million adults will still be on the program in 
2012. Under this bill more than 1.6 million children will lose their 
private coverage.
  And let's talk about the funding. The majority has created a funding 
cliff that dramatically increases Federal funding to enroll new 
children for the next 5 years; then cuts funding for the bill by 80 
percent. This will force future Congresses to make a very difficult 
choice: to dramatically increase funding or let American children lose 
their health coverage.
  The other problem with this bill is that it is estimated that the 
bill, because it relies on tobacco taxes for funding, would require 
more than 22 million new smokers. Now, if there is any consistent 
policy the government has had administration to administration it's the 
discouragement of smoking. Yet this bill relies on a false funding 
mechanism that would require 22 million new smokers.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes 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 appreciate the gentleman's leadership and his 
yielding time.
  Regrettably, Madam Speaker, the New Year didn't bring any new ideas 
or new strategy on the part of our majority here. Less than 1 week into 
this new session, it remains all politics all the time. And you don't 
have to believe me. Just listen to their chairman, who was quoted in 
the New York Times on September 17 of last year: ``If the President 
vetoes this bill, it's a political victory for us.'' So all politics 
all the time.
  As has been stated by others, we solved this issue for the time 
being, the next 18 months, in a bipartisan manner last year, 411-3. And 
don't believe me if you don't want to. Believe the Atlanta Journal-
Constitution, no great friend of our side of the aisle, which says, 
``Thanks to the infusion of Federal dollars, Georgia's embattled health 
insurance program for working class children is safe for another year 
and even has room to grow if the economy declines. The program called 
PeachCare, which was disrupted and debated last year by State 
officials, Congress, and the President, will have enough funding to 
cover the 254,820 children now enrolled and to grow by up to 40,000 
children. `I'm just relieved,' said the State Health Department 
Commissioner Dr. Rhonda Medows. `This will ensure these children are 
taken care of.'
  ``Relief echoed Monday through the Georgia health care advocacy 
community, which fought throughout the last year to save the program 
known as SCHIP. `The advocacy community can do nothing but rejoice.' '' 
And these comments have been voiced all around the Nation.
  Last Thursday the Congressional Research Service issued a statement 
to Georgia officials that said that the State will receive $325 million 
for the 2008 Federal budget, which runs through October of this year, 
and that funding level is expected to continue through March of 2009.
  So this isn't about policy. This isn't about policy. It's all about 
politics, self-admitted on the other side.
  Vote ``no.''
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield for the purpose of 
making a unanimous consent request to the distinguished 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. Madam Speaker, I rise vigorously to oppose 
the President's veto because of the 1 million children in Texas and the 
City of Houston that will be left out in the cold without health care.
  Madam Speaker, as the chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I 
rise to announce that I will proudly cast my vote in support of 
overriding the Presidential veto of 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 ancien regime under which the Republican-led 
Congress look askance and gave the President a blank check to mismanage 
the affairs of our Nation. Following the President's first veto, the 
bill was revised to meet a number of concerns raised by the President 
including ensuring lower-income children are enrolled first and 
ensuring benefits are denied to illegal immigrants. While the bill 
again passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 265 to 142, moving to 
the Senate where it passed by a veto-proof 64 to 30, the President 
again vetoed the bill and, in so doing, denied health care to millions 
of deserving American children.
  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 
accept 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 6 million uninsured children who are eligible for coverage today, 
but not enrolled. That is why I strongly support this legislation.
  Madam 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. This bipartisan SCHIP bill is supported by an astounding 81 
percent of the American people and the majority of Congress.
  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

[[Page H402]]

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 percent Federal Poverty Level, FPL, who remain uninsured.
  Madam Speaker, this important legislation commits $50 billion to 
reauthorize and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, 
and cover the 6 million children who meet its eligibility criteria.
  Madam Speaker, SCHIP was created in 1997, with broad bipartisan 
support, to address the critical issue of the large numbers of children 
in our country without access to 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 revised bipartisan legislation addresses the concerns raised by 
President Bush's first veto. These revisions include ensuring that only 
children in families with gross incomes below $51,500 for a family of 
three will receive SCHIP coverage, consequently addressing the 
President's concern that upper-income children do not receive coverage. 
Furthermore, this revised legislation will require that lowest income 
children are served first by requiring States to enroll the lowest 
income first in order to receive bonus payments. This bill will also 
phase out the coverage of childless adults in SCHIP over 1 year, as 
opposed to the 2-year coverage phase out in the original bill. And 
finally, this bill ensures that only citizens and legal immigrants 
receive coverage by providing that if the Social Security 
Administration is unable to confirm the citizenship of the applicant, 
the applicant will be required to provide the State with additional 
documentation to confirm eligibility. If passing the Senate with a 
veto-proof margin was not enough to stop President Bush from once again 
vetoing SCHIP, then the alleviation of all his problems and issues with 
the previous version should ensure that this bipartisan revision of the 
legislation stands.
  This is extremely important legislation providing for the health 
coverage of 6 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.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a member of the committee.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank our Chair of the 
committee for allowing me to speak. Sitting here, waiting in line and 
listening, I am amazed at the rhetoric I hear. We had Members from our 
minority side talk about we have to worry about saving for the stimulus 
next week, and we want to vote for that. But it is amazing they want to 
save money from the SCHIP program to pay for a stimulus, and at the 
same time they don't worry about paying for the billions of dollars a 
month that we are spending in Iraq. It is amazing how frugal they are 
when they want to be.
  Madam Speaker, the President's veto of the children's health care 
bill once again shows it is playing politics rather than embracing an 
opportunity to fix a system that is in need of repair. The reason we 
are here is over 10 years ago this House and Senate and the President 
at that time signed the bill. The issue was we need to cover the 
children first. Instead of signing this piece of legislation into law, 
President Bush twice vetoed a bill to provide insurance coverage to 10 
million low-income American children of working parents.
  The administration's reason for this veto just doesn't stand up. No 
Federal funding will be spent on undocumented immigrants in this bill. 
If they are, they are on the State's, the State of Texas or whoever 
else, to pay for it if they allow illegal immigrants on the CHIP plan. 
In 1 year, childless adults are taken off the SCHIP program, even 
though this administration issued waivers to allow them to be on it. 
Only lowest income children are covered, with a prohibition on coverage 
for over 300 percent of poverty, and still the President vetoed it.
  We continue to spend billions of dollars a month in Iraq, and we 
can't even cover the lowest income children. Energy costs are up. 
Everything is up. Our economy is weakening, and the number of 
unemployed and uninsured in this country are rising. Let's at least 
cover the children with health care. Let's vote to override this 
misguided veto.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers other 
than myself, so I am going to reserve the time until we are prepared to 
close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize for closing 
speeches in reverse order of opening speeches, beginning with Mr. Camp 
from Michigan, Mr. Stark from California, Mr. Barton from Texas and Mr. 
Dingell from Michigan.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am delighted to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished leader of the House, Mr. Hoyer from 
Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for 
yielding. I thank Mr. Dingell for his indefatigable advocacy on behalf 
of children and on behalf of the health of all Americans. I thank my 
Republican colleagues, as well, for a large number of them supported 
this legislation when it passed the House.
  In fact, over 60 percent of this House voted for this legislation. 
Over 66 percent of the Senate voted for this legislation. We are just a 
percentage point short of overriding the President's veto. We are not 
going to override that veto today. That is unfortunate. It is not 
unfortunate for me. It is not unfortunate for the 434 of us who have a 
health insurance program, and we have the most accessible health care 
perhaps of any American. But it is very unfortunate for those parents 
who woke up this morning and prayed that their children didn't get sick 
and prayed

[[Page H403]]

that they didn't get sick because they don't have health insurance, and 
they are not sure that without health insurance they will have access. 
They will have access perhaps if their child gets very sick, gets very 
badly injured, because then they will take them to the emergency room 
and the emergency room will see them.
  There is not one of us, not a person in this Chamber, who would want 
their children, their grandchildren, or in my case, my great-
granddaughter, in that predicament. Not one of us. The gentleman from 
Georgia who previously spoke talked about politics, and Mr. Barton I 
think has mentioned, I haven't heard all of the debate, but mentioned 
this was about politics. Well, I would agree; it is about politics. 
Everything we do on this floor is about politics, not necessarily 
partisan politics, but about public policy and the politics to achieve 
public policy and the philosophy underlying the achievement of that 
policy.
  You've heard me quote it before. You are probably tired of hearing me 
quote it. But I am going to quote it again. The President of the United 
States was seeking reelection in 2004. In the summer, late summer of 
2004, he stood on the floor of the Republican Convention and said to 
all America, ``If I am reelected in a new term, we will lead an 
aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but 
not signed up for government health insurance programs. We will not 
allow a lack of attention or information to stand between these 
children and the health care they need.''
  He was reelected. And in 2005, there was no aggressive effort to 
enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for 
government health insurance. And the Republicans were in charge of this 
House and of this Senate. There was no aggressive effort here, either. 
And in 2006, when the same leadership maintained, there was no 
aggressive effort to add millions of children consistent with the 
President's promise of 2004.
  But when we were elected and when we took over the leadership of this 
House and when Mr. Dingell took over leadership of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, Mr. Rangel took over as chairman of the Ways and 
Means Committee, and Mr. Stark took over the chairmanship of the Health 
Subcommittee, lo and behold, we pursued the President's objective. Now, 
that may be political. But it was certainly the politics promoted by 
the President. It was the objective that the President said was an 
important one. It was a promise he made to America's children and 
America's families. And so we passed a bill through this House with 45 
Republicans, 43 on this particular bill, and in the Senate, two-thirds 
of the Senate, 18 Republican United States Senators, almost half of the 
Senate delegation on the Republican side of the aisle voted for this 
bill.
  And indeed, two of the senior Members, including the former chairman, 
Republican chairman of the Finance Committee, now the ranking member of 
the Finance Committee, and Senator Hatch, one of the senior Members of 
the United States Senate, both conservative Republicans, urged this 
President to sign this bill. Why? Because the facts that you are 
hearing on this side of the aisle are wrong, Mr. President. That's what 
Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley said. Actually, they didn't say the 
facts on this side of the aisle that are being cited, but the facts 
that the President was saying was the reason for his veto, said they 
were wrong.
  So, yes, we have another opportunity. And I want to tell my friends 
on the other side of the aisle, as the majority leader who schedules 
business for this floor, this won't be your last opportunity this year 
to address this issue. Is that politics? Maybe. And if it is bad 
politics, the people will not support it. But you and I both know that 
nigh onto 70 percent of the American public believes this bill ought to 
be passed, notwithstanding the veto of the President of the United 
States. Why did they think that? Because they know that their 
neighbors, maybe themselves, are challenged by their children not being 
covered. They are working. They are trying to make it. But as the 
economy tanks, hopefully we can stem that fall. They're worried.
  Yes, this is about politics with a small ``p,'' about making public 
policy that helps our Americans who are working hard to make America a 
great country and expect their government to hear their cries for help.
  We spent some 24 meetings trying to address some of the questions 
that Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite raised. Mr. Barton was in a couple of those 
meetings. We didn't get there. We regret that we didn't get there. 
Frankly, I want to tell you that I have talked to some of the people in 
that room who wanted to get there and were disappointed that we didn't 
get there. You've talked to them, too, Mr. Barton, on your side of the 
aisle.
  We have an opportunity to stand up for the 4 million additional 
children who will be helped by this legislation if we override the 
President's veto. Let's give those children the health care they need, 
they want, and a great Nation ought to ensure.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. At this time, I reserve my time. I have no 
further speakers and will reserve my time for closing statements.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, we are increasingly concerned about the 
downturn in our economy. The declining stock market, weak dollar, high 
gas prices and home heating costs, and stagnant wages have caused 
financial insecurity for families across America. Unemployment is now 
at a 2-year high, and personal debts are at an all-time high.
  More and more families are being squeezed financially, making it 
harder for them to afford basic health coverage. The SCHIP bill we are 
considering today affects 10 million children living in families that 
work hard and play by the rules but can't afford health care for their 
kids.
  We in Congress continue to work in a bipartisan manner to stimulate 
the economy and help American families threatened by this recession. I 
can think of no better way than to vote today to override the 
President's SCHIP veto. Failure to do this will lead to an increase in 
the number of children living in America without health care.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve. I am the 
closing speaker.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from California. Two 
weeks ago, President Bush came to my district to highlight Horace 
Greeley School. It is a Blue Ribbon School and is recognized for Leave 
No Child Behind for its accomplishment in teaching children and raising 
their standards.
  I went to that event with the President, because as he said, making 
sure you had qualified teachers in that school was important. I would 
also like to say that you need qualified nurse technicians. While you 
want to test kids for math, we believe you also must test them for 
measles. While you must worry about the principal, we also want to 
worry about the pediatrician. And you must have a comprehensive 
approach to those children, from their pediatrician to the principal, 
from testing for measles to testing for math and from a teacher to a 
technician.
  One-third of the children at Horace Greeley, slightly more, are 
children enrolled in SCHIP. Now, those children do well because we 
raised their standards. They also do well because they have good health 
care, and we did right by them. Their parents work. Predominately, 50 
percent of the school are Hispanics. The rest is mixed. About a quarter 
are Caucasian.
  The President of the United States picked a school in the inner city 
of Chicago, because of the about 200 schools across the country that 
are Blue Ribbon Schools, those kids met the standards. Their teachers 
met the standards. But we did it in a comprehensive fashion. We made 
sure that they had qualified teachers. We are making sure that they 
have qualified technicians. We made sure they have a qualified 
principal. They also must have a qualified pediatrician. And that is 
what made those kids and our future brighter.
  I was proud that the President came to my district and recognized a 
school

[[Page H404]]

in a tough area doing right by kids. And the question is, will this 
floor do right by those children? And I am not sure. No, we won't have 
the votes to override the President's veto. And I told him then, ``You 
want to reauthorize No Child Left Behind because it raised the 
standard. We want to also reauthorize the SCHIP program.''
  Last November, the American people said they want a change in 
Washington to set the right priorities, and one of those things was to 
work together across party lines. We did that here. Unfortunately, one 
thing didn't change, and that is enough Republicans that want to 
rubber-stamp policies that I believe are misdirected. Investing in 10 
million children for the cost of 41 days in the war in Iraq will give 
those children more than just a blue ribbon; it will give them a chance 
at the future.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I continue to be the last 
speaker, and will reserve until we are prepared to close.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, today we will again attempt an override 
of the President's veto of the CHIP reauthorization bill.
  Over the last 6 months, while President Bush and his Republican 
allies on the other side of the aisle have doggedly refused to take 
action to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program, a public-
private venture that helps middle and low-income families be able to 
buy private health insurance, to an additional eligible 4 million 
children in this country, during that time the demand by America's 
working families for accessible health coverage has only increased.
  Amid this economic downturn, with skyrocketing energy costs, a record 
number of mortgage foreclosures, fewer new jobs, the rate of 
unemployment has jumped dramatically in the last year, adding an 
additional 900,000 Americans who are jobless. Two-thirds of unemployed 
individuals lose their health care coverage for their families when 
they lose their jobs. So it is times like these when CHIP is needed 
most for their children. According to the Joint Economic Committee, as 
many as 1 million additional children will likely become eligible for 
subsidized health coverage like CHIP as a direct result of this 
economic downturn and increased unemployment.
  Now is not the time to turn our back on America's children. It is 
time for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in 
supporting America's working families when times get tough, like they 
are now. So they should join us, and I hope they do, because together 
we could and should override this misguided veto by the President, and 
help America's working families and their children weather this 
economic downturn and get health care to the children of America.
  Health care should not be optional. It should be something we are 
sure that every American child has access to. Now is the moment when 
Republicans on the other side of the aisle can stand up for working 
families, for children in this country, and make sure that 10 million, 
an additional 4 million children, get health care coverage under CHIP.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I reserve my time and am prepared to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I have no further requests 
for time and I am prepared to close if my good friends and colleagues 
here on the other side have that wish.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I would be glad to yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Michigan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will be recognized for an additional 30 seconds.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  This Congress has already passed an 18-month extension of the 
Children's Health Insurance Program to March of 2009, and in that 
bipartisan extension an additional $800 million was provided to States 
to make sure that they could continue to provide health insurance to 
those already enrolled.
  We have debated this many, many times on the floor, this flawed 
proposal. This so-called compromise bill did not have one hearing. I 
have great respect for this House as an institution, and part of that 
respect is the regular order of bringing bills to subcommittee, having 
hearings and giving people an opportunity to be heard on them so the 
public is aware of what is happening. This bill didn't have one 
hearing. It was given to the minority the night before the vote.
  I think that kind of partisanship and politics, combined with the 
overreaching included in this compromise, it doesn't address the 
problem of illegals receiving SCHIP funds, it doesn't address the issue 
of adults in the program and focusing the program on children, it 
causes almost 2 million children to lose private coverage, and, not 
only that, has unstable funding by assuming that 22 million new smokers 
are going to be found over the next few years.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote against this veto override, and 
let's get to work on going through the regular process of having a 
hearing, bringing forward witnesses and fashioning a compromise that 
not just has House and Senate support, but under our system of 
government, before a bill becomes law, it has House, Senate and 
presidential support. So let's work together in the coming year and 
start off this year differently than last year, which, unfortunately, 
this was supposed to be the easy issue we were all going to be able to 
come together on. But I think a lack of process and really a bill that 
is flawed in many ways, as the debate here has shown today, makes it 
impossible to support.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote against the veto override.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for the very 
dignified way in which you have overseen this debate, not just today 
but in all the previous SCHIP debates. You are truly a credit to the 
institution, and I appreciate your courtesy.
  Madam Speaker, constitutionally, when the President vetoes a piece of 
legislation, to override that veto either the House or the Senate has 
to muster more than two-thirds of its Members that are present and 
voting.
  Now, I am not sure that it is a requirement that you bring a veto 
vote up or whether it is just a courtesy, but in any event, the 
majority postponed the veto override vote from back before Christmas 
until today. If one wants to be cynical, you could say that veto 
postponement was done for political reasons, since the President is 
giving the State of the Union next week. In any event, here we are 
again, and I will predict, and the majority leader when he spoke 
acknowledged this, that the votes won't be there to override the 
President's veto.
  So we will continue to operate under the extension, the Barton-Deal 
bill that two-thirds of the Republican Conference are cosponsors of, 
that this House and the Senate passed right back before Christmas, and 
that the President signed. That bill, as Mr. Camp has pointed out, 
increases funding by almost $1 billion, or approximately 20 percent, 
and extends the program through March of next year. So there is no 
child currently on SCHIP that is going to lose coverage, regardless of 
the vote today.
  Now, I do want to compliment my good friend Mr. Pallone, if he is on 
the floor, I don't see him, but have just

[[Page H405]]

been told that, lo and behold, we are going to have a legislative 
hearing next week on SCHIP. In his subcommittee, the Health 
Subcommittee, there is going to be for the first time in this Congress 
a hearing on SCHIP. So that tells me that there is an outside chance, 
and maybe better than an outside chance, that sometime in the next 2 to 
3 months, if Mr. Dingell agrees and Mr. Stark agrees and Mr. Rangel 
agrees, we may actually do what we should have done 13 months ago, 
which is begin to craft a bipartisan compromise on how to permanently 
reauthorize, or at least reauthorize SCHIP for more than 15 months, and 
perhaps modify the program, and then expand it to cover some children 
that are currently not covered. So there is always hope.
  But while that is yet to materialize, the vote before us today is to 
sustain the President's veto. I hope we do that, and then we can begin 
to work next week, hopefully on a bipartisan basis, to craft a 
compromise that the President will sign, and then we will have a 
signing ceremony either in the Oval Office or the Rose Garden sometime 
this year. But, today, vote to sustain the President's veto.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I have great affection and respect for my 
good friend the ranking member of the committee, but some of the things 
he has just said would tend to indicate the lack of understanding that 
there is in this place about this legislation.
  The committee has had three hearings on SCHIP. We have another 
hearing coming up next week. The subject will at that time be 
oversight, to find out how the matters are being conducted.
  There have been a lot of misrepresentation, mostly by the 
administration. For example, the administration says in its veto 
message the bill covers illegal immigrants. Not so.
  It says that children whose parents can afford private health 
insurance are included in the legislation. Not so. The ceiling on these 
kinds of children is $51,510 a year.
  It also says that families with incomes of $75,000 a year are 
eligible. Not true.
  It says that childless adults are covered. All of these will be 
removed by the end of this year under the legislation, and it should be 
noted that those who are now eligible under this provision are done so 
under waivers which have been granted by this administration.
  Regrettably, we have here then either misunderstanding or just plain 
hard-heartedness and dishonesty on the part of the administration with 
regard to what this legislation does.
  What we have taken care of in this legislation is children who are 
identical in terms of all of the conditions of eligibility of the 6 
million who were covered under the original law and who have been 
covered up to this time. We have added to them 4 million children who 
are identical in every particular to those 6 million.
  What is wrong with that? How is anyone here going to be able to 
justify to his or her conscience denying 4 million kids who are fully 
eligible but do not confront a situation where the Federal Government 
puts the money and the eligibility in place so that they can be 
covered? I ask my colleagues, how can you then accept this veto? How 
can you deny these kids, whose need is as great as the 6 million now 
covered, and deny that 4 million? It is impossible for me to understand 
that.
  There are a plethora of other misrepresentations about this bill 
coming out of the administration, and they appear, unfortunately, in a 
veto message from the President of the United States. The bill 
prohibits States from receiving Federal funding if they exempt portions 
of income that go to families with incomes over $51,510. That is the 
ceiling, and those are families who have real need.
  Let us meet that need. The number of kids who are going to be 
eligible and have need for health care is growing as this recession 
which threatens gets nearer and becomes a worse and more threatening 
reality.
  I urge my colleagues, vote to override the veto. Vote for the kids. 
Vote to override the veto.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, the question of whether the Federal 
Government is finally going to do more to provide health coverage to 
children who need it is not going to go away. This is not an issue of 
partisan politics. It's not a complicated issue either. It's simply a 
matter of doing what's right.
  I believe that no American child should be without access to decent 
health care. This is especially true given the worsening economic 
conditions that are battering Michigan and every other State. Rising 
unemployment results in more American families losing their health 
insurance. Not only do workers find that health coverage is 
increasingly beyond their reach, the problem extends to children.
  A new study by the Joint Economic Committee underscores the fact that 
between 700,000 and 1.1 million additional children will enroll in 
Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Programs each year due 
to slowing employment growth. The projections show that more than 
35,000 additional children in Michigan alone will need help. But State 
budgets have been hard hit by the economic downturn. They don't have 
the resources to provide health care coverage to millions of kids that 
already need it, let alone all the new children who will need help due 
to the economic downturn.
  That's why it's vital that Congress vote to override the President's 
veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program bill. By doing so, we 
can extend health care coverage to nearly 4 million children who are 
currently uninsured. Let's not let America's children become casualties 
of the economic downturn. Vote to override the President's veto.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, today is the second time we are voting to 
override the President's veto of legislation which provides health care 
to more low-income, uninsured children under the State Children's 
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
  Last year, 64 percent of the House voted for this legislation--just a 
handful of votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override. 
In the Senate, there is a sufficient ``super majority'' to pass this 
bill.
  With the economy either in recession or on the threshold of one, the 
arguments for this bill are even greater than they were when we voted 
for it last year.
  Unemployment is edging up. With more Americans out of work there will 
be an increase in the number of uninsured. For every point that 
unemployment rises, 1.2 million to 1.5 million Americans lose their 
health insurance.
  This legislation increases to 10 million the number of children 
covered under SCHIP and it addresses almost every major concern that 
has been raised about the bill.
  The bill covers only American citizens (not undocumented 
individuals).
  The bill will cover only children, not adults.
  The bill focuses on covering low-income kids and it caps eligibility 
to families earning less than $51,500.
  The bill makes certain that coverage under SCHIP will not substitute 
for coverage by employer-provided and private health insurance.
  The bill is fully paid for with an increase in the tobacco tax. This 
step not only balances the books, it saves lives and improves the 
health of young people. Public health experts (including a panel of the 
Institute of Medicine) agree that raising tobacco taxes is an effective 
way to reduce smoking, especially among children, and it's unfortunate 
that this provision is strongly opposed by the tobacco industry and the 
President.
  With economic uncertainty facing millions of Americans at this time, 
I hope we will finally provide families with more security by 
overriding the President's veto and enacting this bill.
  Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of overriding the 
President's veto of the SCHIP bill, H.R. 3963.
  In the face of job loss and a foreclosure crisis I rise again to 
fight for SCHIP. There are more families going hungry in my district 
each day, and the number of uninsured children is skyrocketing out of 
control.
  As a parent and grandparent, I understand the despair we all feel 
when a child falls asleep crying in your arms and all you can do is 
reassure them.
  I ask President Bush, how will you answer the pleas of help from 
these parents?
  Parents are struggling. Local newspapers in my District report a 6.2 
percent unemployment rate, which is much higher than the national 
average of 5.0 percent.
  This loss of jobs translates to fewer parents covered by employment-
based health insurance, which means more uninsured children.
  This week we celebrated the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. Let us 
remember him as we fight today to protect our nation's most vulnerable 
citizens, our children!
  I urge my colleagues to join me in rescuing health care for our 
children, and support this veto override.
  Mr. BARTON. Madam Speaker, here we are again. For the ninth time, we 
are here on the

[[Page H406]]

floor of the House to vote on some form of consideration of the latest 
version of the Democratic leadership's SCHIP and Medicaid expansion 
bill. And if you count the votes on the Rules Committee resolutions for 
consideration of these bills, we will be debating this issue for the 
13th time this morning.
  And while the Democratic leadership has tried a dozen times to stuff 
their ideology down our throats on the floor of the House, the same 
Democratic leadership still hasn't held one single legislative hearing 
or completed one single legislative markup in the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, the committee with jurisdiction over the SCHIP program.
  In December, the Democrats held their second debate on a motion to 
postpone consideration of the President's veto. Since that vote, 
Congress and the President have passed legislation that fully funds the 
SCHIP program through March of 2009.
  It was my hope that once we passed the SCHIP extension legislation 
that we could come together and begin a true legislative process that 
could yield results. We've heard all this talk lately from the 
Democratic leaders about bipartisanship, but all we actually get is 
empty words and authoritarian process.
  Then why are we here again today, Madam Speaker? Well, the only 
reason I can think of for this vote is the fact that the President is 
going to be delivering the State of the Union Address next Monday, and 
the Democrats have decided that they need more political theater in 
order to influence the press coverage of the President's address.
  I thought that the reason we passed the extension legislation was to 
give us another 15 months to have a thoughtful bipartisan discussion on 
how to best craft a long-term reauthorization of the SCHIP program. I 
thought we were going to have legislative hearings where we could bring 
in policy experts to help us craft the best possible bill for the 
needy, low-income children in this country.

  I listened to the debate on the floor. If we could write a bill based 
on what Members think the bill does, we may not be far off from 
compromise. One member said during the previous debate that this bill 
does not provide benefits for those above 200 percent of poverty, which 
is $42,000 a year. If that is what Members support, then a compromise 
can be had. I have heard Members say that this bill takes adults off 
this Children's health insurance program. If that is what Member's 
believe the bill should do, then there is room for compromise.
  I've heard Members say that they do not want people in the country 
illegally getting benefits. If there is agreement on that, there is 
room for compromise. I have also heard emphatic pleas that this bill is 
needed to ensure that poor children receive health care. I agree with 
that sentiment also, and we have proposals to ensure that States cover 
poor children first.
  Unfortunately, the legislation does not match the rhetoric. It is my 
sincere hope that Democrats will eventually stop playing politics with 
the health of low-income children and begin to actually work in a 
bipartisan manner to help them. I hope that time comes soon, and when 
it does, I stand ready to work with the Democrats in a bipartisan 
manner. As it stands now, I urge all Members to reject this cynical 
ploy and vote to sustain a veto that is both wise and brave, and which 
will force Democrats to value the health of poor children instead of 
using them as props.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for 
overriding the President's veto of the revised bipartisan SCHIP, State 
Children's Health Insurance Program, bill--H.R. 3963.
  Overriding this veto will provide healthcare coverage for 10 million 
children of working families. This bill will preserve coverage for all 
6.6 million children currently covered by SCHIP and extend coverage to 
3.8 million children who are currently uninsured, including 80,900 in 
my home State of Michigan, according to the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office.
  In this weakening economy, more and more American parents are having 
difficulty finding affordable health insurance for their children. It 
is estimated that in Michigan, 35,600 additional children will need 
SCHIP or Medicaid in each year of this economic downturn. Funding the 
enrollment of children eligible for the SCHIP program is more critical 
than ever.
  The bipartisan SCHIP bill is supported by 81 percent of the American 
people; 64 Senators, including 17 Republicans; 43 Governors, including 
16 Republicans; and more than 270 organizations, including the AARP, 
AMA, Catholic Health Association, and Families USA.
  House Democrats continue to stand strong to ensure health coverage 
for all of America's children, while those on the other side of the 
aisle persist in standing between millions of children and the health 
care they need. House Republicans should put our children first and 
override the President's misguided veto.
  Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I fully support the 
reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, 
SCHIP. This legislation will ensure that 10 million children receive 
the vital healthcare coverage they need and deserve.
  Currently, more than 218,000 children in Ohio receive care through 
SCHIP, and the bipartisan plan vetoed by the President would have 
extended care to an additional 122,000 uninsured children throughout 
the State.
  The President's veto on December 12th denied health care to children 
of hardworking families across Ohio just as the state's unemployment 
rate reached 6 percent. With our economy experiencing a downturn, 
families are struggling to put food on the table, heat their homes and 
pay for ever increasing healthcare costs, making reauthorization of 
SCHIP more important than ever.
  I am saddened by this failed veto override, but will continue to 
fight for children's health care. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues in Congress to strengthen SCHIP and improve health care for 
children in Ohio and across the Nation.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question.
  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. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 195, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 21]

                               YEAS--217

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     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
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     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
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     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--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor

[[Page H407]]


     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
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     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
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     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
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Baird
     Baker
     Berman
     Costello
     Davis (IL)
     Hinojosa
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Lucas
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Napolitano
     Rahall
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sherman
     Solis
     Wilson (OH)

                              {time}  1235

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, January 23, 2008, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 21. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea'' on ordering the previous question to H.R. 3963--to amend 
title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the 
Children's Health Insurance Program.
  Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 21 on ordering the 
previous question on the veto override of the Children's Health 
Insurance bill, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yea''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding?
  Under the Constitution, the vote must be by the yeas and nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 260, 
nays 152, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 22]

                               YEAS--260

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--152

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Baird
     Baker
     Berman
     Costello
     Davis (IL)
     Everett
     Hinojosa
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Lucas
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Napolitano
     Rahall
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sherman
     Solis
     Wilson (OH)

                              {time}  1252

  So (two thirds not being in the affirmative) the veto of the 
President was sustained and the bill was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, January 23, 2008, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 22. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea'' on passage, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding, of H.R. 3963--to amend title XXI of the 
Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health 
Insurance Program.
  Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 22 on overriding 
the President's veto of H.R. 3963, Children's Health Insurance Program 
Reauthorization Act, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The veto message and the bill will be 
referred to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means.

[[Page H408]]

  The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.

                          ____________________