[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18627-18633]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2145
                        THE OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leadership for 
allowing me to come to the floor of the House this evening and spend 
another hour of The Official Truth Squad, a group of individuals who 
come to the floor at least once a week, we try to, at least, to try to 
shed a little light, a little correct view on the situations that occur 
here in our Nation's Capital and especially here on the House floor.
  This group grew out of some frustration by Members on the Republican 
side of the aisle who felt that there was less light and less 
truthfulness being spoken here on the floor of the House, and that so 
often, because of the constrained rules on the floor of the House, we 
and others were prevented from bringing those instances to light. So we 
started what we call The Official Truth Squad, and the leadership has 
been very kind in allowing us to shed that light, bring that truth to 
the Members of the House and hopefully set the record straight so 
often.
  We have many favorite sayings. One of them that I enjoy most is one 
from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who said that everyone is 
entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitle to their own 
facts.
  When you think about it, it's so very true here that if we were to 
deal more in fact that we would have a much better debate, a much 
better discussion, a discussion that would be much more appropriate for 
the American people, and live up to the charge that we have all been 
given, that is, to represent our constituents to the best ability that 
we have.
  But facts oftentimes don't hold the day here. But, hopefully, during 
this hour we will be able to bring some light to some very interesting 
matters that have been brought before the House and some that are yet 
to come in the days and the weeks ahead.
  It has been a curious time here in Washington since the beginning of 
the year. It's a time of what I have called and dubbed Orwellian 
democracy, Orwellian democracy, because so often what we see is the 
party in charge, the majority party, says one thing and then does 
something completely different. So it harkens back to the author, 
George Orwell, and the double speak that he highlighted.
  It's, sadly, distressing that the leadership on the other side of the 
aisle seems to be all politics all the time. It's a shame, because we 
both have just gotten back in town from a week of district work period, 
and I know that you likely heard what I heard at home, and that is that 
folks are frustrated and oftentimes disgusted with the kind of activity 
that goes on here in Washington, the kind of lack of debate, the lack 
of open and honest discussion. The all politics all the time is very 
frustrating to my constituents, and, I suspect, to those of yours as 
well.
  Tomorrow is one of those days that will be a classic example of all 
politics all the time. The majority party has seen fit to bring forth, 
and you have heard a lot of folks talk about the issue this evening on 
the other side of the aisle, but they have seen fit to bring forth 
another resolution on the war in Iraq. It's curious that it comes 
literally just hours after the Speaker of the House had an individual 
stand up, who is known to folks far and wide across this Nation, and 
say that she was going to challenge the Speaker in the next election. 
So it appears that the timeliness of this resolution may be, again, all 
politics all the time in response to an electoral challenge that may be 
coming upon the Speaker of the House.
  But the sad part about all of this, as it relates to the war in Iraq, 
and we are going to talk about a number of issues tonight, but the sad 
part about the resolution that's coming up tomorrow is that it is all 
just politics. It's not anything about real policy debates for the 
American people; it's not about real action. This Congress, this House 
and the Senate, said relatively recently that we were going to allow 
the reinforcements to run their course in Iraq, that we are going to 
allow General David Petraeus, who is on the ground there, along with 
credible fortitude and gallantry on the part of the American men and 
women, that we were going to allow the increase in the reenforcements 
of the American troops to run their course and see whether or not there 
was progress being made.
  Now, just a few short weeks after the number of individuals have 
increased in Iraq, the majority party says, oh, no, we really didn't 
mean that, we need a new bumper sticker, we need a new headline, so 
they are going to bring a resolution on Iraq tomorrow. It is really a 
shame and very sad, because it, again, doesn't add anything to the 
debate, doesn't do anything other than highlight the politics of this 
majority party and the fact that they are having extreme difficulty 
getting any real accomplishments. So they bring another very 
politically motivated resolution on the war in Iraq, Orwellian 
democracy, saying one thing and doing another.
  We have been told this is going to be the most open and honest 
Congress, most open and honest Congress ever. Well, the facts of the 
matter, the facts of the matter are that this is one of the most closed 
and clandestine Congresses ever to grace the American public. It is 
really a shame, again, really a shame, because issues aren't being 
debated the way that they should. We will talk very specifically about 
one of those issues tonight.
  I want to highlight a couple areas where Orwellian democracy is 
holding forth and living and surviving well with this new majority. As 
you know well, this new majority came to power, and they said we are 
going to cut spending, we are going to decrease spending; we are going 
to be more responsible with spending hard-earned taxpayer money out 
there.
  What does this new majority do? They increase spending. They couldn't 
wait to criticize all the spending that went on under the charge of the 
Republican Party when we were in the majority. So what they said, in 
essence, you spent so much, and it was so awful, that we are going to 
spend more. That's what they have done. They have increased spending by 
over $25 billion, $25 billion in the appropriations bills so far, and 
we are barely halfway through, if that, of the appropriations bills.
  I would suggest to the American people that it's time to put your 
hands squarely on your wallet, because the true tax-and-spend majority 
is back in charge, and it's of great concern, I know, to my 
constituents and, I suspect, if you talk to yours as well.
  When they adopted their budget, they adopted a budget that includes 
the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation, nearly $400 
billion tax increase. Again, not what they said they were going to do, 
and not what they said they have done, as a matter of fact. That's why 
it's Orwellian democracy, because they won't even fess up and own up to 
the fact, the fact that they have passed a budget that includes the 
largest tax increase in the history of our Nation.
  Then they go on and they talk about fiscal responsibility. In fact, 
many Members have posters outside their offices up here in Washington. 
Some constituents may have come by the Halls of Congress and seen the 
posters. The posters look wonderful. They talk about the need for 
fiscal responsibility,

[[Page 18628]]

and the amount of the debt, the amount of the deficit. But, in fact, 
when given the opportunity to decrease the debt, and to decrease the 
deficit, what happens is that they continually say no. Orwellian 
democracy is alive and well.
  Just today, just today we passed a bill that was the reauthorization 
of the higher education act for our Nation. But it didn't just 
reauthorize the act and provide more money for students of low-income, 
and ``low'' means to be able to attend colleges and universities. No, 
it didn't just do that. What it did in addition to that was to create 
nine new entitlement programs, nine new entitlement programs.
  Now, entitlement programs are really a misnomer. They are programs 
that are on automatic pilot here. They are mandatory spending. They are 
programs that get started, and they never, ever end, because they are 
not able to be touched by the kind of discretionary spending that 
Congress has more control over. They just spend on and on and on, year 
after year.
  Yes, this majority created nine new entitlement programs that will 
spend upwards of $18 billion in just a few short years, a new $18 
billion. So there are nine new entitlements, no reform, no reform 
listed for the entitlement programs, which brings me to this issue of 
mandatory spending growth that we have seen in our Nation.
  It's comprised of all sorts of mandatory spending programs, 
entitlement programs; but there are three that kind of highlight the 
major problem that we have. Of the nine new ones that they passed 
today, however, they may grow into being as important as these three, 
but the three are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Those three 
programs, in and of themselves, comprise about 54 percent of our 
Federal budget right now, about 54 percent of our Federal budget. Our 
mandatory programs are mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
  The reason that's important is because these programs are mandatory, 
because they are on kind of automatic pilot, the amount of money, hard-
earned American taxpayer money that comes to Washington that is spent 
on those programs increases gradually every single year.
  So what this chart here shows, these pie charts here show is that in 
1995, those three programs comprised about 48.7 percent of the Federal 
budget, about half of the Federal budget just 12 short years ago. Now, 
as I mentioned, about 54, 55 percent of the Federal budget is comprised 
of these mandatory, automatic-spending programs.
  In a few short years, 2017, it will be about 62, 63 percent of the 
Federal budget. That's important because one would think that if you 
looked at that slope of increase in spending, slope of increase in 
total spending of the mandatory programs, as it relates to the Federal 
budget, in a relatively short period of time, it's true, as you know, 
that those three programs will comprise the entire Federal budget, the 
entire Federal budget, about 2030, 2035, somewhere in that range, which 
is within the lifetime of most of us here in this Chamber and certainly 
the vast majority of the citizens in our districts.
  That's important because something has got to change. You can't have 
these programs continue as they are without appropriate and responsible 
reform.
  So one would think that the party in charge would say, well, we have 
got to look at these, and we have got to make certain that we reform 
these programs, otherwise we are going to have all of the Federal money 
going to these three programs.
  When our party, my party, was in charge, what we attempted to do was 
to appropriately reform these programs and work diligently to make that 
happen.
  So in 1997, with the Balanced Budget Act, we passed entitlement 
reform. We decreased the slope of that line. Now, we didn't end it, 
because of the difficulty in doing that, there are ways to do that, but 
it's extremely difficult both politically and financially to do that.
  But in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we increased by about $137 
billion the entitlement mandatory spending over a period of time. In 
fact, in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2 years ago, of 2005, it was 
about $40 billion in reform, reform spending in those entitlement 
programs. It makes it so that the hard-earned taxpayer money is more 
responsibly spent, that it makes it so that we work diligently to 
decrease the deficit and to decrease the debt.
  One would again believe that looking at the previous charts, and 
realizing that these programs are expanding exponentially, and that 
they are very, very soon to comprise a much greater portion of the 
Federal budget, one would say, well, the party in charge probably, when 
they adopted a budget, they would bring about some appropriate reform 
to mandatory programs. That's what I expected. It's what my 
constituents expected.
  Frankly, I think it's what the American people expected when they 
went to the polls and voted last November. They expected a more bold 
process for reform of automatic mandatory spending. Many of us on our 
side of the aisle would have been in support of that.
  But what happened? You see over on the far right of this chart, it 
shows the amount of entitlement reform under this new leadership. Do 
you remember Orwellian democracy, the talk about fiscal responsibility, 
the talk about importance for entitlement reform, the talk about 
reforming the Federal Government, making it run more efficiently?
  Well, what happened is that the budget was adopted by this new 
majority that had no entitlement reform, none. In fact, as I mentioned 
earlier today, nine new entitlement programs adopted, put into place, 
one could make an argument that that not ought to be zero, that ought 
to be minus, that this new majority is going in the wrong direction. 
When they talk about a new direction for America, there is a new 
direction for America, but it's the wrong direction. It's the direction 
of greater debt and greater deficit and greater fiscal 
irresponsibility.

                              {time}  2200

  That is not what the American people bargained for. I have no doubt 
about it. Which brings us to the issue that I would like to spend a 
fair amount of time on this evening.
  There is a proposal coming forward later this month, within maybe 
just a few short days, that will address the SCHIP program, the State 
Children's Health Insurance program. This is a program that is near and 
dear to my heart. Mr. Speaker, as you may remember, before I came to 
Congress, I was a physician. I was an orthopedic surgeon. I spent over 
20 years practicing orthopedic surgery in Atlanta. And one of the 
things that drove me in to politics, to stand up and say, I would like 
to serve my constituents in the public in this way, was a belief that 
there were individuals both in my State capital and in Washington that 
thought they had a better idea, about almost anything, but especially a 
better idea about health care; that they thought that they could make 
better decisions about health care than the people involved; that is, 
patients.
  So the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, 
is one of those that I think highlights one of the fundamental 
differences, one of the fundamental flaws in this Orwellian Democratic 
leadership, which is that they say one thing and then do something 
completely different. Because what they will say is that they are 
interested in reforming the system and bringing greater health care, 
more health care for more children across our Nation, and, Mr. Speaker, 
what they will do and what they will propose is in fact a program that 
will move us one step closer, one step further down the road to a 
nationalized health insurance program and also one step closer to a 
program that will make it so that patients, parents, doctors are unable 
to make health care decisions. It is not what the American people 
bargained for, there is no doubt about it.
  This new majority is obviously driven by the left in our Nation, 
driven by, I think, a small minority of individuals who firmly believe, 
again, that the government knows best; that the government knows best 
how to make all sorts

[[Page 18629]]

of decisions. But in this instance it is personal. It is personal for 
every single American. Certainly it is personal for the children in 
these programs; because what this program is saying and what is being 
proposed is that the government, that Washington knows better what kind 
of health care you need, and we make better decisions. We, politicians, 
bureaucrats here in Washington, make better decisions than individuals, 
than individuals, than children and their parents together.
  I think it is helpful that we are having this debate because I think 
it provides that great contrast, that wonderful contrast between the 
party of individual responsibility, and the party that believes that 
patients and parents and their doctors ought to be able to make medical 
decisions, and the party that believes that the government ought to be 
making those decisions.
  So I am looking forward to the debate. It is a difficult issue 
because the consequences are so great and the consequences are so 
personal to each and every American. I don't know anybody that believes 
truly that the government can make better health care decisions for 
themselves. I don't know anybody that believes the government can do 
that. So I am looking forward to the debate as we move forward on the 
SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
  I am going to talk a little bit more about that as we go on, but I am 
pleased to be joined by my good friend from Tennessee, Congresswoman 
Marsha Blackburn, who is a leader in so many areas, but especially in 
the area of health care, and serves on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee. I am so pleased to have you join us this evening and share 
your concerns and your knowledge and information about the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. It is a pleasure to join you. And I appreciate the 
opportunity to come and talk with our constituents about this program.
  It is amazing to me as we are looking at this and looking at the 
reauthorization of it and looking at what has been a very successful 
program when it has worked as a block grant program, and then look at 
the problems that would arise as it moves to being an entitlement 
program. And this is something, though, that, unfortunately, it seems 
to be more or less the method that the Democrat majority is using as 
they move forward.
  This is the ``Hold on to Your Wallet'' Congress, and they are 
expanding programs. Today we have done the college cost of savings. It 
sounds good, but, my goodness, nine new entitlement programs that they 
have voted to establish today, nine. And it is not going to have an 
effect with making certain that people have the ability to get into 
college and then stay in college. You have got all these different 
programs that appeal to special interest groups but not to the average 
family that is sitting down at the table and taking out a pencil and a 
piece of paper and saying, How do we make all of this fit?
  I have just been amazed listening to the debate today as it pertained 
to education. And, of course, we are seeing this as we are working 
through our appropriations bills. They are spending more money. They 
are spending above the President's request. They are proving Ronald 
Reagan right at every turn. He has said, ``There is nothing so close to 
eternal life on earth as a Federal Government program.'' And certainly 
we see that. They are given the opportunity, and what are they doing? 
They are starting new programs. They are starting the bureaucracy; 
certainly not the kind of change that the American people thought that 
they were going to get. And we see that as we look at the SCHIP 
program.
  Now, those of us who have watched health care and worked on health 
care issues at both the State and the Federal level know the value of 
having this program and having it work and States having the 
flexibility that is there. But what we are seeing is the SCHIP program 
being hijacked to help the liberal left move their agenda of socialized 
medicine a little bit further toward the finish line. And when they 
talk about Medicare for everybody, when they talk about expanding 
Medicaid, and when they talk about moving SCHIP from a block grant to 
an entitlement and then expanding the reach of that program, that is 
what they are doing.
  SCHIP is to be for children. We have States that are using it to pay 
for adult health care. SCHIP was originally capped at $40 billion over 
a 10-year period of time for block grants, for children's care. What 
has happened, Congress has granted an additional $676 million in new 
Federal spending for State bailouts through 2026. So, there again, we 
hear accountability and we hear our constituents talk to us about 
accountability and the importance of accountability, but what we see is 
our colleagues on the left who will say, ``Well, if somebody gets in 
trouble, let's pay for it. Let's pay for it. Let's let the Federal 
Government pay for it.'' But the problem here is we forget, this is not 
Congress's money. It is not the bureaucracy's money. It is not SCHIP's 
money. It is not CMS's money. It is the hardworking family that goes to 
work every day, that earns that money, that sends it to the Federal 
Government. This is taxpayer money.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. If the gentlelady will yield. I appreciate your 
comments. And I appreciate especially concentrating in that last 
statement about whose money this is, because so often we lose sight 
here with the incredible number of zeroes that we deal with here in 
Washington, billions and billions of dollars, truly. And all of those 
dollars take hardworking Americans waking up every single day, making 
certain that they have cared for themselves and their family, and 
getting to work and being generous enough to entrust to us their 
hardearned money, and it is incumbent upon us to spend that money 
wisely. And the challenge that I see with every government program, but 
especially this State Children's Health Insurance Program; it is a 
noble cause. It is a noble cause without a doubt. Who can object to 
providing health care for needy children? So it is a noble cause, but 
it is a government program that is clearly being morphed into something 
else. And I think that is what you were alluding to.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. And I thank the gentleman for yielding. Today we have 
6 million children that are covered in SCHIP. We also have 600,000 
adults that are covered in SCHIP.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Let me get this straight. In the Children's 
Health Insurance Program, there are hundreds of thousands of adults who 
are being covered? How is that possible?
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. That is happening 
because States are deciding that they are going to take the money and 
then use it for some things other than the children. Maybe they don't 
have enough children that fall below that poverty level or the 100, 
200, 300 percent of poverty, wherever those levels may be for those 
specific State programs, so you have part of that money being used for 
adults.
  Now, the problem that has come before us is SCHIP has to be 
reauthorized before September 30th, and the funding will expire. Now, 
this is a program we don't want to expire. We would like to see it 
continue as it was originally set up to continue. We do not want it to 
morph into other things and be a program that also covers adults, be a 
program that covers those that are not falling into the category of 
being needy children. We want to make certain that it remains a block 
grant, that States are given flexibility, and that the money is used to 
cover the children, the population for which it is intended. That is 
how accountabilities should work with these programs.
  Now, our colleagues across the aisle want to make it permanent. They 
are not interested in addressing how the money is being spent or 
whether a less costly, more efficient system could end up serving 
children better and meeting the needs of those children in the 
appropriate way.
  One of the things that they are also wanting to do is to change the 
income levels and include those that are at 400 percent of poverty. So 
what we would have is families that are making $60,000 to $84,000 a 
year would end up being eligible for SCHIP for their children. So

[[Page 18630]]

what we would have is the IRS looking at a family's tax return and 
saying, ``You are rich. You are going to pay the AMT.'' And then the 
SCHIP program looking and saying, ``Well, you fall within the 
guidelines of 400 percent above poverty, and you qualify for this 
wonderful entitlement called SCHIP.'' So that is the kind of 
frustration that we see in the bureaucracy that causes frustration and 
a lot of questions from our constituents and causes them to say, ``Wait 
a minute. How is this money being used?''
  Now, we also hear from our constituents that they don't want more of 
this control centered with the bureaucrat. They want to be able to 
preserve the doctor-patient relationship. They want to be able to make 
choices for themselves. And they sure don't want socialized medicine 
and government-run health care.
  We have heard one of our colleagues say, do you really want the 
bureaucracy that can't seem to straighten out Katrina, that can't seem 
to handle homeland security, that can't seem to get their hands around 
passports, to then manage health care from cradle to grave? And those 
are the right questions for our constituents to ask. And as they bring 
those questions forward, we say: And one of the ways that we need to 
address this is through making certain that SCHIP stays as it was 
intended to be, a block grant program that was put in place to assist 
the States in providing health care for children at low-income levels, 
those needy children.
  And I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady again for that 
perspective. And I just want to highlight something that you mentioned, 
and that is that there are proposals here in the House and in Congress 
to make this program mandatory, part of that entitlement mentality that 
exists on the other side of the aisle, and to increase the eligibility 
for this mandatory program up to 400 percent of the poverty level; you 
mentioned that is about $82,000 for a family of four.
  This chart demonstrates that the percent of children who would be 
covered up to 200 percent, which is what has been the original 
guidelines for the SCHIP program and what we believe ought to be 
appropriate at this point, is 50 percent of the kids will be covered in 
a Federal-State program.

                              {time}  2215

  If you go up to 300 percent, then it gets to 77 percent of the 
children. If you go up to 400 percent of the poverty level, you get 
nearly 90 percent of children in a Federal health care program. And 
that's what sheds light on the real issue here, the real issue being 
who ought to be in charge of health care for our Nation's children and 
for our Nation's families, and for individual people all across this 
Nation. We believe it ought not be the Federal Government, I think that 
that's fair to say. And the other side clearly believes that this is 
the next step, to allow them to have the Federal Government control 
health care. And I'm happy to yield.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman. And yes indeed. You know, one 
of the things that one of my constituents is fond of saying when they 
come to town hall meetings and gatherings is, Marsha, whatever the 
government giveth, the government sure can take away. And we need to 
keep our attention to as we talk about this health care. Do we really 
want to put a bureaucrat behind a desk making a decision for the type 
health care that our child is going to receive? Or do we want to make 
certain that we, as parents, and as patients, with a physician, have 
the opportunity to make those decisions about health care, and do we 
want to make certain that we are moving toward a market-driven health 
care system? Or do we want to move toward socialized medicine system? 
And those are questions that the American people are certainly asking.
  You know, one of the things, as we've looked at this, and you hear 
the discussion about what it's going to cost, and generally, as with so 
many programs that come from the left, they will say, oh, but it's only 
going to cost this amount. And it's not going to be that much more 
expensive to pick up those extra 45 percent of the children to move us 
to 95 percent. It's not going to cost us that much. And it's going to 
pay dividends in the long run.
  Well, you know, the interesting thing about that is the way 
government structures its budget. We're not looking at the 10-year, 20-
year, 30-year cost. We're looking at a 5-year snapshot. Many of our 
States, when they construct their budgets, they're doing cost 
accounting, which is a 1-year view into what is taking place.
  And even at this, you know, CBO has scored this bill at $50 billion, 
and we're finding out that the cost is more like a $108 billion to 
cover the cost between adding an additional 1 to 2 million extra 
children. And that doesn't even get into considering some of the income 
requirements for recipients. And this is going to be an interesting 
issue of debate.
  And I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate that because you triggered in my 
mind something about cost-of-government programs. And I'm reminded of 
the fact that when Medicaid itself was instituted in the mid-1960s that 
there was a wonderful estimate that said that Medicaid, at the turn of 
the century, when 2000 rolled around, would only cost about $8 billion. 
In fact, it cost about $80 billion.
  So the Federal Government is always off by a significant factor, and 
so when you hear an estimate that this will only cost $108 billion, in 
fact, we can say with relative certainty that that is a lesser amount 
than it would actually cost, and it would be much greater burden on the 
American taxpayer.
  And I'm pleased to yield back.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes. And one of the points that I would make in this 
debate is that in fiscal year 2007 alone, SCHIP will cost the American 
taxpayer $11.5 billion. Now, under the plan that the Democrat 
leadership is pushing forward for expansion of this program, that cost 
would increase fivefold. That would increase fivefold. This is what it 
would cost turning it from a block grant with flexibility to the State 
and moving it to an entitlement where you're going to put it on auto 
pilot.
  And people say, what are entitlements? What's the difference here? 
When you're talking about Medicare, when you're talking about Medicaid, 
when you're talking about some of our Social Service programs that are 
entitlements that every year they just grow right along. There's not a 
check and balance. You're not working on outcomes. You're not working 
on making certain that you're achieving efficiencies. You've got it on 
auto pilot.
  Now we've established nine new today, nine new entitlement programs 
in education. That is what the Democrat leadership wanted. It's not 
what the American people wanted. That's what they wanted, entitlement 
programs. And what we know is they would increase the cost fivefold on 
this plan.
  Another thing we need to keep in mind is that the SCHIP expansion 
would generate a real shift away from private health insurance and that 
private health insurance market for children. And for every 100 
children who get public coverage as a result of SCHIP, there is a 
corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 
children. So you change the way that market is going to work. And it is 
of concern to us. We know that this is something that will cause a lot 
of questions.
  We are very concerned with what we hear they are pushing to do to try 
to make this palatable so that they can pull in votes to pass this 
SCHIP program. We know that our physicians have a problem with the 
payment system for Medicare reimbursement, and certainly, the gentleman 
from Georgia, being a physician, understands this so very well. And 
we've seen reductions in payments for Medicare payments to those 
physicians. And so they're going to include this in the SCHIP bill.
  Well, the Medicare payments don't have anything to do with the SCHIP 
block grant. But in order to try to pull together those votes and pull 
together something that they think the Republicans can't afford to 
block, they're going to put that in there.

[[Page 18631]]

  Now, if I were a practicing physician dealing with the SGR and with 
Medicare reimbursement, I would be highly offended that I'm going to be 
used as a bargaining chip in the Children's Health Care Insurance 
Program.
  Now, they're also going to look for ways to improve programs that 
provide financial assistance to low income Medicare beneficiaries for 
premiums, cost sharing and prescription drugs. So they're going to set 
up a generational battle and say, well, we'll do this on SCHIP, but 
we're going to take away some of the benefits from the Medicare part D 
and the Medicare Advantage. So they're going to take away a little bit 
from the seniors and then try to put that into the children's health 
care.
  Now, if I were a senior citizen, there again, if I liked my part D 
and my Medicare Advantage, I wouldn't like the fact that they're going 
to use me as a bargaining chip.
  And then we find that they're going to provide a special focus on 
addressing the health care needs of those living in rural areas. Well, 
if I lived in a rural area, and if I had a community health center in 
my area, and of course, in my seventh District of Tennessee, I have 
plenty of rural areas and plenty of rural health centers. I wouldn't 
like the fact that I'm going to be a bargaining chip.
  And it is unfortunate that this seems to be the path that they are 
going to choose to travel. Rather than addressing the issue straight 
up, rather than addressing the needs of the States, rather than 
addressing how do we best meet the needs of children, they're going to 
pull all these different things and pull them into one bill and try to 
make something they think that there are plenty of people that they 
can't vote against it.
  So I find that, indeed, unfortunate and something that, when we talk 
about health care, preserving access to health care for all of our 
constituents, it is, indeed, unfortunate that that bargaining chip-type 
mentality, that let's make a deal with the hold on to your wallet 
Congress, is the way they want to operate and do business.
  And I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you so much for you comments. And I 
think the issues that you point out most recently there on the 
bargaining chips really speaks to the cynicism with which this 
leadership leads this Congress because it is, it's purchasing votes. 
It's purchasing numbers of votes in order to pass a bill. And then to 
have the, again, the all politics all the time, the bumper sticker 
politics that goes on by this leadership. And it is, frankly, what the 
American people are tired of. It's not what they voted for in November. 
And they are clearly telling each other and telling any individual who 
will ask that that has decreased their opinion of Congress.
  And I'm pleased to yield.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. You know, as you were saying that, I'm reminded of 
what we in Tennessee went through in 1994 and 1995 as we saw the advent 
of TenCare in our State, which was the test case for Hillary Clinton 
health care. And we know what has happened in our State of Tennessee, 
and the fact that TenCare now is consuming about two-thirds of our 
State's budgets. It is a very, very difficult program.
  And somebody always is going to pay. Somebody always has to pay the 
bill. And what we are seeing with the American public is, they know 
that it is the taxpayer that is going to pay; that there are not things 
that are free. Someone pays for that, and they, the taxpayer, going to 
work every day, American families holding American jobs, earning a pay 
check that, unfortunately, the Federal Government has first right of 
refusal on that pay check, they take their share before you get your 
share. And it happens every single pay period.
  And so many people are tired of it. They're tired of government not 
being accountable, and they are tired of Congress having an insatiable 
appetite for their hard-earned money. And it's what causes them to 
contact us when they hear about how these appropriations bills are 
being handled, when they hear about the increase in Federal programs, 
when they hear about the increase in spending. And, yes, indeed, as 
I've told my constituents this weekend, I'm not surprised that the 
numbers for Congress are as low as they are. People wanted things done 
differently. And this is not the kind of change they wanted. What 
they're saying, this is exactly what we didn't want. It's exactly what 
we didn't want.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you so much. I appreciate your 
perspective this evening so much on the program about which you know a 
lot and your perspective from the committee, and especially your 
perspective about representing constituents, real Americans, real 
Americans who are working just as hard as they can to make ends meet 
and being so very, very frustrated with a Federal Government and a 
leadership now in Congress that appears absolutely more interested in 
dividing and conquering, as opposed to putting in place appropriate 
policies. So I appreciate your comments.
  I just want to make a few more comments about the specifics of the 
State Children's Health Insurance Program, because I think that there 
are a number of issues that need to be pointed out as we move forward 
with this debate. The current program, as we've talked about, was meant 
to cover, was scheduled and meant to cover children up to 200 percent 
of the poverty level. And as we've heard, many of the States covered to 
a higher degree than that. Some 235, some 250, some went up to 350 
percent of the poverty level. And although that is, I think, a move in 
a direction that's not consistent, certainly with the intent of 
Congress, it probably is a move away from where the American people 
thought that program was going, without a doubt.
  But, Mr. Speaker, it definitely is a move away from the intent when 
you look at the programs and realize that even those States that went 
up to 300 and 350 percent of the poverty level, some even up to 250 
percent of the poverty level weren't even covering all of the children 
under 200 percent of the poverty level. And they were covering adults.

                              {time}  2230

  So it just was a flawed program.
  And it is so often what happens here in Washington: Federal programs 
are enacted. Noble cause is outlined. Wonderful banner headlines 
provided. Great speeches given about how this will save this, that or 
the other thing. And then the implementation is so terribly and 
woefully flawed. And that has indeed happened in this case.
  This reauthorization, as has been mentioned, is up because the 
program is about to be 10 years old. It expires on September 30 of this 
year. As a physician, I joined many of my colleagues before I came to 
Congress and before I was in the State legislature early in the 1990s, 
and many of us believed we were at a crossroads at that time as it 
related to health care. There were many on the other side of the aisle, 
on the Democrat side of the aisle, who believed that the government 
ought to take over health care at that point in the early 1990s. And, 
Mr. Speaker, as you will remember and as many folks will remember, if 
they think back to that time, there was a huge battle and a lot of 
expose about what the consequences of that would be. And thank goodness 
we didn't march down that road.
  But we are now back at that crossroads. We backed up. We went down 
another road a little bit, and some of the direction was correct. Some 
of the direction was putting us further toward government-run health 
care. But we are now at that crossroads where we have a group of 
individuals in charge in the United States House of Representatives 
now, with a Democrat leadership, who believe that a Washington-
controlled bureaucratic health care model is what America wants.
  I don't believe that is what America wants. It certainly isn't what 
my constituents want. It wasn't what my patients wanted when I was 
practicing medicine.
  I think it is important, as we look at this program, the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program, and as we look at the fact that it 
is up for reauthorization, that we ought to ask some

[[Page 18632]]

questions. What have the consequences of the program been to date? 
Indeed, we have covered a number of children who would not possibly 
have had health insurance. One of the consequences of raising the 
Federal poverty level eligibility for the Children's Health Insurance 
Program is that we crowd out children who might otherwise be obtaining 
insurance through a private plan where their mom or their dad work. But 
there are other consequences, and some of those consequences are grave. 
One of them is, I believe, an increased dependence on government for 
the provision of health care. There is no doubt about that. I believe 
also that it undermines parental responsibility. And there is no doubt 
that it increases the burden on the hard-working American taxpayer.
  I would like to touch on a few specifics on each of those. Increasing 
dependency on government, where does that come from? Well, when you 
look at the year 1998 and the percent of American children who were on 
either Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program, in 
1998 it was about 28 percent. Twenty-eight percent of American children 
were enrolled in 1998 in either Medicaid or the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program, SCHIP. In 2005, that number had jumped to 45 percent 
or 6.2 million children. So it went in 1998 from 28 percent to 45 
percent in 2005. So there is no doubt that there is an increased 
dependency on the government for the provision of health care. Again, I 
don't think that is what the American people had in mind.
  State policies also have increased and encouraged the trend of adult 
enrollees. A couple of examples which just boggle my mind, Mr. Speaker, 
in Minnesota, for example, 87 percent of those enrolled in the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program in 2005 were adults. Eighty-seven 
percent were adults. That is not what Congress voted on in 1997. That 
is not what the American people thought was going to be the program to 
provide health insurance, health access, health care for the neediest 
children in our Nation. In Wisconsin, the number was 66 percent. So, in 
Wisconsin, 66 percent, and in Minnesota, 87 percent in 2005 were adults 
on the Children's Health Insurance Program. That is not what this 
program was to be about. And State officials, as we have mentioned, 
didn't stick to the 200 percent. So in New Jersey, for example, the 
amount went up to 350 percent of the poverty level. Mr. Speaker, that 
is an income of about $72,000. Now, that may or may not seem to be a 
lot of money to some folks, but the problem that we get in this 
doublespeak in Washington, in this Orwellian democracy model that we 
have by the leadership right now is that, as Congresswoman Blackburn 
mentioned, on the one hand, $72,000 is deemed to be ``rich'' by the 
other side of the aisle when it comes to the alternative minimum tax, 
but $72,000 for a given State under this program is deemed to be needy 
so that the State has to cover children in their health insurance 
program. Clearly it is doublespeak. Clearly it is Orwellian democracy. 
It has become increasingly clear that there are many Members of 
Congress who believe that expansion into higher income levels for 
families is exactly what they want because they at their core desire 
government health insurance over private health insurance. They desire 
a Washington-controlled bureaucratic model for the provision of health 
care and medicine in our Nation. So it is clear that the program has 
increased dependency on the government for the provision of health 
care.
  How about transferring family responsibilities, taking the place of 
parents, transferring family responsibilities to the government? There 
is no doubt that that has occurred and in a variety of ways. In many 
cases, for example, the SCHIP program means that children's health 
coverage will be totally separate than their parents. So they go to 
different offices. They go to different office locations. There are 
different office hours. There are different doctors that care for them, 
different paperwork, all of which makes life more difficult. It makes 
the Federal Government and the State government the determiners. It 
makes them making the decisions for parents and for families.
  I believe that the goal should be to help unite families, to help 
unite their coverage under one private plan that they select, that they 
own, not to spread the coverage out through a hodgepodge that increases 
dependency on the government.
  Some in Congress suggest that private coverage is unattainable for 
lower-income families or working families. But the facts tell a 
different story. Remember, Mr. Speaker, facts are stubborn things and 
everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to 
their own facts? Well, the facts tell a different story. According to 
the Congressional Budget Office, 50 percent of children whose families 
earn between 100 and 200 percent of the Federal poverty level have 
private health insurance coverage. Remember the other 50 percent 
covered by this program, 50 percent are covered by private health 
insurance. That number skyrocketed to 77 percent for those families 
that earn 200 to 300 percent of the Federal poverty level. In fact, 60 
percent of people covered by SCHIP expansions already had private 
coverage available to them. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker, because 
that is a startling statement. It is a startling fact, and it is 
something that we ought to pay attention to. Sixty percent of the 
people covered by SCHIP expansions were already covered by private 
insurance before the program was instituted.
  Mr. Speaker, what that means is that we are making decisions here in 
Washington that are providing financial incentives for individuals and 
businesses and people to move their health care coverage to government, 
and when we do that, it is incumbent upon us to ask the question, 
should we be doing that? What are the consequences of doing that? What 
are the unintended consequences of doing that? In 2012, if we continue 
down this road, 71 percent of the American children will be in a 
government-run health care system.
  Now, what does that mean? What are the consequences of that? As a 
physician, I am here to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the consequences of that 
are that more health care decisions are made by bureaucrats and are 
made by individuals here in Washington than are made by doctors and 
their patients and children's parents. That is what it means. It means 
that more personal health care decisions move away from being made by 
patients and their doctors. That is not what we ought to be about. That 
is not increasing choice for individuals in the health care system. 
That is not increasing freedom for individuals in the health care 
system. That is creating a system that is Washington-controlled 
bureaucratic health care, and I don't believe that that is what the 
American people desire.
  This program definitely has burdened the taxpayer. There is no doubt 
about that. You couldn't reach any other conclusion regardless of where 
you come down on the program. As was mentioned, this will cost hundreds 
of billions of dollars. And if it is made into an automatic or 
mandatory or entitlement program, it will increase even greater than 
that.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I have just a few short minutes, but I do want to 
touch on what we believe, what I believe we ought to do because there 
are positive solutions. There are positive answers to how we ought to 
move in a direction that provides patient-centered health care, 
patient-centered health care, something that I believe is wanted by the 
American people. It is something that I have termed American values and 
American vision. And one of those American values and one of those 
American visions is to have a health care system that is patient 
centered, that allows patients and their doctors to make decisions, not 
government officials. Not government officials. That is not where the 
American people want us to be. So if we are going to have a Children's 
Health Insurance Program, then we ought to live up to the premise for 
which it was brought about, and that is to target it to low-income 
families, low-income, uninsured families. And there is an easy way to 
do that. There is an easy way to do that.

[[Page 18633]]

  You can empower families to make health care decisions that directly 
affect their own children. The way that you do that is through a robust 
system of premium assistance. You can provide and allow parents to 
utilize the SCHIP funds to be able to purchase private health care 
coverage without government micromanagement. It is a system that 
results, in essence, in a defined contribution program so that the 
Federal Government would, when needed for low-income uninsured 
children, provide assistance that would allow for the purchase of a 
private health insurance policy so that the family owns the policy. And 
when that happens, what that means is that it becomes patient-centered 
because the individuals, the parents, will select the best program for 
their child. And that is all that anybody is truly wanting. They want a 
system that responds to the health care needs of their family and their 
children; not a system where the Federal Government is making those 
decisions.
  It is easy to also provide for a program that would expand the 
options for individuals and families beyond the narrow confines of the 
SCHIP program. It is important that the perceived need is for a system 
that provides appropriate health care, indeed, but the appropriate need 
is for one that is responsive to patients.
  I have a few other items that I just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, 
before I close. And that is, again, that if we move toward the system 
that is being proposed by the folks who are interested in Washington-
controlled bureaucratic health care, 71 percent of America's children 
will be on Medicaid or SCHIP in the year 2012. Over the next 4 years, 
if nothing has changed with this program and others, we will move from 
$11,000 per year, per household, Federal money, $11,000 per household 
to $13,000 per household spent on health care.
  And there is a wonderful article that I would like to point out to my 
colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that was published on June 28 by Robert Novak 
called, ``Socialized Medicine for 'Kids.''' And I will include that in 
the Record. I urge my colleagues to avail themselves of this article. 
This talks about removing the ability of parents to make personal 
health care decisions for their children.

                    Socialized Medicine for ``Kids''

                          (By Robert D. Novak)

       Washington--There is no need to wait until a new president 
     is elected next year for the great national health care 
     debate. It is underway right now, disguised as a routine 
     extension of an immensely popular, non-controversial 10-year-
     old program of providing coverage to poor children. In fact, 
     this proposal is the thin edge of the wedge to achieve the 
     longtime goal of government-supplied universal health 
     insurance and the suffocation of the private system.
       The Senate Finance Committee was scheduled to mark up this 
     portentous legislation expanding the State Children's Health 
     Insurance Program (SCHIP) today [Thursday], but disagreement 
     over the size of the program and how to pay for it forced 
     postponement. Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller's version would 
     triple SCHIP's current five-year cost of $25 billion to a 
     level of $75 billion. That would grant federal largesse to 
     more than just poor ``kids'' (as politicians endearingly call 
     children). An estimated 71 percent of all American children 
     in families of four making as much as $82,000 a year would 
     become eligible, with states also continuing present coverage 
     of adults under SCHIP.
       But where to find money to cover the massive cost? Senators 
     of both parties want to raise tobacco taxes, but that well is 
     not bottomless, as existing taxes have reduced cigarette 
     smoking. Instead, House Democrats want to take money from 
     private elements of Medicare instituted by the Bush 
     administration. The overall effect would make three out of 
     four American children accustomed to relying on government 
     care no matter what course their parents take. In sum, SCHIP 
     turns out to be socialized medicine for ``kids'' (and many 
     adults).
       A principal sponsor of the $75 billion program is Sen. 
     Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose hand is detected in health care 
     struggles the past 15 years. After the Clinton 
     administration's sweeping ``Hillarycare'' failed in 1994 and 
     contributed to that year's Republican takeover of Congress, 
     the first lady miniaturized her goals by limiting coverage to 
     poor children. Republicans, led by Sen. Orrin Hatch in one of 
     his several collaborations with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, had 
     lost their revolutionary zeal after the government shutdown 
     of 1995 and accepted SCHIP as a fallback position at a 
     beginning outlay of $4 billion a year. It was the bargaining 
     chip given President Bill Clinton in return for him signing 
     the Deficit Reduction Act of 1997.
       SCHIP over the past decade has been a beloved ``kids'' 
     program whose faults were overlooked, much like the Head 
     Start school program. The federal government has consistently 
     granted waivers to permit 14 states to cover adults under 
     SCHIP, which now cost $5 billion a year. Minnesota led the 
     way, with 92 percent of money spent under the program going 
     to adults.
       The massive expansion was proposed by Sen. Clinton this 
     year, furthering her promise of ``step by step'' advancement 
     toward universal health care. Her proposal extends SCHIP to 
     families at 400 percent of poverty (or $82,000 annually). 
     Hatch after 10 years is back again supporting a Democratic 
     program along with Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Finance 
     Committee's ranking Republican. But they want a mere $55 
     billion (a $30 billion increase), compared with Rockefeller's 
     $75 billion, causing the postponement of today's markup.
       The Democratic congressional majority now faces the 
     consequence of its ``paygo'' mandate to account for higher 
     spending. The Senate's preference for tobacco taxes runs into 
     present overall cigarette taxes of more than one dollar a 
     pack, lower legal cigarette purchases and reduced smoking 
     typified by a 19 percent decline in New York City. More 
     creative funding comes with Rep. Pete Stark's scheme in the 
     House Ways and Means Committee for slashing the popular 
     private Medicare program. That not only would fund an 
     expanded SCHIP but move toward government monopoly over all 
     health insurance.
       An indirect but pervasive impact of Sen. Clinton's grand 
     design would be the impact in the same family of children who 
     are insured by the government while their parents are covered 
     privately. Would the children become accustomed to Washington 
     taking care of them? Would the adults drop private insurance? 
     The future is now for universal health care coverage, and 
     President George W. Bush may soon face the decision of 
     whether or not to veto it going into the election year.

  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to urge my colleagues to make 
certain that we remember why we were elected. We were elected to 
represent honestly and hopefully and responsibly our constituents, 
especially in the area of health care, an area that I knew very well as 
a physician and about which I became very frustrated because of 
governmental intervention. We are responsible to make certain that we 
set in place programs and policies that allow for the most personal 
decisions of our lives and of our children's lives to be made by 
individuals and their parents and their families, not by government.
  So I urge my colleagues to make certain that as we move forward with 
this debate and with this discussion that we act responsibly and allow 
patients, their parents, and physicians to make health care decisions.

                          ____________________