[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19108-19117]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased this evening to 
introduce the subject of children's health insurance and what has 
really been a remarkably successful Federal-State, public-private 
initiative that has really helped to make sure that middle

[[Page 19109]]

class working families across this country have been able to get health 
insurance for 6 million of their children. So it has really been 
helping families all across this country be able to do what they want 
to do as responsible parents, and that is to be able to help pay for 
health insurance. Every State does it a little bit differently. That is 
what we are going to talk about this evening; we are going to talk 
about how important it has been for 10 years in this country to help 
children in America get the health care they need and they deserve, and 
it helps them get off to the right kind of start. So I want to talk 
more about that and I will be joined by some of my colleagues. But 
because one of my colleagues is going to be taking over in the chair, I 
am going to give him a few minutes just to talk about the subject. He 
is a colleague of mine from Pennsylvania. And I will say in 
Pennsylvania we are very, very proud of having been one of the first 
States well before the Federal level to start a children's health 
insurance program. In fact, we called it CHIP, then the SCHIP program 
started. In 1992 is when we started it in Pennsylvania, and I was 
instrumental in creating the Children's Health Insurance Program in 
Pennsylvania. It has been incredibly successful. 130,000 children have 
health insurance in Pennsylvania.

                              {time}  2200

  So a colleague of mine, who has also worked in health care for a good 
long time and knows about the experience of the Children's Health 
Insurance Program from the other part of Pennsylvania, in the western 
part of the State, my colleague, a freshman who's done a wonderful job 
already, Jason Altmire, Congressman Altmire is going to say a few 
words, and then we'll continue for the hour.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, she is correct. In the State of 
Pennsylvania, she did a fantastic job in the State legislature in 
crafting Pennsylvania's plan with regard to children's health 
insurance. And Pennsylvania, I think, has one of the best, if not the 
best plans, the model for the entire country on this issue.
  And we're going to be joined tonight by some other people who know a 
lot about health care and especially know a lot about the children's 
health insurance programs.
  We're going to be joined by Mr. Pallone, who's the chairman of the 
Health Subcommittee right here in the House of Representatives for the 
Energy and Commerce Committee which has jurisdiction over this issue, 
and there's no one in this Congress who has worked harder on this issue 
over the years and has more experience with crafting this. He was 
involved in putting this together 10 years ago and now, as chairman, 
has certainly had a lot to say about it.
  And we're going to be joined by our colleague from Connecticut, Mr. 
Murphy, Chris Murphy, who was instrumental in his State legislature on 
these issues. So we really do have some folks here tonight to talk 
about this issue who have experience, who have detailed knowledge on 
this issue.
  And what could possibly be more important on the domestic front than 
health care?
  And I'm sure my colleagues would agree, as I travel around my 
district, I'm sure they have the same experience in their district. 
That's the issue that comes up more often than any other issue because 
it affects everybody. It is an issue that, no matter whether you're 
rich or poor, live in an urban setting, rural setting, you have issues 
with your health care costs.
  Small businesses can no longer afford to offer health insurance in 
many cases. Large employers are having the same issue.
  We have 45 million uninsured in this country, people who lack any 
health insurance at all, tens of millions more that live in fear of 
losing their health coverage or are underinsured, don't have adequate 
coverage to cover their needs.
  And 9 million of that 45, Mr. Speaker, are children. And, 
unfortunately, 6 million of those 9 million children are eligible to 
participate in the SCHIP program. And the SCHIP program has worked. 
We're at a 10-year point of reauthorization. And over the past 10 years 
the number of uninsured children in this country has decreased by 25 
percent, while the number of uninsured Americans has increased. This is 
a program that has worked.
  And we talk a lot in this House and a lot during these discussions 
about the differences between what the President wants to do on the 
budget level and what this Congress wants to do in a variety of issues. 
But there is no issue on which there is a starker contrast of opinion 
than this SCHIP program.
  We, as Democrats, want to expand the program in a way that makes 
sense. It's fiscally responsible, but it's going to pick up many of 
those 6.2 million children who lack health insurance. We want to find a 
way to cover those kids.
  What could possibly be more important in this country than finding a 
way to give health insurance to children who live in families that 
don't have health insurance? I can't think of any more important task.
  The President, on the other hand, offered up a budget that actually 
decreased the number of children that are going to be covered under 
this program by 1 million. His 5-year budget would have knocked a 
million children who currently qualify for the program, would have 
knocked them off the rolls and they would no longer qualify.
  And I know my colleagues are going to talk about some of the 
President's comments recently about what his views are on the program, 
and I will leave it to them to have that discussion, as I do appreciate 
the Speaker's indulgence as I have to take the chair following my 
remarks here.
  But I did want to take a moment to just emphasize how important this 
issue is and to talk about the difference of opinion that exists, not 
just with Republicans and Democrats, but especially with the 
administration, Mr. Speaker, and this Congress. There is a stark 
contrast of opinion, and we're going to have that discussion tonight.
  And I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for her time and all of 
our colleagues here for their leadership on this important issue.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. I thank the Congressman, and I appreciate that he has 
other duties to contend with, so he'll be a part of this conversation 
in a way. But thank you for taking the time to come to the floor and 
for your help on this.
  And I think for many of us, and I know you've just come off the 
campaign trail this last year, and even those of us who were not 
campaigning every minute but certainly out and about talking to people, 
we do hear from everyday families about how hard it is to be able to 
buy health insurance for kids.
  I mean, I remember a story, and maybe my colleagues I'm hoping will 
share some as well. When I was actually out and about once, and it was 
actually a church group. And afterwards a woman came up to me and said, 
you know, I haven't always shared this, but my husband, it was actually 
a fairly well-to-do area. But she said, my husband was laid off last 
year and it was a really, really tough time for us as a family. And one 
of the things that affected us is that we didn't have health insurance. 
But because of the CHIP program in Pennsylvania, SCHIP as we know it 
federally, she said, I was able to make sure that my kids had health 
insurance and they got the health care that I know that they needed and 
deserved and that we wanted to help make sure they got.
  And as someone who, and Congressman Altmire referred to this, in 
Pennsylvania I'm known as the mother of CHIP. People do come up to me 
and say, well, we don't always get thanked as elected officials, but do 
thank me, whether it's stories where someone came up and said my 
granddaughter who had some health issues, daughter was working hard 
trying to get a degree and just didn't have health coverage. She said, 
my granddaughter would not have health coverage without CHIP.
  So these are the stories we hear all the time. And I think probably 
my colleagues will share it. We're going to

[[Page 19110]]

talk tonight about some of the numbers they already referred to, the 6 
million children who have had access to health care, private health 
care in a lot of situations across the States, the money that we've 
been able to work with the States where they've put in their own 
dollars that have made a difference in helping a lot of American 
families who didn't think that we'd be there to help them who have been 
able to get health insurance for the kids. But this is a place where we 
are making a difference in people's lives.
  One last story, and then I am going to turn it over to my colleagues. 
I was talking to a group of school counselors, and some of them, one of 
them said, stood up and said that she had a child come to her, a 
teacher came to her and said they had a child in the class who never 
raised his hand. He's in third grade. Never raised his hand. Never 
participated in discussions. And she finally broke through to found out 
what was going on. Turns out he had never had any dental care, and he 
literally was afraid to open his mouth. It hurt. He had some 
discomfort. He was embarrassed about the way his teeth looked. And when 
he got children's health insurance coverage, he got to a dentist, she 
said he was a different kid. And that would have been a child who would 
have been a dropout, would have been a troublemaker in school because 
he just wasn't going to be able to participate.
  So she said, health care's important because of health care, but it's 
also important because of education. If kids are not well, if they 
don't get the preventative care they need, if they don't get the 
eyeglasses, if they don't get treated when they're sick, I know it 
makes a difference to the teachers in my school to be able to teach 
those kids.
  So on every level, and again we're going to talk about big numbers 
here. The President wants to do $5 billion which will barely be enough 
to sustain this program. It sounds like big numbers to families 
listening, but the fact is that we need to make that commitment. And I 
think we, as Democrats, have said we are going to make a commitment to 
make sure that the Children's Health Insurance Program continues, that 
it continues in the dynamic way that it has working with the States. 
But we're going to even do more. We're going to be a little bold, even 
in these tough budget times, and we're going to make sure that more 
children who are now on waiting lists in some States are able to get 
the health coverage that they deserve. And this is something we can do, 
we should do. It's about having the political will to make it happen. 
We're going to protect health care for seniors; we're going to do it 
for kids. And that's what our discussion is about tonight.
  And I'm going to close, and I know you mentioned this as well, the 
previous speaker talked about the fact that the President, and I'm a 
little, I have to say, this is very disturbing to many of us because 
our Republican colleagues helped make this program happen. It was a 
bipartisan effort. This wasn't something that one side or the other 
sort of pushed without anyone else caring about it. But the fact is 
that 193 House Republicans, 10 years ago, voted to make this happen. It 
was a bipartisan effort; 153 House Democrats. This was a joint effort. 
We said we wanted to make this happen. We all stand up from time to 
time and we are really, really proud of this.
  So when the President last week said, you know, he just doesn't think 
this is important, that, in fact, we ought to be doing something else. 
We ought to be helping families buy private health insurance by getting 
them some tax deductions. They can't afford it? Well, I don't know what 
he means.
  He actually went on to say that kids can get health care in this 
country. They can go to the emergency room.
  That's really just stunning, given what we know about the high cost 
of going to emergency rooms, the fact that that is not the best place 
for primary care. It certainly is not the best place for children who 
might just need a well-child checkup. So it's absolutely going in the 
wrong direction on the health care. It's why we wanted to stand up 
tonight and talk about this. That's why we will continue to until we 
actually get it done. And I think that the commitment that we have made 
is to make it happen.
  And I'm joined tonight by two colleagues, one, Mr. Pallone from New 
Jersey, who has not only been a leader on upgrading the Children's 
Health Insurance Program, but continues to work out all the details of 
how to make this happen. And I'm sure he's one of the people who 
thought we were going to have bipartisan cooperation, and we still hope 
we will, but is really working on some of the details of how we can and 
we should do this.
  One of the reasons we reauthorize programs is that we want to see 
what worked best and what didn't; we want to see what changes have to 
be made given our experience. He is going to talk about some of that 
work.
  And my colleague from Connecticut, who as a State legislator was 
involved in working on the State level to make this happen and to work 
in a special way to make Connecticut, make it work for children in 
Connecticut, and feels a special connection to the Children's Health 
Insurance Program there.
  So gentlemen, I would ask you to share your stories and your help on 
this. Maybe we'll start with Mr. Pallone, and if you would help us just 
sort of by giving us maybe some of the facts and figures or some of the 
stories that you hear from your colleagues as well.
  Mr. PALLONE. I'd be very pleased to do that. And if I could, maybe 
I'll talk; first of all, let me thank you for doing this hour tonight 
and for everyone who's joining you, because it is really important. And 
maybe I'll talk about three things, and then I'll turn it back; and 
that is, one, how we came about with the SCHIP program because I think 
that relates to the whole bipartisan nature of it, which is what you 
stressed and is so important. And then maybe I can talk a little bit 
about the preventative nature of it because you talked about the 
emergency room and the President's comments about using the emergency 
room. And then I'll give you my one story.
  I'm glad you're here, in part because last week we had some of my 
Republican colleagues, including some on the Health Subcommittee that I 
chair, who were talking about this program as if it was an entitlement, 
as if it was almost socialism, you know, sort of raising the specter 
that we wanted the government to run the health care system. And 
nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, first of all, you know 
they neglected to mention that this was bipartisan. And remember, when 
we're talking 10 years ago, this was the Gingrich Congress. This was 
the Republican majority that hadn't been the majority for very long. I 
mean, they were on the crest of this conservative right wing wave and 
in the midst of that were willing to adopt this bipartisan measure.
  And the reason was because, in fact it wasn't an entitlement; it 
wasn't government control. It was just a practical solution to the 
problems that we faced at the time and still face. I mean, we all know 
that if people are very poor and likely not working, then they're 
eligible for Medicaid. And we have a lot of kids, and we have a lot of 
adults and, you know, people who find themselves because they're not 
working and their income is very low, having to use the Medicaid 
program, which is a very legitimate program and covers a lot of people 
very successfully.
  But what we found 10 years ago was that there were a lot of other 
people who, because they were working, for the most part, were above 
the Medicaid guidelines. Their income was too high. But what were they 
making? Maybe 20,000 a year, 30,000, in some cases maybe 40,000 a year 
and they still had kids. And because they were working in jobs where 
there wasn't a health insurance option available to them, the employer 
just didn't offer it, or when they went out in the private market, you 
know, the costs were so prohibitive for them to buy insurance on the 
private market, which, you know, in New Jersey you might be paying 
$12,000 if you want to go out and buy insurance on the private market 
for a family of four, today that they simply couldn't get health 
insurance.

[[Page 19111]]

  And so there wasn't any ideology involved here. In fact, it was a 
block grant. It was set up as a block grant which, I don't know if you 
guys remember because you haven't been here as long as me, but that was 
like the Republican mantra at the time; that everything should be block 
granted, all Federal Government programs should be block granted; this 
shouldn't be an entitlement. And that's what we did. We said, okay, 
fine. You want to make it a block grant. You know, President Clinton 
was the President, so we had a divided Congress, and we said, that's 
fine. Send the money to the States. We'll set up certain guidelines 
that, you know, you had to be up to 200 percent of poverty. And then if 
the States wanted to, they could go get waivers and go to 300 percent 
or higher.

                              {time}  2215

  And we will give the money to the States. They will match it, and we 
will cover these kids.
  Now, the second point I wanted to make is this is a preventative 
measure, as you pointed out. For President Bush to say people can 
always use the emergency, that's not the point. The point is we want 
people to have health insurance so that they go to the doctor on a 
regular basis, so they take preventative measures, and they don't get 
so sick, particularly if they are kids, that they have to go to an 
emergency room to get care. As you said, that is not the way to 
operate. So we save money because through prevention, and everyone will 
tell you, any doctor or medical professional will tell you, that the 
most important thing for a person is to get health care in those first 
4 or 5 years of their life. If they are properly cared for and they 
have the type of preventative care and regular doctor care and dental 
care that you mentioned in those formative years, then they are likely 
to be healthy for the rest of their life because that is the most 
important time. So it makes sense; right?
  And then I will tell you my story. My story is that before this was 
enacted, about maybe 11 years ago, I don't go there as much anymore, 
but I used to go to a luncheon place that was like a diner, but not a 
New Jersey, but more of a luncheonette, we used to call it then. It is 
like an old-fashioned word, I guess. And there was a waitress there who 
I knew for a long time, and she had young children. And she would 
always say that her husband worked and she worked as a waitress but she 
was never able to afford health insurance for her kids. She wasn't 
eligible for Medicaid. She and her husband were both working. I don't 
know how much they made. But she had tried repeatedly and asked me 
about getting private insurance. I even gave her some ideas about how 
whom to contact. And they couldn't afford it.
  The day that we passed SCHIP, I went back there. I forget how long it 
was going to be enacted, maybe a couple months from then, and the 
President signed it. And I said, We are going to have this program now. 
You can go sign up for it. I went back there whenever it went into 
effect, and she had signed up her children, and it was the nicest thing 
that could ever happen.
  You know how we always say we want to do things for people but a lot 
of times we are not able to? For me to be able to go back there and 
have lunch and have her say, Well, now my kids are covered through this 
program, it was such a wonderful thing.
  And I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania said that right now there 
are about 6.7 million kids that are covered by SCHIP. There are about 6 
million that are eligible and not enrolled. And the reason they are not 
enrolled, in part, is because the States have run out of money. Some of 
them ran out of money in March of this year, and we had to do a 
supplemental appropriation. So we are not talking about all this extra 
money in a vacuum. We are talking about needing it in order to try to 
cover as many of these kids as possible. And our reauthorization will 
not only include more money but also ways of getting them enrolled. One 
stop so that they sign up for one Federal program. They can get this so 
that they don't get dropped. This is a streamlined application. These 
are all the things that we are doing in addition to the dollars in 
order to try to cover as many kids as possible.
  I am staying but I will yield back to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to let my colleagues share their 
stories too so maybe we could have a little conversation about it. But 
I just want to say that certainly one of the points that have been 
criticized by the other side is that families that make as much as 
$40,000 for a family of four might be eligible or are eligible for the 
Children's Health Insurance Program. Now, in Pennsylvania it is a 
subsidy to buy private health insurance. So you either get a complete 
subsidy or you might just get half of it or you can buy it at cost. In 
fact, many parents are contributing.
  But as you point out, for a family of four making $40,000 a year and 
both parents might be working, by the time they pay their mortgage and 
pay the baby-sitter and pay their utility costs and maybe fill up their 
car with gasoline and pay the loan on the car and they pay their taxes, 
there is not a lot of money left over to find the $12,000 that they 
might have to find to purchase private health insurance. So you can 
say, fine, go to the marketplace, but you need a little help to go to 
the marketplace. And that is what this is about. And it has made such 
an enormous difference, thinking you can put a smile on a parent's face 
for doing the right thing. And good for you to go back and actually say 
to a person we really did do something for you, and it made such a huge 
difference.
  I think the other point, and this is a lead in to our colleague from 
Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) that the States have always done these 
programs in different ways. They have written these programs in ways 
that they think work best.
  In 1992, 5 years before the Federal level when we were running it in 
Pennsylvania, we knew that a lot of these working families wanted a 
private health insurance card. Some States got very creative and 
expanded Medicaid and called it cute names, and that made it 
friendlier, and it is an issue just to tell people it exists. But we 
actually worked very hard with the private sector to get the benefits 
package right, to make sure that the cost was right. There were a lot 
of rules and regulations about it. But the fact is at the end of the 
day, people could walk in, families could walk into their physicians' 
offices with a private health insurance card, and that made them feel 
really proud that they were able to get some help so they could get 
that private health insurance. But it has made an enormous difference 
in Pennsylvania. And we have, as I say, about 130,000 children covered 
on the number of uninsured. It just goes to show it can work. When we 
work together, we can really make it work.
  Mr. Murphy, if you want to add a bit about the experience in 
Connecticut. We have been joined by another colleague of ours, Mr. 
Allen from Maine, who also has a long history in being an advocate for 
children's health insurance and making it happen. So thank you for 
joining us.
  I yield to Mr. Murphy.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you, Representative Schwartz. I am 
thrilled to be here with Representative Pallone and Representative 
Allen, who have been advocating for this issue and many other issues 
regarding health care equity for a very long time.
  I come from the State of Connecticut, where I served, as you 
mentioned, Representative Schwartz, in the State legislature for about 
8 years, and I chaired the Health Committee there for the last 4 years. 
And what we figured out was what Pennsylvania figured out a little bit 
before us and what dozens of other State legislatures figured out over 
the past few years, which is that by expanding our SCHIP program, and 
we have got a cute name for that program in Connecticut, where we call 
it the Husky program after the mascot of our University of Connecticut 
sports teams, we figured out over time that not only was expanding 
children's health care, and we actually make some adults, some of their 
parents, eligible for that benefit as well, that not only was it the 
right thing to do because, as you said and you are exactly right, in 
the high cost of living in

[[Page 19112]]

a State of Connecticut, $40,000 doesn't go very far, and at a time we 
live in today where wages are remaining pretty much stagnant and flat, 
and when we celebrate a year in which the average health care premium 
increase stays at around 10 or 11 or 12 percent, you simply can't do 
much with an income hovering around $40,000, $45,000 or $50,000. In 
Connecticut certainly that becomes a problem. So what we figured out 
was that not only was it the right and fair thing to do to go out and 
insure these thousands of children who didn't have health care 
insurance before, but it was cost-effective thing to do it. We have 
referenced that on the floor here today.
  I give some credit to the President in his remarks that he at least 
recognizes that we do have one single place that very ill children and 
adults can go, the emergency room. But what he neglects to mention in 
those remarks is that not only is it the most inhumane place to dump 
the sick and the ill but it is also the most expensive place for those 
patients to end up. We know that the care that children, and we are 
talking about children today, end up getting in the emergency room is 
amongst the most expensive care that you can get. And for just a few 
cents on the dollar in that preventative care that in Connecticut the 
Husky program provides and in Pennsylvania the CHIP program provides, 
you cannot only get care that is the right to do and the moral thing to 
do for those kids, but it, frankly, saves the health care system money 
in the end. The cost of insuring kids is actually pretty low compared 
to the cost of insuring you or me or other people out in the community. 
Kids are generally pretty healthy. They are cheap when they are 
healthy, but they are very expensive when they are sick. So if you 
don't get them that care upfront, and the reality is that a lot of 
illnesses that may not present themselves to be major that may not 
cause a parent, even without health care insurance, to drag that child 
down to the emergency room, it may end up being something very serious. 
And the barrier to getting that preventative care is often that $100 or 
$200 doctor visit that stands in the way.
  The last thing to say is to just reinforce the notion that both of 
you have brought up here, which I am sure we will talk about, which is 
that bipartisan spirit in which this bill was brought into being. I 
wasn't here when the bill was passed, but my predecessor was. I was 
preceded in this House by Representative Nancy Johnson, a Republican 
who served here for a very long time. And she was very proud to come 
back here as a Republican and talk about her role in the passage of 
that bill. The problem was over time there were fewer and fewer people 
like her in the Republican caucus who were proud to talk about insuring 
children, standing up for kids. And you stand here now on the 
Republican side of the aisle that looks and sounds very different, 
unfortunately, than the group that stood up in 1995.
  And, lastly, it is not just bipartisan within that House, but you 
also have a wide range of ideological and advocacy groups that are 
standing up for the reauthorization of SCHIP, and I will mention just 
one and that is the United States Chamber of Commerce. Not a fan of big 
government, if you have ever seen any of the propaganda coming from the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So when you listen to the President or 
Republicans talk about the Democrats and children's health care being 
yet another government program, listen to what their friends are 
saying. Their friends in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business 
Roundtable and all of the groups that are traditionally the main 
cheerleaders against any minute expansion of government are standing up 
for children's health care, are cheering on the Democratic effort to 
reauthorize the SCHIP program, because they know what we know; that not 
only is it the right thing to do but it is the cost-effective thing to 
do. We figured that out in New Jersey and Pennsylvania and Connecticut 
and Maine. And I hope that we will be able to return to that bipartisan 
spirit again.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. If I may, I was very well aware of the fact that so 
many different organizations were supportive and, again, outside some 
of their own realm a little bit. So I asked my staff to produce a list. 
And I have four pages of a closely typewritten list of all the groups. 
It is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable and it 
is also the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, and SEIU. But it is groups that you would 
think who are advocates for children: the March of Dimes and Families 
USA and the Children's Defense Fund. But it also is all the senior 
organizations: the AARP and the Center for Medicare Advocacy and the 
Alliance for Retired Americans. And so many of the provider groups: AMA 
and the Academy of Family Physicians and the Academy of Pediatricians. 
But also America's Health Insurance Plans and the Pharmaceutical 
Research and Manufacturers Association, PhRMA, who are saying this is 
an important thing to do as well, and the American Hospital 
Association. These are groups where you might say, well, why do they 
care? Now, hospitals, maybe they could get reimbursed for some of the 
uncompensated care that they provide, but the fact is that all these 
groups recognize how important it is. And we have the faith-based 
organizations: the National Council of the Churches of Christ and the 
Catholic Health Insurance Association. I mean all of them, all of them, 
have come together.
  For the Record I will submit these four pages of the list of all of 
the different folks who have actually said this is so important. It 
works. It matters to people. It is helping Americans be healthier and 
stronger and more productive. And what more important thing can we do 
than that? I think that was said earlier.
  But it is also doable. And we are taking a lot of fiscal 
responsibility in this new Congress among the Budget Committee. And the 
gentleman who is going to speak in just a minute is on the Budget 
Committee, and we have argued in the Budget Committee about how 
important it is to be smart about how we spend our money, to only spend 
money we can account for. So we are working very hard in this Congress 
to say we will not only maintain this program but we will expand it and 
we will find the money to do that because it is important. And when we 
are committed to doing something, we will find the money to do it, and 
that is what we are going to do in this.
  I was going to ask my colleague, and I know you have some remarks you 
would like to make, but if you think about what happens if we don't 
continue the SCHIP program, I mean that is one of the things that 
people presume will, of course, continue. But, in fact, the President 
just said today said that he might veto a reauthorization continuation, 
just the maintenance of the Children's Health Insurance Program if it 
is not constructed the way he likes, which is really shocking that 6 
million children on October 1 may be without health coverage because of 
his unwillingness to do this.
  So knowing your history and your commitment to health care in general 
but particularly to children's health care and the good work that your 
State has done, if you would speak to that as well, I think it would be 
very helpful for Americans to understand that we are at risk here, that 
our children are at risk.
  And I yield to my colleague Mr. Allen from Maine.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for organizing 
this event tonight and for yielding to me.
  I was here in 1997 when the SCHIP program was passed, and it was 
passed with very strong bipartisan support. People on both sides of the 
aisle, and many of the same groups that you just mentioned, people on 
both sides of the aisle believed, as virtually all Americans do, that 
our children should get health care. They ought to be able not just to 
go to an emergency room when they're seriously ill or have had an 
accident, but they should be able to get preventive care so they can 
grow up to be healthy children and healthy productive adults. That's 
really, I think, a fairly basic proposition. And that's what drove us 
back in 1997.

[[Page 19113]]

  And now you were asking, what happens if this program doesn't 
continue? Well, if it's not reauthorized, then 6 million children in 
this country lose their health insurance. And if they lose their health 
insurance, maybe some of them, when they're seriously injured, will go 
to an emergency room, but most of them will lose the preventive care 
that they get today.
  The President put in his budget $5 billion over 5 years for an 
increase in SCHIP, which would fund about one-third of the amount that 
States are estimated to require over the next 5 years. In other words, 
the President's position is that this is a program that should be cut 
back. And that probably is why he made the veto threat, which he 
basically said, look, people, children and adults, have access to an 
emergency room; and one thing we want to be careful not to do is expand 
health insurance if it's through a government program, which is 
bizarre, because the SCHIP program is designed for people who cannot 
afford to buy health insurance in the private market today. That's why 
they don't have it.
  What we're trying to do is continue this public/private partnership 
because most States provide coverage through private plans. It's a 
Federal/State partnership, with 70 percent of the money coming from the 
Federal Government and about 30 percent coming from States. So States 
are choosing to fund this program for the obvious reason that our kids 
deserve to have health care coverage. Outside of the White House, this, 
I think, is a broadly accepted proposition.
  I just want to say a few things about my State of Maine. Maine has 
been very aggressive in using this particular program. We have one of 
the lowest rates of uninsured children in the country. Only 7 percent 
of our children do not have health insurance, and the national rate is 
about 12 percent. But that, for us, we're a small State, but that's 
about 19,000 children who do not have health insurance. And for those 
families, for those parents, they know it makes a difference whether or 
not their kids have health insurance. And they, I know because I've 
talked to them, worry about whether they're going to get the kind of 
coverage, the kind of vaccinations, the kind of preventive health care 
that everyone hopes for their children, because that's really a 
fundamental point here.
  I don't think there is a parent in America that doesn't want their 
children to have good health coverage, to get the health care they need 
when they need it. And that is what this program attempts to do. 
Because there are 6 million children in this country today who qualify 
for the SCHIP program but are not signed up, for whatever reason. Some 
States aren't being aggressive enough and the Federal Government 
contribution is falling short.
  There are another 3 million who don't qualify for SCHIP and still 
don't have coverage. And all we're trying to do, as Democrats, is to 
expand that coverage. Now, we can argue about how fast we expand it, we 
can argue about how we pay for it, but the bottom line is this: 
children in America deserve to have health care. And we know if they 
have health insurance, whether the program is privately run or whether 
the program is publicly run, or some combination, they are much more 
likely to grow up into healthy, productive children and healthy, 
productive adults. That's what we're fighting here today for.
  I want to thank you, my colleague, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, 
and all the rest of my friends here tonight for pushing this issue so 
hard and so long. We will not fail. And I yield back.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. And I think this is where we can get a chance to have a 
little bit of a conversation. There is a lot of feeling about it. I 
think all of us feel that we should be working as hard as we possible 
can to be getting this done, not be sort of saying, okay, I'm not 
interested, we'll do something else.
  There are a lot of priorities here. We stand up on the floor 
frequently and say, okay, one of the most important things we can do is 
this, one of the most important things we can do is that. But the fact 
is if we aren't all parents, and many of us are, then we certainly have 
nieces or nephews we love, or neighborhood children. All of us know 
someone who has struggled through a moment when they couldn't provide 
the essentials. This is not a frill. And I think that's what you were 
saying, Mr. Allen, is this is not an, okay, if you can get to do it, go 
do it. This is something that's really essential for every child in 
America. And we're helping parents to be able to meet that essential 
requirement for their children.
  Some of you may know, my husband is a physician. And I was joking 
with my staff that he cuts out articles from the New England Journal of 
Medicine all the time for me to read. And mostly they're not so 
readable for me, I have to admit, you know, they sort of need some 
interpretation. But just in the last week's journal there is a 
wonderful article talking about the imperative to continue the SCHIP 
program. And I'll share it with my colleagues, I'll send it around to 
everyone tomorrow, but really it made it very, very clear that this is 
something that we need to do because of the medical imperative, the 
health care imperative. And we know it is something that we can do.
  So, it's something we're proud of and we should be and we want to do.
  Mr. Pallone, you look like you're ready to jump in here.
  Mr. PALLONE. You know, when you relate your own experiences, I can 
relate so much to it myself.
  I have to say, I was thinking back about 10 years ago when we first 
started the program. Of course, my wife and I were just starting to 
have kids. My oldest daughter now is 13, so she was three at the time. 
And I guess I had my son at the time, he was only one. And we were 
starting to realize at the time about the fact that, first of all, as 
parents, the idea of kids not having health insurance, you know, young 
kids at that age was really an awful thing. And that's why we got 
involved. I say ``we'' because my wife got involved in the whole issue 
as well. And to think about the fact that you have children and they 
can't have health insurance or you have to take them to an emergency 
room is just an awful thing.
  I worry myself even now because a lot of times your health insurance 
doesn't cover everything. Like I was faced with the orthodontist bill a 
couple years ago. And I suddenly realized our insurance doesn't cover 
orthodontistry. And that was upsetting, but to think of parents that 
can't even take their kids to the doctor is just an awful thing.
  One of the things that my wife would always say to me that she 
observed was that many times government officials, and I don't want to 
speak about ourselves because I don't want to be critical, but a lot of 
times politicians don't think about kids because of the fact that they 
don't vote. And I would almost kind of differ with the gentleman from 
Maine when he says that, you know, one of the things that we found and 
one of the reasons why States like Connecticut and New Jersey have 
covered some of the parents is because they have noticed that a lot of 
times the parents wouldn't enroll the kids unless they were eligible 
themselves to be enrolled in the program. And I again go back to, this 
is really a very practical thing. If some States have found that the 
parents won't enroll the kids unless they're enrolled, they actually 
allow the parents to enroll as an incentive to get the kids enrolled.
  Because you can be cynical. I mean, you have to say that 
unfortunately sometimes parents don't care or sometimes politicians 
don't care. And the fact that we were able to do this and basically do 
a kids' health initiative program and get the political support for it 
in some ways was an amazing thing. You would say, well, gee, that's a 
basic thing, why wouldn't that happen? But it wasn't that easy. And 
we're going to have to continue to fight to expand it today.
  I just wanted to answer your question, because I know that the 
gentleman from Maine did, but you said, what would happen if we don't 
reauthorize?
  Well, I will just say, first of all, essentially this has happened in 
some fashion in the last few years. States have run out of money 
because there

[[Page 19114]]

wasn't enough money as early as March in a given calendar year. Georgia 
ran out of money this March. And my own State started to run out of 
money by May. So we had to actually do a supplemental appropriation. 
The world knows it as the ``Iraq supplemental,'' but actually it was 
the supplemental that included the funding for Iraq, and it included 
about $750 million for SCHIP because States, in fact, were running out 
of money.
  In my own State of New Jersey a couple of years had to cut back on 
the program and actually lower the eligibility and eliminate parents 
because of the fact that they started to run out of money. So we have 
experience of what actually happens if we don't provide the additional 
funds.
  The other thing, too, is that until last year, every year for the 
first 9 years of the program, the number of uninsured kids in the 
country was going down. But last year, for the first time, the number 
of uninsured kids went up. So this is a crisis. I mean, if we're going 
to get to those extra kids, we really have to do something.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. And just on that note, if the gentleman would yield, we 
do know that the number of uninsured for the first time in a long time 
is going up again. So we're talking about 45 million Americans. And the 
fact that, of those, 9 million are children who, again, through no 
fault of their own, don't have access to health insurance.
  And one of the reasons is that health insurance is expensive. And 
even for businesses that want to provide health insurance for their 
employees, sometimes they're faced, particularly small businesses, with 
how do I actually pay that whole amount for family coverage? And they 
just cover the employee. And so even here, where you're talking about 
employers trying to do the responsible thing, but just looking at their 
bottom line and saying I can't do anything about this, when the parent 
is covered and the child is not is one situation where certainly CHIP 
comes in and really can be very, very helpful.
  There has been some discussion obviously about adults. And I think 
this is intended for children. Some States have brought along the 
parents because it does help with enrollment, and we think that's true 
in Pennsylvania as well. But we also know that when the parents don't 
have health insurance, and if they can't get timely health care, then 
they don't have an ongoing relationship with a physician or a medical 
group. And the children also learn from their parents. Their parents 
are their models. And so if the parents are going for regular checkups 
and their kids are going for regular checkups and it's part of what you 
learn to do as a responsible person, that's a good package. It's what 
we want adults do be doing as well.
  So I know that there is some discussion about that, too, whether 
States, now they're not allowed anymore to be able to sign up adults 
alone, but they're usually signed up with their children as a family 
coverage. And that's the way most people who buy insurance do it, too. 
They buy insurance for their family. That's the way it's sold mostly. 
So I think it's making sure that we actually allow people to sort of 
use the marketplace the way it really works and not punish them for 
that.
  Mr. PALLONE. If I could point out one thing, too, because I know 
there is some debate about this. The States don't get any more money 
because they cover kids at a higher percentage of poverty or because 
they cover the adults, and I think there has been some debate about 
that. Remember, as I said before, this is a block grant, and the money 
that goes to the States is dependent upon the number of children that 
they have. So the fact of the matter is that if a State decides, like 
Connecticut did, that they're going to cover the adults, they just have 
to stretch out the Federal funds and contribute more State dollars to 
pay for it. They don't get additional money. I know that this sounds 
like such a bureaucratic comment, but some Members are worried, well, 
is my State going to get more because they cover kids at a higher level 
of poverty or another State covers adults. They don't. It's just a 
question of usually they're providing more State dollars and having the 
flexibility to include the parents so that they can cover the kids.
  Mr. ALLEN. If the gentlewoman would yield, there are differences 
among States and now aggressively they seek to use the money that comes 
from the Federal Government. So there certainly are differences among 
States in that respect.
  But I just wanted to comment. It is absolutely true that most people 
who buy insurance through a private plan will try to cover their kids 
as well, except that today one of the trends in this country is that 
the wheels are coming off this employer-based health care system and 
increasingly, by about a million people a year over the last 4 or 5 
years, the number of uninsured is going up. It's now about 46 million 
people. And one of the reasons, and this is why I've done a plan for 
small businesses, one of the reasons is the small business community is 
simply not able to afford the kind of insurance they had in the past. 
And what they're doing, they're tending not to cover family members, 
which includes the children, and to require the employee to pay a 
higher and higher percentage, which some employees simply can't do.
  So what we're seeing here, at the same time as the President is 
saying we don't want to expand this successful children's health care 
program, we're watching the number of uninsured steadily climb, both 
adults, and now children for the first time in a long period of time, 
having the number of uninsured climb because the private market, the 
employer-based market isn't working as well as it did in the past.
  We have a national health care crisis on our hands, and this is a 
part of the solution. It ought to be the easiest part of the solution. 
But here is the President's spokesman the other day saying this will 
encourage many to drop private coverage purchased through their 
employer or with their own resources to go on a government-subsidized 
program. This is a program that is designed for people who don't have 
health insurance. We know these children don't have health insurance. 
We know how many there are. We know where they are. And we ought to be 
able to do a better job than simply to raise this kind of ideological 
objection. We ought to cover them first in the most practical, cost-
efficient way.
  I yield back.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Allen, if you would yield. I guess I 
come to the thinking, we wish we were in that position. I mean, 
wouldn't it be lovely, wouldn't it be wonderful if we were in the 
position in which the choice was between a government-sponsored program 
and an employer-sponsored program or a privately available sponsored 
program. It just isn't the reality. And anybody who spends time out in 
their communities, in their social halls, in their churches and 
synagogues listening to families will realize that, that there are just 
more and more families largely, as Mr. Allen noted, that work for small 
businesses and simply don't have the access to health care insurance 
that they once did.
  And I want to hit one more point, and I mentioned it the other night 
when Mr. Pallone and I were down here talking about this. We also have 
to disabuse people of this notion that we all aren't paying for those 
kids and those parents who don't have health care insurance. If the 
employer doesn't provide it, and then the HUSKY program in Connecticut, 
the SCHIP programs go away, somebody is going to pay for that health 
care. And we pay for it largely in two ways: one, all of the premiums 
that we pay, as insured people, are higher because they are basically 
subsidizing the care of people that don't have health care insurance, 
because a doctor is going to have to treat, by law, someone that shows 
up in an emergency room, and the hospital has to be compensated for 
that.

                              {time}  2245

  So private insurance normally pays about 120 percent, 110 percent of 
what the average Medicare rate is. They are paying a 20 percent, 10 
percent premium in order to subsidize the care of

[[Page 19115]]

the uninsured. I don't know if this is the case in all States, but in 
Connecticut, we also have an uncompensated care pool, a taxpayer-funded 
pool, where tax dollars go directly to hospitals and health care 
providers to help them pay for the kids that walk in, 70,000 of them 
without health care insurance in Connecticut that have no insurance.
  So the idea that we are going to be spending any more money on this, 
when really what you are doing is you are shifting money that we are 
all spending in our private rates and through these taxpayer-subsidized 
pools of money that go to hospitals, it is just shifting it to 
preventive care. We have to sort of remind people that we are paying 
every day for the uninsured that we have now. It is simply about 
building a more cost effective and more humane way of paying for it.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. I think we should continue this discussion about what 
is the smartest and most efficient way to do this. Again, what is 
interesting about the way SCHIP, the children's health insurance 
initiative, was set up is it said to each State, one, you don't have to 
do it if you don't want to, if you don't have a problem, or you don't 
think this is an issue. We were not even sure how it would all work 
out. They also said, then you can create whatever initiative works for 
you, what really works for you. It turns out every State has chosen to 
do it.
  Actually, we already had SCHIP in Pennsylvania for 5 years when the 
Federal Government came in. Our governor was very nervous about taking 
it. He wasn't sure he wanted to do this. He was concerned it would be a 
new entitlement program and that he would be stuck with the bill at the 
end of the day. I know States had legitimate worries about that, that 
we actually tell them to do things and then don't give them any help in 
doing it.
  But this is one case where we said, no, you have to do it. You have 
to structure the program. Here are some guidelines. Here is how we 
think you should do it. Then we are going to pay a part of it, a good 
part of it, but we are not paying all of it. You have to buy into it. 
You have to want to do it, also. You have to structure this.
  So every State did this. We learned from each other. That also was a 
good thing, to look around and see what worked for other States and 
what didn't. When our governor was saying, should we do it? He really 
was very torn about it. Actually, he didn't decide to do it until 
September 30, and that was the deadline that year. I was very anxious. 
I was on the floor of the State senate many nights saying we ought to 
do this. I was pushing him to do that.
  Of course, we were able then to triple the number of children who 
were covered because of the partnership we had with the Federal 
Government. That is what this is about. It really is. This is a great 
example of a very innovative way to create a partnership between the 
Federal Government and the States, between insurers in some ways and 
the States as well, in many cases, and between parents and families and 
health care providers, and say, we are all going to help make this 
happen.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Just to add to that partnership, it is 
also a partnership of health care professionals as well, because, to 
tell the truth, in a lot of States, Connecticut being one of them, the 
rate that we pay physicians for participating in the program is a 
little bit below the level of sufficiency. So there are a lot of 
physicians who want to do the right thing, who want to get compensated, 
but are okay not getting compensated at the same levels that they do by 
private HMOs.
  It really becomes in the end, it really becomes a partnership of not 
only the Federal Government and the State Government, but also the 
provider community as well who has agreed to say, listen, because we 
really care and we really want to take care of this constituency, we 
are willing to do it for a little bit less than we would do otherwise. 
That has been a great benefit to the Government, to be able to get away 
with paying a little bit less, at least in Connecticut, than private 
payers do. But it is a wonderful partnership of all constituency 
groups.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Again, the debate here is how much can we do? What can 
we afford to do? What is the best way to do it? Mr. Pallone is working 
on all those details. I know we bug him and give our him suggestions 
about how to make this easier and streamline the bureaucracy and make 
it work for both providers and for children and for the States. So we 
are learning from that. I think that is pretty exciting.
  But that is not the discussion that some are in. We were in that 
discussion since January, actually. This is certainly something that 
the President proposed. We wanted to push much further. But I just say 
that is unfortunate. I think that is why we are so deeply disturbed.
  I will say that the President is consistent here. I will add just a 
note that when he was Governor, he was very reluctant to participate in 
the Children's Health Insurance Program and actually worked quite 
actively not to be engaged, not to have his State do it, and then tried 
to keep the level of the family to be as poor as possible.
  He did not want to go to 200 percent of poverty. He wanted to keep it 
lower. He did not want to reach into the sort of the really working 
folks in Texas who were struggling. You may want to comment on that.
  But I think for so many of my constituents, and again I think, Mr. 
Pallone, you pointed this out earlier, for very poor people in this 
country, we do have health care coverage. But for the people who are 
above that level, who say I don't know that there is anyone there to 
help me, this is actually one way to say, that is right, we are going 
to help you be able to get health insurance for your kids. You are 
working. You are trying to do the right thing, and this is the way we 
can help you do it.
  So for the very people who are playing by the rules, trying to do it 
right, struggling to make ends meet, to be able to help them get health 
insurance for their kids makes such a world of difference to their 
peace of mind and, of course, to the actual health of their kids.
  Mr. PALLONE. I just think the President has been very inconsistent. 
You talk about his experience as governor of Texas. But keep in mind 
that for the last 6 or 7 years, he has actually been granting the 
waivers. For example, right now the law says 200 percent of poverty, is 
what the law says in terms of eligibility. But it allows for waivers, 
and he has given waivers for so many States, I think as many as around 
15 States, to go to 300 percent of poverty, to allow adults in some 
cases. His administration had to approve all those.
  So I was very surprised in the early part of this year when he said 
that he wanted to keep it at 200 percent, he didn't want to cover any 
of the adults, because he has allowed that flexibility during his 
administration.
  One of the things that the National Governors Association said 
unanimously was that they wanted States to have the flexibility. Again, 
I point out, this is a block grant. The States don't get any more money 
because they cover adults or go to higher levels of poverty or lesser 
levels. There is also flexibility, and some States don't count assets 
in determining that 100 percent or the 300 percent.
  I think it really makes sense, and the National Governors Association 
said it makes sense to leave it to the States to have that flexibility, 
and the President historically has been in favor of that kind of 
flexibility. So I really don't understand where he is coming from.
  The other thing I wanted to mention is we were talking about 
alternatives. When I listened last week to our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, some of them were saying, well, people can go to 
community health centers. That was another thing that I heard. Well, 
the President talked about emergency rooms and some of our colleagues 
on the Republican said, well, they can go to community health centers.
  Well, I am all in favor of expanding community health centers, but in 
my district I think we have maybe four Federally sponsored, maybe 5, 
community health centers. There is absolutely

[[Page 19116]]

no way that the kids and the parents are going to line up. They don't 
have the ability to handle all the kids.
  So what you said is true. They are going to end up being in an 
emergency room. They are part of charity care whose responsibility is 
on the rest of the taxpayers.
  Then I heard another one of our Republican colleagues say, well, what 
we really need is, and I wrote it down, competition in the marketplace. 
And I was saying, what are we talking about here? Again, this is people 
who are working, who can't afford health insurance. What competition? 
They can't go out and buy it on the individual market.
  So we hear a lot of inconsistencies. I don't want to be so critical 
of our Republican colleagues, because I want them to join us on this. 
But some of the statements that have been made by the President in the 
last few days.
  I would point out in the Senate, as you know, the Republicans and 
Democrats came together and they are about to pass a bipartisan SCHIP 
expansion. So the Republicans in the Senate hopefully can talk to the 
President and the Republicans in the House and say, what are you doing? 
We want to continue with this on a bipartisan basis.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Again, our hour is concluding, but I think, in other 
words, we certainly are very interested, I certainly am, in making sure 
that the marketplace, the insurance marketplace, you are from 
Connecticut, so I am sure you have an interest in this, that it works; 
that in fact it is affordable, that we can figure out a way for 
businesses to work together, to be able to get a market share, to be 
able to maybe do some things on the individual marketplace so that in 
fact it can be more affordable.
  Some of the ideas that the President has about tax deductions, not as 
substitutes, but for individual coverage, that's fine. We should be 
doing that. But not say, okay, which are going to make sure that 6 
million children who have had access to health care, and another 6 
million who could, who are now eligible but are not signed up, we are 
going to continue to deny them care, and we are going to do that by 
scaring you into thinking somehow we are creating some new expanded 
government program that is somehow just going to be evil.
  That is sort of kind of what the President is saying, instead of 
saying wait a minute, this is an initiative that works. It works in 
every State. People are proud of it. Republicans and Democrats stand up 
and praise it, doctors are happy about it, hospitals are happy about 
it, parents are happy about it. I don't know how the kids feel when 
they get their immunizations, how happy they are about it.
  But the fact is we are doing the right thing and we are meeting a 
priority that American families talk to us about all the time. And it 
is not instead of doing something else. It is really just because it is 
a high priority for us. It is always a question of priority, but we 
really I think, certainly what I want to say, we are determined to get 
this done, and we want to work in a bipartisan way to do it. We want to 
do it in a fiscally responsible way. We want to continue to build on 
the success of the Children's Health Insurance Program, and that is why 
we are going to keep talking about it until we get it done and 
hopefully be joined by not only our colleagues on the the other side, 
but the President as well.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Let me just add some final thoughts to add 
to the theme of inconsistency here. This is a President who has 
presided over the largest expansion of a government paid for health 
care program in my generation at least with the addition of the 
prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program. But it was okay when 
it resulted in a massive giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.
  But when we are asking to expand health care for kids who don't have, 
as Mr. Pallone said, not only do they not vote, but they also don't 
have political action committees and they also don't have lobbyists 
patrolling the hallways here and within the administration. When it 
comes to helping the most vulnerable, the most voiceless group of 
individuals out there, this administration results in a deafening, 
deafening silence.
  So I am so glad we are down here talking about this tonight. I came 
to Congress, gave up my seat working on a health care policy in the 
Connecticut legislature because I figured out that this really had to 
be a Federal fix, to try to do something for the millions of uninsured.
  I frankly hope in a lot of places I think I am am going to depart 
from the legacy of the person I replaced, but on this I hope to be able 
to work with all of you to join back across the aisle and build that 
bipartisan consensus to stand up for those voiceless, lobbyist-less 
PAC-less constituents of ours, uninsured kids.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. We have an enormous opportunity here. We want to meet 
that challenge and we want to do it right. So that is the challenge 
over the next few months. My guess is we are going to continue to talk 
about this for the weeks ahead, and certainly if we are lucky enough to 
take some vacation this summer and see those cute kids on the beach on 
the Jersey shore, and Connecticut has some nice beaches too, to look at 
them and think which ones of those, because there are, who don't have 
health insurance, whose parents may delay care that they should get, 
not get an immunization, should not get care, maybe not even treat some 
simple illness that ends up running through school or camp and 
everybody gets sick.
  But this is about giving kids the right healthy start. It is about 
doing it in a cost-effective way, about being creative and innovative, 
and meeting that challenge that American families have every day.
  So I thank my colleagues for joining me this evening, and I look 
forward to continuing to work with you. Thank you for your leadership, 
Mr. Pallone, as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the list of all groups who 
support the SCHIP package.

                  All Groups Who Support SCHIP Package


                             seniors groups

       AARP
       Alliance for Retired Americans
       American Association for International Aging
       American Society on Aging
       Association of Jewish Aging Services of North America
       B'nai B'rith
       National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys
       National Association of Professional Geriatric Care 
     Managers
       National Association of State Long-Term Care Ombudsman 
     Programs (NASOP)
       National Association of RSVP Directors
       National Association of Social
       Workers
       National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
       National Council On Aging
       National Indian Council on Aging
       OWL, The Voice of Midlife and Older Women
       American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry
       Medicare Rights Center
       National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
       National Senior Citizens Law Center


                            provider groups

       American Dental Association
       American Hospital Association
       American Medical Association
       American Health Care Association
       Federation of American Hospitals
       National Association for Home Care & Hospice
       National Association of Community Health Centers
       PhRMA


                              labor unions

       AFL-CIO
       AFSCME Retiree Program
       American Federation of Teachers
       International Union, United Auto Workers
       National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association
       Service Employees International Union
       American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME)
       International Association of Machinists and Aerospace 
     Workers
       International Union, United Auto Workers
       United Steelworkers


                           children's groups

       Academy of Pediatricians
       Children's Defense Fund
       Families USA
       March of Dimes
       National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related 
     Institutions


                           disability groups

       AIDS Treatment Activists Coalition

[[Page 19117]]

       AIDS Treatment Data Network
       American Academy of HIV Medicine
       American Association of People with Disabilities
       American Association on Intellectual and Developmental 
     Disabilities
       American Network of Community Options and Resources
       Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs
       Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD)
       Gay Men's Health Crisis
       HIV Medicine Association
       Council for Learning Disabilities
       Easter Seals
       NAADAC, the Association for Addiction Professionals
       National Association of Councils on Developmental 
     Disabilities
       National Association of People with AIDS
       National Disability Rights Network
       National Down Syndrome Society
       The Arc of the United States


                            advocacy groups

       Military Officers Association of America
       Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
       Campaign for America's Future
       Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc.
       Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
       Consumer's Union
       National Association of State Head Injury Administrators
       National Health Law Program
       National Organization of Social Security Claimants' 
     Representatives
       National Respite Coalition
       National Spinal Cord Injury Association
       NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
       Project Inform
       Protestants for the Common Good
       The American Federation of Teachers
       Title II Community AIDS National Network (TII CANN)
       United Cerebral Palsy
       United Spinal Association
       USAction


                         state and local groups

       AIDS Action Baltimore, Inc.
       AIDS Drug Assistance Protocol Fund
       AIDS Education Global Information System
       AIDS Legal Council of Chicago
       AIDS Resource Alliance, Inc.
       AIDS/HIV Health Alternatives
       Alliance for Family Education Care & Treatment
       California Health Advocates
       Center for Independence of the Disabled in New York
       Champaign County Branch NAACP
       Chicago Women's AIDS Project
       Clinical Social Work Guild 49
       Coleman Global Telecommunications, LLC
       Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP)
       Community Information Center
       Desert AIDS Project
       Douglas County AIDS Project
       Family Service Association of Bucks County HIV/AIDS Program
       Florida Legal Services
       F.O.U.N.D., Inc.
       Friends of The Poor International
       Georgia Rural Urban Summit
       Health Equity Project
       Hemophilia Association of New York
       Hep C Advocate Network, Inc. (HepCAN)
       HIV/AIDS Law Project
       HIVictorious, Inc.
       IndependenceFirst
       International Foundation for Alternative Research in AIDS, 
     Portland, OR
       Kleine Editorial Services
       La Fe Policy and Advocacy Center
       L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center
       Latinos for National Health Insurance
       Living Hope Organization
       Michigan Positive Action Coalition
       NAMES Project Central New Jersey
       NETWORTH/Positive Action
       New Mexico Poz Coalition
       New York AIDS Coalition
       New York Legal Assistance Group
       New York State Consumer Coalition on Part D
       New Yorkers for Accessible Health Coverage
       Northwest Health Law Advocates
       Ohio AIDS Coalition
       Pennsylvanians United for Single Payer Healthcare (PUSH)
       Physicians for a National Health Program, NY Metro Chapter
       Positive Opportunities, Inc.
       Pueblo Family Physicians
       Redwood AIDS Information Network and Services
       Regional Addiction Prevention (RAP), Inc.
       Regional AIDS Interfaith Network Colorado
       Salt Lake Community Action Program
       Search For A Cure
       Selfhelp Community Services, Inc.
       South Carolina Campaign to End AIDS (SC-C2EA)
       Teamsters Retiree Club of Santa Clara County
       Tennessee Justice Center
       The Evangelical Catholic Diocese of the Northwest
       The North American Old Catholic Church
       The Richmond/Ermet AIDS Foundation
       Topeka Independent Living Resource Center
       Tia's Foundation
       Triad Health Project
       Twin States Network
       Ursuline Sisters HIV/AIDS Ministry
       West House, Inc.
       West Oahu Hope For A Cure Foundation
       Western

                          ____________________