[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 25434-25447]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1530
     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 976, 
    CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 675 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 675

       Resolved,  That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 
     be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     976) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
     tax relief for small businesses, and for other purposes, with 
     Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the House, 
     without intervention of any point of order except those 
     arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a single motion offered 
     by the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or 
     his designee that the House concur in each of the Senate 
     amendments with the respective amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be 
     considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided among and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce and the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without 
     intervening motion or demand for division of the question.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentleman will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise for a point of order 
against consideration of the resolution because it violates clause 9(b) 
of House rule XXI for failure to disclose a taxpayer-funded earmark 
contained in the bill.
  Section 618 of the Democrats' SCHIP bill contains an undisclosed 
earmark directing taxpayer funding to a facility located in Memphis, 
Tennessee, specifically in the district of the gentleman from 
Tennessee.
  Under House rules, all earmarks are supposed to be disclosed, and the 
Member requesting the earmark is required to certify that he has no 
financial interest in this earmark.
  The earmark contained in this bill has not been disclosed anywhere. 
In fact, at the Rules Committee last night, my friends in the 
Democratic leadership certified this bill as ``earmark-free,'' despite 
the fact that this bill includes an earmark for the gentleman from 
Tennessee.
  The requirements of full disclosure and certification that there is 
no financial interest have not been met here.
  This earmark was not in the House-passed bill, H.R. 976. It was not 
in the Senate amendment to H.R. 976. I would point out it was in the 
House-passed H.R. 3192, but it was never disclosed there either.
  This bill threatens the important programs that protect the health of 
seniors and children, and that debate should happen.
  This bill spends billions in taxpayer dollars on health insurance for 
families who make $83,000 a year and on illegal immigrants. This bill 
ignores House earmark rules to buy votes for its passage.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are entitled to know how their tax 
dollars are being used. This is why the Republican leadership for 
months has been requesting a vote on House Resolution 479, legislation 
that would clarify the rules of our Chamber to ensure all earmarks are 
publicly disclosed and subject to challenge and debate here on the 
floor. The majority leadership has unfortunately refused to allow H. 
Res.

[[Page 25435]]

479 to come to the floor for vote. And this is why Republicans had no 
choice but to file a discharge petition last week that will force H. 
Res. 479 to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that the American people hold us in 
lower regard than a twice-convicted used car salesmen. It is because we 
continue to, in a slap of the face of every American taxpayer who gets 
up in the morning and plays by the rules, to play politics and slip 
things into bills that are not only against the rules, but against the 
integrity and well-standing of this House.


                             Point of order

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman please state his point 
of order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan must confine his 
remarks to his point of order.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that this 
bill is in violation of 9(b) of House rule XXI for failure to disclose 
a taxpayer-funded earmark contained in the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of order under clause 9(b) 
of rule XXI that the resolution waives the application of clause 9(a) 
of rule XXI. It is correct that clause 9(b) of rule XXI provides a 
point of order against a rule that waives the application of the clause 
9(a) point of order.
  In pertinent part, clause 9(a) of rule XXI provides a point of order 
against a bill, a joint resolution, or a so-called ``manager's 
amendment'' thereto unless certain information on congressional 
earmarks, limited tax benefits and limited tariff benefits is 
disclosed. But this point of order does not lie against an amendment 
between the Houses.
  House Resolution 675 makes in order a motion to concur in Senate 
amendments with amendment. Because clause 9(a) of rule XXI does not 
apply to amendments between the Houses, House Resolution 675 has no 
tendency to waive its application. The point of order is overruled.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is: Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?


                Motion to Table Offered by Mr. McGovern

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling 
of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224, 
noes 190, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 902]

                               AYES--224

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--190

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Carson
     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Delahunt
     English (PA)
     Fortenberry
     Herger
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     McDermott
     Poe
     Ross
     Snyder

                              {time}  1557

  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days 
within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert 
extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?

[[Page 25436]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 675 provides a rule for consideration of the 
Senate amendments to H.R. 976, the Children's Health Insurance Program 
Reauthorization Act.
  The rule permits the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
to move that the House concur in the Senate amendments with the 
amendments printed in the Rules Committee report.
  The rule waives all points of order against the motion except those 
arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
  Finally, the rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided among and 
controlled by the chairmen and ranking minority members of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today represents a defining historic 
moment for this House. Members of this body will be faced with the 
simple choice: Will you vote to provide health insurance to millions of 
children, or will you vote to take health insurance away from the 
children who currently have it?
  Today, over 45 million people living in this country woke up without 
health care. Millions of them are children whose families make too much 
to be eligible for Medicaid but not enough to purchase their own 
insurance.
  Studies have shown that the number of uninsured children jumped by 
710,000 last year. That is unconscionable; and under the leadership of 
Speaker Pelosi and the new Democratic Congress, we have begun to change 
it.
  The State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, currently 
provides health care to over 6 million children; but the program will 
expire in just 6 days unless we act to reauthorize it.
  Historically, the SCHIP program has enjoyed bipartisan support. The 
bill before us today represents a careful, bipartisan compromise that 
enjoys the support of people like Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Orrin 
Hatch, Congressman Ray LaHood, and Congresswoman Heather Wilson. 
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us does not go as far as I 
would like. I prefer the bill this House passed a few weeks ago. The 
House-passed bill not only expanded the SCHIP program to 1 million more 
children than the bill we'll be voting on today; it also leveled the 
playing field by adjusting the reimbursements for the Medicare 
Advantage Program, a program that is in dire need of reform. But I will 
not and I cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the very good, 
and this is a very good bill.
  Under this agreement, health insurance coverage will be provided to 
millions of children who do not have it today. Quality dental coverage 
will be provided to all enrolled children. The agreement ensures that 
States will offer mental health services on par with medical and 
surgical benefits covered under SCHIP, and the bill also provides 
States the option to cover prenatal care, ensuring healthy babies and 
healthy moms.
  Now, contrary to the White House rhetoric, the bulk of the children 
who would gain coverage are poor and near-poor children who are 
uninsured, not middle-income children with private coverage.

                              {time}  1600

  The President would like to suggest that SCHIP is Congress's way of 
socializing medicine and undermining private health insurance plans, 
which is interesting, considering that just yesterday this bill was 
endorsed by America's Health Insurance Plans, the Nation's largest 
insurance lobbying group. It is also important to note, Mr. Speaker, 
that this bill is fully paid for. This represents a sharp change from 
earlier bills that the President enthusiastically supported from the 
2003 Medicare prescription drug bill to the Republican energy plans to 
his tax cuts for the rich, which were all financed by massive amounts 
of deficit spending.
  The President has threatened to veto this bill, Mr. Speaker. That 
takes my breath away. He didn't veto billions of dollars in tax breaks 
to oil companies that were gouging people at the pump. He didn't veto 
billions of dollars in no-bid defense contracts. But he will veto a 
modest bipartisan bill to provide health care coverage for millions of 
low- and moderate-income American children?
  Now, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle would say that 
we should simply extend the current SCHIP program, but what they won't 
tell you is that the spending level supported by the President is not 
enough even to provide continued coverage for all the children who are 
currently enrolled. In other words, Mr. Speaker, those who support the 
President would take health care away from over 800,000 kids who have 
it today. That is not acceptable. That is cruel.
  As the Catholic Health Association has said, ``Temporary extensions 
and/or inadequate funding levels will lead to children losing coverage. 
That would be an enormous step back for our Nation and a retreat from 
our collective commitment to cover uninsured children.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is a defining moment for this Congress. With a 
``yes'' vote on this bill, we can improve the lives of millions of 
children and their families. A ``no'' vote is a vote to take health 
care away from some of the most vulnerable members of the American 
family.
  The choice is clear. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today is a defining moment for an 
insatiable appetite that the new Democrat majority has for spending, 
spending taxpayer dollars and going well beyond the mission statement 
of SCHIP. And that is what the day is all about. It is a defining 
moment with the new Democrat majority seeking a way to have single 
payer-funded health care for all America. And that is the road that we 
are defining and beginning again today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this completely closed 
rule that fails to even provide the minority with a motion to recommit, 
and to the underlying legislation that the minority did not receive 
until 6:30 last night.
  When I came to the floor in the beginning of August to oppose the 
previous version of this legislation, I explained my opposition to the 
way that it had been brought to the floor without a single legislative 
markup. And, unfortunately, again today that fact has not changed. In 
fact, neither Republican leadership nor Republican members on the House 
Energy and Commerce Committee had an opportunity to participate in the 
crafting of the 250-plus pages of legislative language this entire 
House was provided with just a little bit more than 12 hours ago.
  Despite the terrible process surrounding this legislation from start 
to finish, I would like to once again thank the Democrat leadership for 
one thing: By cramming this bill through the House for a second time, 
they are giving every single Member of this body another opportunity to 
go on record regarding which vision they have for the future of our 
Nation's health care system that they truly support.
  The first vision for our future is to slowly shift away as many 
Americans as is possible into a one-size-fits-all Washington 
bureaucrat-run program. And, if nothing else, I congratulate the 
Democrat leadership for their clarity, because that vision is embodied 
in H.R. 976.
  Rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children who cannot 
obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill 
uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions 
of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health 
care needs.
  H.R. 976 also increases government spending and dislocates the 
private marketplace, leaving taxpayers holding the bag for these 
increased costs. This bill generally raises the income threshold for 
eligibility and allows States to qualify anyone receiving these funds, 
including childless adults and people making over $80,000 a year, 
despite the fact that this diverts these much needed funds away from 
helping our Nation's most poorest children.

[[Page 25437]]

  It would also allow illegal immigrants and aliens to receive these 
benefits by forcing States to accept nonsecure documents as proof of 
citizenship for purposes of receiving these funds. I find it both 
ironic and unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the party of Hillary Clinton 
and bureaucrat-run health care would float a proposal in which law-
abiding citizens are made to show proof of insurance as a condition of 
employment, while this legislation would open the door for ineligible 
and illegal immigrants to receive federally funded benefits, no 
questions asked.
  All of these problems exist on top of a current system which we know 
that some States already abuse. This bill grandfathers in New York's 
standard, which provides Federal assistance to those making four times 
the poverty level, and in New Jersey at 3\1/2\ times, while allowing 
every other State to expand coverage to three times the current poverty 
level.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the crowd-out effect created by this big 
government bill that replaces private insurance with a government 
program will not provide coverage to more kids. By the CBO estimate, it 
simply will shift 2.4 million children out of private insurance and 
into a Federal program that hurts doctors and hospitals by forcing them 
to deal with government bureaucrats that short-change both patients and 
providers by undercompensating them for medical services.
  If Democrats were serious about ensuring that every American had 
access to inexpensive and high-quality health care, we would be talking 
about a different vision today for our health care, one that tackles 
the system's real underlying problems and revolutionizes our health 
care system to provide us with better results. This other, Republican 
vision for improving health access to health insurance includes 
allowing families to have access to tax exemptions up to $15,000 a year 
for health care, not just those who work for large employers.
  The Republican vision includes giving Americans the ability to 
purchase health insurance across State lines, because healthy insurance 
options should not be limited to the State you live in or your zip 
code. It also includes having Congress act to ensure that those who 
can't get insurance in the marketplace have access to coverage through 
high-risk pools and low-income tax credits.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not here to oppose the idea of SCHIP. It was a 
Republican-controlled Congress that created SCHIP, and I support its 
original, true mission. But H.R. 976 is a camouflaged attempt at slowly 
siphoning Americans from insurance plans into a Washington, D.C., 
bureaucrat-run system.
  Mr. Speaker, today we fail to address one of the most serious issues 
facing our Nation: how to make our health insurance system more 
affordable and accessible for all Americans. And by focusing on the 
wrong vision for our future, this bill does nothing to address either 
problem. It ignores the fact that our Nation has produced the greatest 
health care advantages in the world, many of which have come as a 
result of our competitive insurance market.
  The American survival rate for leukemia is 50 percent; the European 
rate is just about 35 percent. For prostate cancer, the American 
survival rate is 81 percent; in France, it is 62 percent; in England, 
it is 44 percent.
  Rather than trying to emulate Europe and its outdated socialized 
approach, we should be working on a vision to give every single 
American an opportunity to take part in our competitive insurance 
market. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule and the 
underlying legislation to drag America into a one-size-fits-all 
European model.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to our next speaker, I just 
respond to the gentleman from Texas by saying, he talks about this 
Republican vision for health care; but if my memory is serving me 
correctly, the Republicans were in charge of the Congress for many 
years, too many years, if you ask me, and they had the President of the 
United States of the same party while they were in control of both 
Congresses.
  What they presided over with all their control, this Republican 
vision that the gentleman from Texas talks about, resulted in more and 
more and more, millions and millions more Americans falling into the 
ranks of the uninsured. And many of them are children. Too many are 
children. We are trying to fix that here. We think it is unconscionable 
in the richest country on the face of this Earth that millions of 
children go without health insurance.
  Let me just say one other thing. The gentleman made an allusion, too, 
that this bill would make it easier to enroll illegal immigrants. I 
want to ask my friend from Texas to read the bill. Section 605, no 
Federal funds for illegal immigrants. Nothing in this Act allows 
Federal payment for residents who are not legal residents.
  Now, I know that immigrant bashing is the last bastion of the 
politically desperate, but the fact of the matter is facts are facts. 
And on documentation, only my Republican friends would argue that poor 
children should have passports as though they are jetting off to Paris 
for the spring fashion shows.
  The bottom line is, what the gentleman is raising on that level is 
totally unwarranted.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Loebsack).
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
bipartisan agreement that will provide health coverage to 10 million 
children.
  We have a moral obligation to protect and nurture our children. No 
child should go without health care. No child should go without regular 
checkups, preventive care, and treatment of illnesses. This legislation 
provides support to those who need it most, our children. And it is 
long overdue.
  This compromise secures coverage for the 37,000 children covered by 
Iowa's HAWK-I program. It also provides essential funding for the State 
of Iowa to reach the almost 27,000 children who are eligible for the 
program but remain uninsured.
  Mr. Speaker, healthy children are the foundation of our society and 
our economy. I sincerely hope that the President will change his mind, 
put the politics aside, and sign this critical legislation into law. 
The health, the well-being, and the lives of our children are at stake, 
and I support the rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from 
San Dimas, California, the ranking member on the Rules Committee, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 6 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Dallas for 
yielding this time, and I thank him for his great, very thoughtful 
statement on this issue.
  I have got to say, as I did last night when we met in the Rules 
Committee, Mr. Speaker, that it really saddens me that we are here at 
this point. It was very proudly in a Republican Congress with a 
Democratic President that we came together in a bipartisan way to 
ensure that the very, very underprivileged in this country, children, 
would have access to health insurance. It is something that existed for 
10 years, and we know that there are still children who are in need and 
we want to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that children 
have an opportunity to have access to quality health care. Mr. Speaker, 
this ain't it. This is not the answer.
  I listened to my friend from Worcester begin this very thoughtful 
statement about bipartisanship. He mentioned two House Republicans and 
two Senate Republicans who made this a wonderful bipartisan measure. 
But I would like to yield to my friend and engage in a colloquy with 
him, if I might.
  I see here on the floor the very distinguished ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the committee that has 
had jurisdiction over this issue. And I would like to inquire of my 
friend if he knows if the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) was ever invited, as he hails this great spirit of 
bipartisanship, to any meeting that was held by the majority in 
attempts to negotiate this measure. I am happy to yield to my friend 
from Worcester.

[[Page 25438]]



                              {time}  1615

  Mr. McGOVERN. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question of the gentleman 
from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield me 1 minute so that I could ask 
the question again?
  Mr. McGOVERN. We have all of our time scheduled. I'm sorry.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield me 30 seconds so that I can ask 
the question? We've got a limited amount of time here and a lot of 
speakers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. We are literally filled up.
  Mr. DREIER. So the gentleman chooses not to answer my question then.
  Mr. RANGEL. I will answer the question if you yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I'd be happy to yield to my very good friend from New 
York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Let me explain to the ranking member how difficult I know 
it must have been for you to see how the leadership in the House and 
Senate did this.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me reclaim my time. I was happy to yield 
to my friend to answer my question. It was a yes or no question.
  Mr. RANGEL. The Republican leadership excluded that man. The 
Republican leadership excluded him, as I had been excluded as a 
Democrat. He was excluded from participating by the Republican leaders.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schiff). The gentleman from New York 
will suspend. The gentleman from California controls the time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on 
Ways and Means is a great friend of mine. I'm always happy to yield to 
him. I was trying to yield to the gentleman from Worcester who is 
managing this rule----
  Mr. RANGEL. He was excluded, too.
  Mr. DREIER. I would simply inquire as to whether or not the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
the former chairman of the committee, was invited to participate in 
this much heralded bipartisan agreement to which Mr. McGovern has 
referred. And I guess the answer that I'm getting with all of this 
convoluted stuff is no. Well, you know what? Maybe I should yield to 
the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce to inquire of him. Mr. Rangel and Mr. McGovern seem to be 
unable to answer the question as to whether or not the distinguished 
former chairman, the ranking member, was invited to participate in this 
great bipartisan package that we've got. I'm happy to yield to my 
friend.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. The answer is no. I was allowed to testify at 
the Rules Committee last evening. That's the only formal opportunity I 
was ever given in the last 9 months on this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for enlightening us on that, Mr. 
Speaker, and I will simply say that that demonstrates that, as we've 
heard about this great quest for bipartisanship in dealing with an 
issue which should have been completely bipartisan, and was when the 
Republicans were in the majority, I will say. The American people were 
represented here in a bipartisan way in fashioning a State Children's 
Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, that had, first, a Democratic 
President, Bill Clinton, sign it, and it was a Republican work product.
  It saddens me that today we now have a Democratic Congress and a 
Republican President, and this Republican President is going to veto 
the measure. Why? Because it dramatically expands the welfare state, 
undermines the ability for children who are truly in need to get it, 
and as was pointed out in an Energy and Commerce item, it's a reverse 
Robin Hood. It takes from the poor with a tax increase, the most 
regressive tax of all, as was stated by the Congressional Budget 
Office, and it gives to people who shouldn't even be able to qualify 
for this program.
  And that is, I believe, just plain wrong. It is a mischaracterization 
of what we should see in a SCHIP program. Everybody wants to make this 
happen. Governors across the country wanted to make it happen. Of 
course, they want to have access to these resources. And Democrats and 
Republicans want to make it happen. But this is not the right bill. If 
Mr. Barton had been able to participate, I'm convinced that we would 
have, Mr. Speaker, had a very decent bill on this.
  Now, let me just say that the other thing that really troubles me is 
what we held our last vote on just a few minutes ago. Let me just very 
quickly, Mr. Speaker, say that we tried very, very hard at the 
beginning of this Congress to take the majority at their word when they 
said there was going to be a great new era of transparency and 
disclosure and accountability.
  Well, 10 days ago, Mr. Speaker, we marked the first anniversary of 
our passing real earmark reform in this institution. What did it say? 
It said there would be transparency, accountability and disclosure on 
items, not just appropriations bills, but on authorizing bills and on 
tax bills. And, unfortunately, in this so-called new era of 
transparency and disclosure in this new Congress, we completely subvert 
the notion of transparency and disclosure on earmarks, as is evidenced 
in this bill.
  When we in the Rules Committee last night saw the majority, and they 
all voted, we had a recorded vote on this. They chose to waive the 
provision that would have, in fact, had an opportunity for disclosure 
and accountability; and they voted, again, against it right here on the 
House floor. That's why, as was said by Mr. Rogers earlier, we have a 
discharge petition so that we can do what we did last September 14, a 
year ago, and that is have real earmark reform.
  Vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the underlying legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that the gentleman from 
California wasn't impressed with the names of the Republican 
legislators that I met who, I think, have impeccable conservative 
credentials. But this is a bipartisan effort. In fact, unlike when he 
was the chairman of the Rules Committee and his party was in control of 
Congress, bipartisanship now means more than just one Member of the 
opposing party.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record a letter that's in 
enthusiastic support of this bill sent to Speaker Pelosi signed by 16 
other Republicans, and there are many, many more who I hope will 
support this bill.

                                Congress of the United States,

                               Washington, DC, September 19, 2007.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, 
         DC.
       Madam Speaker: On September 30, 2007, authorization for the 
     State Children's Health Insurance Program will expire, 
     putting at risk the health insurance coverage of six million 
     children. While the House has passed a controversial Medicare 
     and SCHIP reauthorization bill largely along party lines, the 
     Senate has passed bipartisan SCHIP reauthorization 
     legislation without Medicare provisions. We urge you to take 
     up the bipartisan Senate SCHIP bill to reauthorize the 
     program before it expires at the end of the month.
       The Senate legislation would reauthorize the program for 
     five years and increase. the authorized funding for the 
     program by $35 billion over that time. The funding would 
     fully fund current program levels and allow for the 
     enrollment of more eligible uninsured children into the 
     program. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the Senate 
     bill would decrease the number of uninsured children by 3.2 
     million.
       We would be supportive of consideration of the Senate SCHIP 
     bill and believe it is the best vehicle for extending the 
     program expeditiously. The health of the nation's children is 
     too important to delay.
           Sincerely,
         Heather Wilson, John M. McHugh, Mary Bono, Phil English, 
           James T. Walsh, David Reichert, Jo Ann Emerson, Wayne 
           T. Gilchrest, Ralph Regula, Tom Davis, Todd R. Platts, 
           Jim Ramstad, Mark Kirk, Judy Biggert, Rick Renzi, -- -- 
           --.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene 
Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I've been on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee 10 years, and it was a dark day that we couldn't 
mark up this bill simply because the Republican minority wanted to read 
the bill for 2 days, and so we lost jurisdiction of it. It hurt the 
Energy and Commerce Committee. But it hurt this House. And that's what 
we're seeing in this House of Representatives.

[[Page 25439]]

  We want to do things on a bipartisan basis. And there is not a closer 
friend I have in the House than Joe Barton. But as ranking member, we 
were stuck there for 2 days and couldn't even amend the bill without 
reading the whole bill. So to pass it in August we had to get it out of 
the committee. And we didn't do that when we were the minority. We 
could have, but we also knew that the majority had to rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise with the same 
sadness that was manifested by the ranking member, Mr. Dreier of the 
Rules Committee, when he spoke about the fact that on an issue like 
this, if there is ever an issue where we should be able to come 
together and extend a program, it is this one.
  But as we saw last night, with the long, thorough testimony before 
the Rules Committee, the excessively exclusivist process that has been 
engaged in by the majority really has affected, in a significant and 
unfortunate way, the product before us. And Mr. Barton pointed out, as 
has already been explained, that he was excluded from the process. And 
for example, on an issue, despite the fact that it's a major expansion 
of SCHIP, that we're facing a major expansion here of SCHIP on a very 
important issue which is the inclusion, for example, of legal immigrant 
children, they have not been included. For example, that's why we have 
the National Hispanic Medical Association saying we do not support this 
legislation, this SCHIP bill that does not include legal immigrant 
children.
  You have the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda: ``We cannot support 
legislation that extends health coverage to some children while 
explicitly excluding legal immigrant children.''
  The National Council of La Raza: ``We are particularly disheartened 
that a congressional debate focused on expanding access to health care 
to children would perpetuate an exclusion for legal immigrants.''
  Now, one thing would be, Mr. Speaker, if due to limited resources we 
were simply extending this program, a program that we all agree is so 
necessary and important. But to see an expansion of the program that 
excludes legal, and I reiterate, legal immigrant children and pregnant 
women is most unfortunate. That's why I would include into the Record, 
Mr. Speaker, these letters.
  My distinguished friend Mr. Pallone last night was saying, well, you 
know, some people in the Senate didn't want that; that's why we don't 
do it. Mr. Barton pointed out in Rules that he would have been happy to 
be there supporting this provision for legal, and I repeat, legal 
immigrant children. Perhaps that would have been the difference in 
being able to solve this problem.
  Again, exclusivist process leads to an unfortunate result in policy. 
If there's ever been an example of that, we're seeing it this 
afternoon. So I oppose this rule, Mr. Speaker, and, at this stage, this 
unsatisfactory product that is being brought before us and that we 
should vote down today.

                                  National Council of La Raza,

                               Washington, DC, September 24, 2007.
       Dear Member of Congress: The National Council of La Raza 
     (NCLR), the largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy 
     organization in the U.S., urges you to vote ``No'' on the 
     State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) 
     reauthorization conference report, legislation that we had 
     hoped to support. The SCHIP conference report deliberately 
     deletes a provision previously approved by the House of 
     Representatives to restore health care coverage for Latino 
     and other legal immigrant children. We cannot support 
     legislation that extends health coverage to some children 
     while explicitly excluding legal immigrant children. We urge 
     Congress to reject the conference report and go back to the 
     drawing board to develop SCHIP reauthorization legislation 
     which will provide health care coverage equitably.
       Latino children, who represent two-fifths of uninsured 
     children, are overwhelmingly disconnected from health 
     coverage, so it remains essential for Congress to address the 
     core barriers that prevent them from gaining access to health 
     care. While we acknowledge that the bill has some provisions 
     that will broaden coverage opportunities for some of 
     America's children, including some Latinos, we are deeply 
     dismayed that it fails to include the language of the ``Legal 
     Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act (Legal ICHIA),'' 
     which was passed by the House of Representatives with 
     widespread bipartisan support. This important proposal 
     addresses arbitrary restrictions to Medicaid and SCHIP for 
     legal immigrant children and pregnant women and has the 
     potential to extend coverage for hundreds of thousands of 
     vulnerable children.
       We are particularly disheartened that a congressional 
     debate which is focused on expanding access to health care to 
     children would perpetuate an exclusion for legal immigrants. 
     It is disingenuous to say to the Latino community that health 
     care is being expanded when a significant proportion of our 
     children are not included.
       We cannot accept this unjust and unnecessary inequity. We 
     urge you to oppose the SCHIP conference report and redraft a 
     reauthorization which includes the provisions of ``Legal 
     ICHIA.'' We will recommend that votes associated with this 
     legislation are included in the National Hispanic Leadership 
     Agenda (NHLA) congressional scorecard.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Janet Murguia
                                                President and CEO.
                                  ____
                                  
                                                 National Hispanic


                                            Leadership Agenda,

                               Washington, DC, September 24, 2007.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi: On behalf of 
     the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA), a nonpartisan 
     coalition of 40 major national Hispanic organizations and 
     distinguished leaders, representing 44 million Hispanics, we 
     strongly urge you to include the Legal Immigrant Children's 
     Health Improvement Act (Legal ICHIA) into the final State 
     Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Conference 
     Report.
       Latino children, who represent two-fifths of all uninsured 
     children, are overwhelmingly disenfranchised from health 
     coverage, so it remains essential for Congress to address the 
     core barriers that prevent them from gaining access to health 
     care. Not including Legal ICHIA in the Report is a grave 
     injustice to the thousands of legal immigrant children and 
     pregnant women who will be affected by this exclusion. The 
     ban on covering legal immigrant children who have not been in 
     the U.S. for five years has resulted in high uninsurance 
     rates and lack of preventative care for many Hispanic 
     children. Lifting the restriction to public health care would 
     provide assurance to many families that their children's 
     health conditions could be treated before becoming chronic.
       We cannot support legislation that extends health coverage 
     to some children while explicitly excluding legal immigrant 
     children. We urge you to reject the conference report and go 
     back to the drawing board to develop SCHIP reauthorization 
     legislation which will provide health care coverage 
     equitably.
           Sincerely,
                                          Ronald Blackburn-Moreno,
                                  Chair of the Board of Directors.
                                  ____
                                  
                                                 National Hispanic


                                          Medical Association,

                               Washington, DC, September 24, 2007.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi: On behalf of 
     the National Hispanic Medical Association (NHMA), a nonprofit 
     association representing 36,000 licensed Hispanic physicians 
     in the United States, we strongly urge you to demonstrate 
     leadership and include the Legal Immigrant Children's Health 
     Improvement Act (Legal ICHIA) into the final State Children's 
     Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill.
       The mission of NHMA is to improve the health of Hispanics 
     and other underserved populations. We recognize that 
     expansion of health insurance to legal immigrant children in 
     the U.S. would allow a significant number of children to have 
     access to health care that they desperately need in order to 
     be better equipped to learn in school as well as to be able 
     to grow developmentally into healthy adults. Since one in 
     five Hispanic children is currently uninsured, and Hispanics 
     represent the largest group of uninsured in the United 
     States, inclusion of the Legal Immigrant Children's Health 
     Improvement Act into the program is vital to increasing the 
     enrollment numbers of Hispanic children.
       In summary, the National Hispanic Medical Association 
     strongly supports the inclusion of expanding access to health 
     insurance for legal immigrant children and pregnant women 
     that would ultimately, increase the quality of life of all 
     Americans. We do not support an SCHIP bill that does not 
     include Legal ICHIA.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Elena Rios,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say a couple of things with 
regard

[[Page 25440]]

to process. The gentleman knows, everybody else knows, the gentleman 
should know that his Republican colleagues in the Senate blocked a 
motion to go to conference.
  The SCHIP program expires in 6 days, and we don't have time for a 
House version of a filibuster. A dozen States will run out of SCHIP 
funding if we do not act. Now is the time to act. So if you want to 
make sure that those currently enrolled continue to get the health care 
coverage, then you've got to vote for this. And if you want more 
children to be enrolled, then you have to vote for this.
  On the issue of legal immigrants, I agree. I think all of us here 
agree that the legal immigrants should be included. The reality is 
there were not enough Republicans who agree. The Republican leadership 
has been awful on this issue. And the Republicans in the Senate have 
said that adding a legal immigrant provision would have killed the bill 
in the Senate. That is the gentleman's party.
  Let me also remind Members of this House that you had an opportunity 
to vote for an SCHIP that covered legal immigrants. That is what we 
voted on here in the House, and you all voted ``no.'' You voted ``no'' 
on that. You voted not to extend coverage for those legal immigrants in 
this country, those children of legal immigrants. So I'm not quite sure 
what you're trying to do here, other than trying to delay this process 
so we don't get this bill passed.
  Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation, even though it does not do as much as I would 
like. In fact, less than 2 months ago I voted with a majority of this 
body for a bill that covered more children. It strengthened health care 
for millions of American citizens and restored fairness to our Medicare 
system and invested in preventive health.
  Unfortunately, that bill cannot pass the Senate. And sometimes, in 
order to make change, we must compromise. Compromise is why we are here 
today, Mr. Speaker. And though the bill before is us is not ideal, it 
is a step in the right direction.
  It is rare that Members of Congress have the chance to provide health 
care to 4 million more children with one vote, but that is the 
opportunity we have today.
  My district is like many others in this country. In my hometown of 
Sacramento, there are children who can see a doctor when they get sick. 
They go to a pediatrician and get a checkup or have their ear infection 
examined or their teeth cleaned regularly.
  But there are also thousands of children in Sacramento who do not 
have this access, thousands of kids whose families cannot afford the 
huge cost of health insurance. These are children who cannot see a 
doctor until they're seriously ill, children who do not get the medical 
attention until they get to an emergency room. It is for these 
children, the thousands in Sacramento and the millions across the 
country, that we must pass this legislation today.
  It is for these children that the President must sign this bill. If 
he vetoes it, he turns his back on 4 million more children in need. He 
will disregard the will of a clear majority of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand before this House today as a colleague, but also 
as a proud grandmother. My 2 grandchildren are named Anna and Robby. 
Most of what I do in Congress is colored by how it will affect them and 
their generation.
  Anna and Robby are fortunate. They have stable reliable health 
insurance. Millions of other children are not so lucky. Anna and 
Robby's peers are the reason I support this compromise bill, Mr. 
Speaker, even though it ignores many of the problems that the CHAMP Act 
addressed. Anna and Robby's peers are still the reason we should all 
support this bill, and they are the reason the President must sign it.
  We'll return to this issue soon, Mr. Speaker. We'll finish what we 
began with the CHAMP Act. But for now, for the sake of millions of 
children in this country, I urge all my colleagues to support this rule 
and the underlying legislation.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ennis, Texas, the ranking member on Energy 
and Commerce (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak 
extemporaneously since my prepared remarks are in the Record. I remind 
the body that the Democratic majority took over the House and the 
Senate in January of this year. They set the schedule. They set the 
agenda. They decide what hearings are held. They decide what bills are 
marked up. They decide which issues come to the floor of both bodies. 
Not the Republicans.
  It is insulting to sit here and be told that somehow when the same 
party, of which I am not a member, controls the agenda in both 
legislative bodies of this great Congress that somehow the Republicans 
are responsible for this late effort to reauthorize SCHIP.
  I told the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee the day after the election last November, Mr. Dingell of 
Michigan, that I was looking forward to working with him on SCHIP 
reauthorization, and while I don't know it as a fact, I am fairly 
certain that Mr. McCrery had a similar conversation with the 
distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel of 
New York.
  Now, how much bipartisan cooperation have we had in the House of 
Representatives? The answer is almost none. It is my understanding that 
Mr. Rangel and Mr. McCrery did talk some in their committee, but in the 
Energy and Commerce Committee we held a number of generic hearings. We 
never held a hearing specifically on SCHIP. We never held a legislative 
markup in subcommittee. We never held a legislative hearing or markup 
in full committee. We got a 565-page bill the night before the 
scheduled markup, and it was take it or leave it. Well, we left it. And 
that bill passed the House, but barely.
  What has happened since that bill passed? There have been discussions 
in the Senate between the Republicans and the Democrats apparently, and 
the House Democratic leadership have participated. But the House 
Republicans have not been allowed to participate. So what is the result 
of that? The result of that is a 300-page bill that the House 
Republicans saw at about 6:14 last evening and a Rules Committee in 
which it was voted to not give a Republican substitute, not give a 
Republican amendment, not even give a Republican motion to recommit.
  So we are going to have twice now a major bill in which there is 
bipartisan support for is going to come to the House of Representatives 
with no Republican input, not even a motion to recommit.
  Now, I don't know how many times the Republicans did that to the 
Democrats in the last several Congresses when we were in the majority, 
but I bet I could count them on the fingers of one hand, and I might be 
able to count them on the fingers of one finger.
  Don't you think the American people deserve at least a substitute or 
a motion to recommit? Now, we are going to be given a chance later this 
evening to have 1 hour of debate, 1 hour of debate, and then an up-or-
down vote, and we are going to get enough votes to sustain the 
President's veto, and maybe next week Mr. Dingell and Mr. Rangel and 
Ms. Pelosi will contact Mr. Boehner, Mr. Barton, and Mr. McCrery, and 
we may yet get this bipartisan agreement. We may get it next week, and 
I hope we do. But I don't want the American people to be under any 
illusion. The bill that's coming before the floor tonight is a backroom 
deal that the most that can be said for it is that it does have money 
in it for the children of America, which we support. And there are lots 
of reforms that we probably support, too, if we are ever given the 
chance to have that discussion.
  I would hope we would vote ``no'' on this rule, take it back to the 
Rules

[[Page 25441]]

Committee, at least make a substitute or a motion to recommit in order, 
and put back in the rule in terms of earmarks. There are at least two 
earmarks that we know in the bill that nobody has talked about.
  One of the earmarks is from the great State of Michigan, $1.2 billion 
over 10 years. It's just a gift of $1.2 billion for their FMAP program. 
And if that's not an earmark, I don't know what is. And under the 
Democratic leadership's own rule in this Congress, that should have at 
least been disclosed. And last night at the Rules Committee, they said 
there were no earmarks in the bill. And I believe when Ms. Slaughter, 
the distinguished chairman, said that, she believed it. I don't think 
she knew it was in the bill. But it is. That at least ought to be 
corrected.
  Vote ``no'' on the rule and send it back to the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is an apt reflection of the underlying SCRIP 
legislation. Like the bill, it tramples democracy in a feckless 
commitment to bad politics over good policy. The House Democratic 
leadership wants to embarrass and weaken the President, and that goal 
is more important to them than extending health care to needy children.
  So we're being instructed--not even asked--to swallow a multi-
billion-dollar bill without having a legislative hearing at any level, 
without having a subcommittee markup and without having a conference. 
We're each supposed to analyze and comprehend a 299-page enigma that 
was unveiled last night. There'll be no amendments, of course, and no 
motion to recommit. This is getting to be a bad habit, isn't it?
  Each of us represents several hundred thousand people, and most of 
them come from families that work hard and pay taxes. They do their 
part, and we should, too. But we can't do much more than voting object 
when we are not even able to know what's in the bills we're voting on.
  Most of what we know about this SCHIP bill is what we hear in the 
halls and see in the newspapers. For some, that's enough because the 
harder we listen and the more we look, the more we discover that is 
troubling. What on earth is the $1.2 billion earmark for Michigan all 
about, anyway? And how many more like it are tucked away in this bill?
  We cannot actually know most of what's in this bill, but we can 
suspect much. We can certainly suspect the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program grew from a fraction of the House SCHIP bill to 
become an entire pretend conference report. All we know for sure is 
that we're being asked to pass another major piece of legislation based 
on blind faith and guesswork.
  I wonder why we can't do now what we're surely going to do later--
pass a simple extension of the SCRIP program and then have the honest 
public debate about policy changes that should have occurred over the 
last 10 months. Mr. Deal and I propose to extend the authorization of 
SCRIP for an additional 18 months, and more than a hundred of our 
colleagues have agreed. There are no gimmicks, no budget trickery, no 
politics and no changes.
  But the majority will want their pound of the President's flesh 
first. Everybody gets that, and maybe it won't work so well as they 
hope because, after all, everybody gets it. This rule and this 
legislation aren't about children or health. They are about a cynical 
exercise of raw power for the sake of a fleeting political advantage.
  I wish the Democrats wouldn't do it this way, but I'm under no 
illusion that wishin' or hopin' will change the speaker's mind. I look 
forward to the President's inevitable veto because it will give us a 
chance to have a real discussion and write a transparent bill instead 
of foisting this mystery package on the taxpayers and the needy 
children of America.
  We can work together and do this right, and I believe that 
eventually, we will. The best first step would be to reject this 
pathetic rule and start working on real legislation now instead of 
later.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that this 
program expires in 6 days and that the Republicans in the Senate 
blocked a motion to go to conference. That's why we are here. The other 
reason why we are here is we want to make sure that 10 million children 
in this country get health insurance.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from New York, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee (Mr. 
Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to support some of what Mr. Barton 
has just said in terms of being critical about the manner in which this 
bill, albeit it helps 3\1/2\ million more children, how it got to the 
floor. And I also want to sympathize with him, having been the ranking 
member of Ways and Means when the Republicans were in charge, so I know 
what being excluded means. But I want to assure him that he was not 
excluded by the House leadership, not the House Democratic leadership 
and not the House Republican leadership. The criticism that so many 
people have about this bill is misfounded.
  This is not the House bill. For those that are so sensitive about 
legal immigrants not being covered, you had an opportunity when the 
bill was in the House to vote for the House bill. And I hope for 
political reasons when you get back home, that vote was recorded the 
right way. But the reason it is not in this is because this is not the 
House bill.
  And I want to tell Mr. Barton that I was invited to go into the back 
room, but the back room was on the Senate side and it wasn't controlled 
by the Democratic leadership but by those Republicans who demanded that 
it be their way or the highway.
  So you can debate all you want how you want to help or hurt the 
children, but don't be critical of the Democratic leadership in the 
House. Be critical of this bipartisan agreement on what? The Senate 
bill. And I have been assured by the majority whip of the majority 
leader in the Senate that he wanted to go to conference, and it would 
take 60 votes in order to beat a filibuster even for us to have a 
conference on the bill or perhaps we could have heard from the ranking 
member and others that would be appointed to the conference.
  So the issue today is not how badly really the Republicans in the 
Senate handled this. They're in charge. They hold us hostage. You need 
60 votes. You got a filibuster. So they have now capitulated to this 
bill that's now before us. And what is your decision? It is either 
you're going to help the kids or you're not. Either you're going to 
expand the coverage or you're not. And the President is not going to be 
in your district if you're lucky, but he doesn't have to explain 
anything if he vetoes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, it came up in the point of order about a 
question of an earmark, and it was raised by the Republican side that 
that earmark was in my district. And they questioned something that 
maybe I should have done.
  The fact is that part of the bill is in my district. It's The Med, a 
public hospital that renders charity care to people in Tennessee, 
Mississippi, Arkansas, and the boothill of Missouri; a hospital almost 
out of business because of how much charity care that it renders to the 
folks in those States.
  I have no interest in that hospital but that as a congressman who 
supports that hospital. No personal interest whatsoever. I have great 
political interest in it because it serves my constituents, the people 
of Mississippi, and Arkansas. It is questionable whether that is an 
earmark or not. It was put in with the help of people across the aisle, 
and I appreciate my Republican colleagues from the State of Tennessee 
who helped get this in the bill because they see the need to help folks 
from Mississippi and Arkansas get health care that is provided at The 
Med and is not reimbursed to The Med. They lost $20 million in funding 
last year, the citizens of Shelby County who provided that funding at 
The Med for people in Mississippi and Arkansas, and that funding should 
continue.
  Patients don't stop at State lines and neither should funding. And 
all this provision does is allow States to request Medicaid 
reimbursement for their citizens being treated at The Med in Memphis, 
Tennessee, the ``City of Good Abode.'' I am proud to be a Congressman 
from Tennessee, and I am proud to represent The Med and take umbrage at 
any suggestion that I violated any rules in seeing that I worked with 
my colleagues from Tennessee on

[[Page 25442]]

the Republican and Democrat side to see that this inequity was 
corrected.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague of the 
Rules Committee for allowing me to speak.
  I rise today in support of the legislation to reauthorize the SCHIP 
program. With 6 million American children currently eligible for the 
program and yet unenrolled, it is time we quit playing politics with 
their health care and start covering these children.
  This bill accomplishes both of these goals and is a true bipartisan, 
at least in the Senate, bicameral effort that will result in nearly 4 
million additional children receiving health insurance coverage under 
the SCHIP program. This bill wisely retains the House formula and the 
incentives for States to implement outreach and enrollment tools, which 
offered the best combination for finding and enrolling eligible 
children.
  However, I have to express regret and disappointment that the bill 
did not include the House bill's guarantee that children in families 
earning less than 200 percent of the poverty level will have 12 months 
of continuous eligibility under SCHIP. The enrollment and outreach 
package includes an incentive for States to provide this eligibility 
guarantee. But for a State like mine, we need to ensure that the State 
of Texas does right by our Texas children and doesn't use that 
flexibility inherent in the program to kick these kids off the rolls on 
a budgetary whim. The 175,000 Texas children who were kicked off the 
rolls in 2003 know all too well of the State's willingness to balance 
the State budget on their backs, and I hoped that this bill would take 
away the State's ability to do that in the future.
  But like most pieces of compromise legislation, we have to consider 
the totality of the bill, and the bill should be celebrated for all 
that it does accomplish.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the legislation and 
sending a strong message to the President that we must abandon the 
partisan politics and reauthorize SCHIP for America's children whose 
parents are working but cannot afford or are not offered employer-based 
health insurance.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in opposition to this rule. It is the latest example of 
a long line of broken campaign promises made by this Democratic 
majority to conduct the most open, fair, and inclusive Congress in 
history. However, the Democrat majority has taken this opportunity yet 
again to shut out and alienate nearly half of the American population 
from the democratic process.
  But I not only rise today in opposition to the rule but the 
underlying legislation as well. I do so because this massive expansion 
of an entitlement program is an irresponsible way to spend American 
taxpayers' hard-earned money.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we will be debating on the floor of 
the House today increases this government-run health care program far 
past its original intent to help low-income families purchase health 
care coverage for their children. The reality is this bill does not 
protect the most vulnerable amongst our children and citizens. Rather, 
it diverts these precious resources from those who most need it in 
order to cover adults and already privately insured children.

                              {time}  1645

  In fact, the extra $35 billion the Democrats are asking American 
families to pay for is aimed at a population, Mr. Speaker, where 77 
percent of the children already have private health insurance coverage. 
These children would simply be transferred from private insurance 
coverage to a taxpayer-funded, government-controlled health care 
entitlement program.
  So I wholeheartedly support the concept of the continuation of the 
SCHIP program, because as a physician for nearly 30 years, I acutely 
understand how quality health care is critical for our American 
children. And that's why I am a proud original cosponsor of H.R. 3584, 
the SCHIP Extension Act.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation looks to extend the current SCHIP 
program for 18 months, and it focuses the program and its funds on 
those individuals who really need it: low-income, uninsured American 
children.
  I am also a cosponsor of the Barton-Deal alternative to this 140 
percent massive 5-year Democratic expansion. Barton-Deal increases 
funding by 35 percent, and this is sufficient to cover the poor 
children who have fallen through the cracks; it is estimated to be 
750,000 to 1 million kids. That covers it, Mr. Speaker.
  So I, again, want to say that I am adamantly opposed to this 
legislation, not because I don't support SCHIP, but because this 
legislation irresponsibly spends American tax dollars. And I believe 
Congress can and should do a better job, because I believe the American 
taxpayers deserve better.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today's bill certainly does not do enough 
for America's children; but even too little is too much for President 
Bush, who seems intent on doing for America's children what he did as 
Governor for the children of Texas, condemning more and more of them to 
suffer without health insurance.
  As Governor, Mr. Bush refused to lead for Texas children. Our 
children's health insurance was late, very late. And once we got it, he 
did all he could to see that as few children as possible were covered, 
even though the Federal Government was picking up almost 75 cents of 
every dollar of the bill. Texas has actually refused about $1 billion 
of Federal money to help our children. And by insisting on such neglect 
from the start, Mr. Bush has ensured that Texas has the proud record of 
being number one of all the 50 States in having the highest percentage 
of children with no health insurance.
  Now in alliance with the nicotine peddlers opposing this bill, once 
again President Bush's greatest concern is that too many children will 
get insurance coverage. He actually demands that some children must 
wait an entire year with no insurance at all before they are eligible 
for CHIP coverage.
  Why doesn't the child of a waitress, the child of a construction 
worker, the child of one of the many workers at a small business that 
can't afford to provide health insurance to their employees, why 
doesn't that child deserve a healthy start in life? Painful earaches, a 
strep throat, a cavity, they deserve swift treatment, not waiting. As 
President Bush so disdainfully said last month, just take them to the 
emergency room. It's that kind of indifference, combined with his 
record in Texas, that demonstrates indifference to the needs of our 
children and their health insurance as nothing new for our President. 
But if he prevails today, the number of children who will suffer 
without adequate health insurance will be even bigger than Texas.
  He calls this approach compassionate conservatism. I think most 
Americans would just call it ``cheatin' children.''
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the Children's Health Insurance Program is 
pro-family and pro-work. It is pro-family because few things are more 
important to a family than the health of their children. It's pro-work 
because it says to those on welfare, if you will get a job and go to 
work, you won't lose your health care coverage for your children.
  This bill is about helping those who are working hard to help 
themselves.

[[Page 25443]]

By passing this bill, we can ensure that 4 million American children 
without health insurance will receive better health care.
  All too often in years past, Congress has fought hard for powerful 
special interests for change. Today, we can stand up for the interest 
of America's children, and we should do it for their sake and for the 
future of our country.
  As a father of two young sons, I hope every Member will ask him or 
herself just one question, how would I vote if this bill meant the 
difference between my own children having health care coverage or not? 
The lives of 4 million children will be affected by how we answer that 
question today, right now.
  Vote ``yes'' to children's health care. It's the right thing to do.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a father and a patriot (Mr. 
Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank my dear friend for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this rule. I find it somewhat ironic that 
apparently Members have 5 days to insert something into the Record, yet 
we have less than 24 hours to actually read a 300-page bill.
  Mr. Speaker, maybe some people are confused about the debate. Those 
of us who have plowed through this bill are not. Make no mistake about 
it, this is a government-run, socialized health care wolf masquerading 
in the sheepskin of children's health care.
  This is only the first battle in this Congress over who will control 
health care in America. Will it be parents, families and doctors? Or 
will be it Washington bureaucrats? That's what this debate is all 
about.
  As one of my colleagues, the gentlelady from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin), 
said, and I'll paraphrase, the Democrats now want to turn over your 
health care, your family's health care to the same Federal Government 
that can't get you a passport, that can't keep illegal immigrants from 
crossing our border, and could not competently render aid after 
Hurricane Katrina. And that's who they want to give your family's 
health care to.
  Now, again, the Democrats claim this is all about insuring low-income 
children. That debate is false because they know, Mr. Speaker, Medicaid 
takes care of the children at the poverty level in the current SCHIP 
program, takes care of the working poor. And today, the Democrats know 
they could get overwhelmingly bipartisan support if they would 
reauthorize that, but that's not what they're bringing to the floor. 
They're bringing us a program that will insure adults, insure families 
making up to $62,000 a year and in some cases $82,000 a year. And they 
do this by taxing working poor, by a massive tobacco tax that primarily 
falls upon families with less than $30,000 in income. That's right, Mr. 
Speaker, they're going to tax the working poor to give subsidies to 
those making up to $82,000 a year.
  In order to finance this program, the Heritage Foundation has 
concluded they're going to need 22 million new smokers over the next 10 
years just to fund this program.
  The Congressional Budget Office said that in effect they will also in 
this bill take family-chosen health care plans away from 2.1 million 
families and stick them with a government-run plan instead. They're 
taking children off of family-chosen health insurance and putting them 
in government-run plans.
  Every American child deserves access to quality, affordable, 
accessible health care. They deserve the kind of health care that we in 
Congress and our children enjoy, but that's not what they're receiving 
here. Instead, in a matter of years, when mothers in America have sick 
children, they will wait weeks and months to see a marginally competent 
doctor chosen by a Washington bureaucrat that may or may not do 
anything to help their children. That's not the way it ought to be in 
America. We can do better.
  Defeat this rule. Defeat this bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Massachusetts and the chairman of the full Committee on Ways and 
Means and the chairman of Energy and Commerce. This is correctly stated 
by the chairman of the Ways and Means: this is not the House bill.
  I love our children. I have great concerns about this legislation, 
but I have more concerns about my Republican friends who are opposing 
this legislation, and I am outraged about the President's threat of a 
veto. Even this bill does not cover the 6 million children that we need 
to cover, it only covers 2.4 million. My friends, this is not Medicaid; 
this is SCHIP. This is for working men and women whose children don't 
have health insurance; 2.8 million are insured. We wanted 5 million, 6 
million; but, no, we only have 2.8 million, 3.2 million left out.
  And then, of course, there was the possibility of insuring some 
adults, the most vulnerable sick adults, under SCHIP with remaining 
monies. This bill does not do that. And then, of course, we look at 
individuals who are of legal immigrant status and we tell them they 
cannot be covered--these immigrants are here legally.
  We also are asking people to come to the emergency room with a sick 
child with citizenship documentation. And let me say, this is for all 
of us. And so you have a sick child and you're looking for citizenship 
documentation. On the other hand, I am grateful that we have parity 
with dental and mental care for SCHIP children. And pregnant women are 
covered. And then we have the ability to enroll the children quickly, 
because one of the problems of SCHIP is that children are not enrolled. 
But the real crisis is no answer coming from the White House children's 
health care. The only thing coming from the White House is a veto pen.
  So not only will 6 million children be left out in the cold, but the 
small number, 2.8 million, that was squeaking through the door will be 
thrown under the bus because we won't be able to cover them because a 
veto pen is waiting for us. We can do better. America is better than 
this.
  I love our children. We need to do this in the right way. We 
certainly don't need a veto pen by the President of the United States. 
We should love our children and respond to their health needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment in the version of 
the State Children's Health Insurance Program Act of 2007 which has 
been brought before this body today. This bill, which has been largely 
driven by the Republicans in the Senate, falls far short of the mark to 
mend the broken pieces of our healthcare system and provide healthcare 
coverage for some of our most vulnerable populations in this country. 
Instead of covering an additional 6 million uninsured children, this 
bill increases coverage for 3 million, leaving 3 million children 
uninsured. This bill also fails to provide vision coverage and provides 
very little mental coverage for our children. Pregnant women may also 
suffer under this bill because this bill, unlike the previous House 
version, does not guarantee additional coverage for pregnant women. 
This bill also denies coverage to parents, college-aged adults, and 
legal immigrants who currently have coverage in some states.
  This is extremely important because reauthorization of SCHIP is 
crucial to closing the racial and ethnic health disparities in this 
country. Narrowing health care coverage of our children, as this newly 
agreed upon version does, clearly falls far short of the goal that we 
had hoped for in our efforts to decrease health disparities. It is 
crucial that this Congress continue to bring awareness to the many 
health concerns facing minority communities and to acknowledge that we 
need to find solutions to address these concerns. My colleagues in the 
Congressional Black Caucus and I understand the very difficult 
challenges facing us in the form of huge health disparities among our 
community and other minority communities. We will continue to seek 
solutions to those challenges.
  Reauthorization of the SCHIP bill is crucial to realizing those 
solutions. However, we must not compromise away the health of millions 
of children who will under this new SCHIP version go without healthcare 
coverage. It is imperative for us to improve the prospects for living 
long and healthy lives and fostering an ethic of wellness in African-
American and other minority communities.

[[Page 25444]]

  Looking at the statistics, we know that the lack of healthcare 
contributes greatly to the racial and ethnic health disparities in this 
country, so we must provide our children with the health insurance 
coverage to remain healthy. SCHIP, established in 1997 to serve as the 
healthcare safety net for low-income uninsured children, has decreased 
the number of uninsured low-income children in the United States by 
more than one-third. The reduction in the number of uninsured children 
is even more striking for minority children.
  In 2006, SCHIP provided insurance to 6.7 million children. Of these, 
6.2 million were in families whose income was less than $33,200 a year 
for a family of three. SCHIP works in conjunction with the Medicaid 
safety net that serves the lowest income children and ones with 
disabilities. Together, these programs provide necessary preventative, 
primary and acute healthcare services to more than 30 million children. 
Eighty-six percent of these children are in working families that are 
unable to obtain or afford private health insurance. Meanwhile, 
healthcare through SCHIP is cost effective: it costs a mere $3.34 a day 
or $100 a month to cover a child under SCHIP, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office. There are significant benefits of the 
State Children's Health Insurance Program when looking at specific 
populations served by this program.
  Minority Children: SCHIP has had a dramatic effect in reducing the 
number of uninsured minority children and providing them access to 
care; Between 1996 and 2005, the percentage of low-income African 
American and Hispanic children without insurance decreased 
substantially; In 1998, roughly 30 percent of Latino children, 20 
percent of African American children, and 18 percent of Asian American 
and Pacific Islander children were uninsured. After enactment, those 
numbers had dropped by 2004 to about 12 percent, and 8 percent, 
respectively; Half of all African American and Hispanic children are 
already covered by SCHIP or Medicaid; More than 80 percent of uninsured 
African American children and 70 percent of uninsured Hispanic children 
are eligible but not enrolled in Medicaid and SCHIP, so reauthorizing 
and increasing support for SCHIP will be crucial to insuring this 
population.
  Prior to enrolling in SCHIP, African American and Hispanic children 
were much less likely than non-Hispanic White children to have a usual 
source of care. After they enrolled in SCHIP, these racial and ethnic 
disparities largely disappeared. In addition, SCHIP eliminated racial 
and ethnic disparities in unmet medical needs for African American and 
Hispanic children, putting them on par with White children. SCHIP is 
also important to children living in urban areas of the country. In 
urban areas: One in four children has health care coverage through 
SCHIP. More than half of all children whose family income is $32,180 
received health care coverage through SCHIP.
  Children in Urban Areas: SCHIP is also important to children living 
in urban areas of the country. In urban areas: One in four children has 
health care coverage through SCHIP. More than half of all children 
whose family income is $32,180 received healthcare coverage through 
SCHIP.
  Children in Rural Communities: SCHIP is significantly important to 
children living in our country's rural areas. In rural areas: One in 
three children has health care coverage through SCHIP or more than half 
of all children whose family income is under $32,180 received 
healthcare coverage through Medicaid or SCHIP. Seventeen percent of 
children continue to be of the 50 counties with the highest rates of 
uninsured children, 44 are rural counties, with many located in the 
most remote and isolated parts of the country. Because the goal is to 
reduce the number of uninsured children, reauthorizing and increasing 
support for SCHIP will be crucial to helping the uninsured in these 
counties and reducing the 17 percent of uninsured.
  Mr. Speaker, I would much rather we extend the deadline for 
reauthorization of SCHIP, while we diligently and reasonably consider 
the unsettled issues in this debate so that millions of the most 
vulnerable population, including many African American and other 
minority children can receive the health care coverage they need to 
remain healthy and develop into productive citizens of this great 
country. It is not as important to reauthorize an inferior bill under 
pressure of fast-approaching deadlines, as it is to ensure that we 
provide health care to those children who remain vulnerable to health 
disparities. I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring health care 
coverage for millions of children and reducing health disparities among 
the most vulnerable populations.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  I urge my colleagues to invest in our children's health by approving 
this bipartisan legislation.
  It amazes me that the President of the United States can support 
testing our children in school repeatedly under No Child Left Behind, 
but doesn't think we should test them for hepatitis, let alone 
vaccinate them against the disease.
  The President claims that everybody already has access to health care 
through the emergency room. This is not only callous; it's a terrible 
way to get health care and it is factually wrong. Every family does not 
have access.
  Now, there are no surprises here in this legislation. No matter how 
often the President or some of his apologists here on the Republican 
side of the aisle say it, this is not a giveaway to the middle class; 
it's not socialized medicine. That's why 86 percent of our Governors, 
including 16 Republican Governors, support this legislation and are 
looking, actually, to use it to increase the number of vulnerable 
families who receive health care.
  How can some claim that ours is the best health care system in the 
world when it is inaccessible to 10 million of our most vulnerable 
citizens, our children of working class families, none of whom can 
afford their own health care?
  I urge my colleagues to take a stand, join this bipartisan consensus, 
vote to extend the program, and resist the President's veto.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this 
rule to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program. It is 
critical that we pass this legislation, and with the funding for SCHIP 
program scheduled to expire in 5 days from now, it is critical that we 
pass it today.
  SCHIP began in 1997 and has been a true success story. While the 
number of uninsured adults has steadily climbed over the past 10 years, 
currently 47 million Americans without health insurance, the number of 
uninsured children in our Nation has declined by nearly a third.
  This program has made health insurance a reality for over 12,000 
children in my home State of Rhode Island this year, the majority of 
them in families where one or more adults is part of the workforce. It 
is a critical component of health care delivery in Rhode Island, as it 
is across the country.
  By reauthorizing the SCHIP program, we renew our national commitment 
to achieving the goal of insuring all children whose parents cannot 
afford private health insurance coverage.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule which will allow 
us to preserve and strengthen this tremendously successful program. It 
is the compassionate thing to do, it's the right thing to do, and I 
urge my colleagues to support SCHIP reauthorization.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the 
previous question so that I may amend the rule to allow for 
consideration of H. Res. 479, a resolution that I call the ``Earmark 
Accountability Rule.'' It seems like we need a lot more accountability. 
We had to learn today that through a loophole that evidently we don't 
have to have all earmarks to be accounted for in the bills that come to 
this floor of the House of Representatives despite what we were told 
just a few months ago.
  Last night in the ``Graveyard of Good Ideas,'' which is the Rules 
Committee, I made a motion that would have the Democrats enforce their 
own earmark proposal by allowing points of order regarding earmarks to 
be raised on this legislation. As expected, the vote failed along party 
lines with every Democrat member present voting to waive their own 
earmark rules for this bill. I am greatly disappointed in that outcome. 
So today I am giving the entire House, not just the nine Democrat 
members of the Rules Committee, whose word we

[[Page 25445]]

are expected to take that this legislation contains no earmarks, an 
opportunity to correct that mistake.
  This rules change would simply allow the House to debate openly and 
honestly about the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all 
bills, not just appropriations bills. If we defeat the previous 
question, we can address that problem today and restore this Congress' 
nonexistent credibility when it comes to the enforcement of its own 
rules.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the text of this amendment and 
extraneous material appear in the Record just before the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today, once again, we have a rule that is 
on the floor of the House of Representatives that is neither open nor I 
think passes the standard of accountability to the American people nor 
fairness that they spoke about. Last night, the Rules Committee and 
minority received this bill just 1 hour and 15 minutes before the Rules 
Committee was to meet. It involved no feedback from Republican Members, 
especially those who have jurisdiction over this from the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  I am disappointed. I am disappointed that, once again, we have to 
come to the floor of the House of Representatives after asking a 
straightforward question last night to the chairman of the Rules 
Committee, ``Are there any earmarks in this legislation? We think we 
found three,'' only to come to the floor today and find out, oops, no, 
we got a loophole, had to find a loophole.
  This is crass. It is really politics over policy. I know many people 
want the United States House of Representatives to be higher in the 
polls. We are at 11 percent right now. People scratch their head and 
wonder why. Well, with the way that this House is running, not living 
up to their word, even the word in committee among colleagues who have 
been with each other for 9 years that I have been on the Rules 
Committee where a person looked right at me and said, ``There is 
nothing in that bill,'' I think we can do better.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that this is a 
proud day for the House of Representatives. If we can pass the bill and 
send it to the President, that will guarantee 10 million children who 
don't have health insurance currently that they will get health 
insurance. That is something we can be proud of. That is an 
accomplishment. That is results.
  We have heard a lot of excuses from the other side. A lot of my 
friends say, ``I love SCHIP, but I just don't want to vote for it. I 
love all of our children in this country. I believe everybody should 
have insurance, but I am not willing to vote to make sure that they 
have insurance.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't cut it. The American people are sick 
of the stalling tactics. They are sick of the excuses. They are sick of 
the lack of results that they have seen in the area of making sure that 
everybody in this country gets health insurance. And that is one of the 
reasons why, I should tell the gentleman from Texas, why his party lost 
in the last election, because it was perceived by the American people 
that his party wasn't responding to the real challenges and the real 
needs of the American people, that they were indifferent to the plight 
of uninsured children across this country.
  It is time to do the right thing, Mr. Speaker. As I said in the very 
beginning of this debate, the choice really is very simple, will you 
vote to provide health insurance to millions of children, or will you 
vote to take health insurance away from children who currently have it? 
This is the choice. Voting ``no'' or voting for all the procedural 
motions that the gentleman from Texas has put forward will basically 
result in children currently who have insurance losing that insurance, 
because the President's plan doesn't provide nearly enough money to 
cover those who are already enrolled in the program. But we need to do 
better.
  The bottom line is that we are the richest country on the face of the 
Earth. It is unconscionable that every person in this country does not 
have health care. It is even more outrageous that our children don't 
have health insurance. It is, quite frankly, outrageous that the 
President of the United States is holding a veto threat over this bill, 
a bill to guarantee that more of our children have health insurance. Of 
all the things he could possibly veto, this is where he draws the line 
in the sand when it comes to making sure that our kids get the health 
care they deserve? It takes my breath away when I think that this is 
the issue that he chooses to have a fight over, health insurance for 
our children. I am grateful that there are Republicans who are going to 
join with us on this vote.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and 
on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

       Amendment to H. Res. 675 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

  At the end of the resolution, add the following:

       That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
     House shall, without intervention of any point of order, 
     consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives to provide for enforcement of 
     clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as read. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or 
     demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''

[[Page 25446]]

       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on 
adoption of House Resolution 675, if ordered, and suspending the rules 
and agreeing to House Resolution 95.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 197, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 903]

                               YEAS--218

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--197

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt
     Carson
     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Delahunt
     Herger
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Poe
     Putnam
     Ross
     Snyder

                              {time}  1732

  Messrs. DAVIS of Kentucky, LEWIS of California, and STEARNS changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. GENE GREEN of Texas, HIGGINS, and MOORE of Kansas changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schiff). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215, 
noes 199, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 904]

                               AYES--215

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)

[[Page 25447]]


     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--199

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Kaptur
     Watson
       

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt
     Carson
     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Delahunt
     Herger
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Poe
     Putnam
     Ross
     Snyder

                              {time}  1741

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________