[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27567-27588]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007--VETO 
            MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The unfinished business is 
the further consideration of the veto message of the President on the 
bill (H.R. 976) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend 
and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other 
purposes.

[[Page 27568]]

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding?
  (For veto message, see proceedings of the House of October 3, 2007, 
at page 26315.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton).
  I will also yield 15 minutes of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and ask unanimous consent that he 
be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on the matter under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Today we face an awesome responsibility to do what is right for 
America's children. The debate here is about one thing only: health 
care for kids. Some have tried to change the subject, obfuscating this 
debate with misconceptions, half-truths, and outright lies. Whether 
this is ignorance or malfeasance, allow me to help them understand the 
legislation.
  First, the bill terminates the coverage of adults under the CHIP 
program. I repeat, terminates.
  Second, the bill prohibits the use of Federal funds for illegal 
aliens. Section 605 plainly states, ``No Federal Funding for Illegal 
Aliens.''
  Third, the bill is fully paid for and will not increase the national 
debt. In fact, CBO estimates this bill, if enacted, will return money 
to the Treasury.
  The legislation before us would provide health care and health 
insurance coverage for 10 million needy American children. It provides 
funding for States to enroll millions of low-income children who are 
already eligible for benefits yet remain uninsured. Under current law, 
these boys and girls are entitled to their benefits. Continuing this 
situation of not providing coverage is a travesty.
  I am not alone in this view. Former Surgeons General for Presidents 
Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and for the current President recently 
wrote in support of this legislation the following: ``We implore you to 
not put off the health needs of our Nation's children. Please act 
today.''
  This legislation has the strong backing of the entire medical 
community, children advocates, educators, school administrators and 
school boards, as well as insurance companies across the country, and 
43 of the Nation's Governors want SCHIP enacted because they know 
children cannot learn if they are not well.

                              {time}  1100

  They also know something else. These are the most vulnerable people 
in our society. We will be judged how we care for them; but beyond 
that, this is an investment in the future of the country. More than 300 
organizations and a long list of distinguished Americans support this 
bill.
  I urge my colleagues to join in overriding the veto.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, of the 
30 minutes that I control, I yield 15 minutes of that to the ranking 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McCrery of Louisiana, to 
control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee, Mr. Deal of Georgia.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  All of us would like to see an extension of the SCHIP program, and I 
think there are some very basic principles on which all of us should 
agree, principles that should be embodied in a bipartisan piece of 
legislation. I would suggest there are five.
  First of all, we should put the poorest children at the front of the 
line. That means we should require States actually to enroll 90 percent 
of their SCHIP and Medicaid-eligible children under 200 percent of the 
poverty line before they start enrolling children at higher income 
levels.
  Two, no families with incomes above 250 percent of the Federal 
poverty level should be eligible for Federal SCHIP funds. States that 
want to go above that should feel free to do so with their own funds; 
but hardworking, tax-paying families in the Midwest and the Southeast 
shouldn't be forced to subsidize the health care for children and 
families in the richer States who are making over $82,000 per year.
  Third, no Federal SCHIP funds for adults other than pregnant women 
beginning in 2009. We should give the States a year to transition their 
low-income adults to Medicaid, which is where they belong, and stop 
taking away limited resources from needy children and giving them to 
childless adults.
  Fourth, keep the existing Federal requirement that States actually 
document the citizenship and identity of all of the applicants for 
Medicaid and clearly state in the bill that illegal immigrants are 
prohibited from receiving Medicaid or SCHIP benefits. Being able to 
write down a Social Security number doesn't actually prove you're a 
United States citizen. Federal benefits should not go to illegal 
immigrants.
  Fifth, no millionaires in SCHIP. We should simply put a $1 million 
net asset cap on eligibility for Federal SCHIP funds. If you have over 
$1 million in net assets, you should be able to afford to pay for your 
children's health insurance.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. After my 2 
minutes, I ask unanimous consent to turn the remaining time to Chairman 
Stark to be able to yield to other people as he sees fit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, let me stand in a sense of bipartisanship, 
especially to my Republican friends, and remind you that come the next 
election, President Bush is going to be there at his ranch in Texas, 
and he will not be with you at the polls.
  I say that because by that time the truth will have caught up with 
the message that the President is giving and most of you are using to 
sustain the President's veto.
  Let me get to the one that I'm most familiar with, this $83,000 
ability of people to enjoy SCHIP. No one is more familiar with this 
than I am. It was the great State of New York that exercised its 
request for a waiver to ask the President of the United States whether 
or not a family of four would be allowed to buy in, even though they 
were making $83,000. And guess what, under existing law, not new law, 
the President of the United States says, hell, no, you can't do it.
  So we've got to emphasize over and over again, you could ask for it 
for $1 million because it's not an entitlement, it's a block grant, and 
the Governors can ask for anything they want over 200 percent over 
poverty, and the President, Republican or Democrat or whoever she might 
be, will be able to say, no, you're not going to be able to do it. So 
knock that out.
  And for all of the people that are upset with immigrants, legal or 
illegal, we're just going to put in big letters so that by the time 
November gets here that in the bill that the President has vetoed it 
says no illegal alien can receive the benefits of the bill.

[[Page 27569]]

  And since you're so against adults receiving benefits, the bill is 
eliminating adults.
  So if you can't be with us today, try to think of yourself in 
November, and maybe we can work out something.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may 
consume.
  Ten years ago, Republicans and Democrats came together to create an 
SCHIP program with a stable funding source. It was a truly paid-for 
program. Throughout the process this year, we've been talking about the 
fact that this SCHIP reauthorization that's before the House today is 
not paid for. It's paid for only if you accept the budget gimmick that 
is used to make it appear on paper over the 10-year budget window that 
the program is paid for.
  But I don't think any of us realized just how steep that cliff in the 
bill is until today, because last night my staff received from the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office new numbers that show very 
clearly that under the bill that's before us today, total enrollment in 
SCHIP is expected to drop by 6.5 million children in the second five 
years of the program. Does anybody believe that is going to happen? Of 
course not. But the way the bill is designed, that's what would happen. 
We know that's not going to be reality.
  Under this bill, the way it's designed, Democrats would have people 
believe that SCHIP enrollment, kids enrolled in this program, will drop 
to only 1.3 million by 2017.
  Under a realistic expansion of the program, which the President has 
proposed and we support, there would be 2.9 million kids enrolled in 
the program in 2017. So under this bill that's before us today, you'd 
have 1.6 million fewer kids enrolled in SCHIP than you would under the 
President's budget. That's not realistic. We know that's not going to 
happen.
  So how does that problem get fixed after 5 years? Massive tax 
increases. That's how it gets fixed. This House will be back here 
having to finance the real costs of the then-existent SCHIP program 
over the next 5 years, which CBO estimates will require about another 
$40 billion in revenues over and above the new $35 billion that this 
bill would impose on the American taxpayers.
  So there is a better way. It's the way we created for this program in 
the first place, a bipartisan, fiscally responsible, truly fiscally 
responsible program to help kids in need.
  I hope that the majority will be willing to join with us, all of us, 
to create that bipartisan program again when this veto is sustained.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the chairman of the 
subcommittee, a great expert on the business of health.
  Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I just keep hearing inaccurate information on the other side of the 
aisle in an effort to try to sustain this veto, and it's simply not 
right.
  First of all, this bill is totally paid for with a tobacco tax 
increase. Now, you may not like that if you don't like your tobacco 
taxed, but that's how it's paid for and it's a good way to pay for it.
  Secondly, this idea that the President's alternative will not take 
kids off the rolls, that is simply not true. With the President's 
alternative, 800,000 children that are now covered by SCHIP will not 
have SCHIP anymore.
  The President's veto of this bill was a slap in the face not only to 
this Congress but to the millions of children who, without this bill, 
will continue to be uninsured or, worse, lose the insurance they 
currently have.
  And this is the truth about CHIP. Just listen up. The bipartisan CHIP 
proposal is supported by 72 percent of the American people, two-thirds 
of the Senate, the majority of the House, 43 State Governors, and more 
than 300 organizations nationwide.
  The President is deluding himself if he doesn't think this veto is 
going to hurt millions of children; and unless we override, there are 
just going to be a lot of kids who simply cannot go to the doctor and 
would have to go to the emergency room.
  What we sent to the President was a reasonable, bipartisan bill that 
would cover 4 million previously uninsured low-income children, most of 
whom are in working families, a total of 10 million. The vast majority 
of these kids are the very lowest income children who have no other 
options for care.
  The President claims this bill covers rich kids, but it's not true. 
Senator Hatch who helped write this bill said 92 percent of the kids 
will be under 200 percent of the poverty level.
  The President has also said that this bill opens the door to 
government-sponsored health care because it encourages families to drop 
their coverage. Simply not true. CBO said that that is not the case.
  The best way to avoid crowd-out is to basically pass this bill. The 
problem is we continue to get inaccurate information from the other 
side of the aisle.
  I would urge my Republican colleagues today to vote with their 
conscience, instead of with this misguided loyalty to the President who 
is out of touch with America's families.
  Vote to override.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the ranking member for yielding to me and 
appreciate the privilege to address this issue again here on the House 
floor.
  I think we miss the point sometimes on what this is about. This isn't 
about sometimes the nuances of all of this. This is about where we take 
this Nation, and I'm seeing this debate in Iowa and across this 
country.
  And what this is about, SCHIP stands for Socialized, Clinton-style 
Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents. That's what happens, and it 
is illegals that are being funded by this because all they have to do 
is write down a Social Security number.
  The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, has given us a number, $6.5 
billion in additional costs that flow over to people that are not 
citizens because we've lowered the standards. Whatever gets said, 
that's the language that's in there, and the cost is there, $6.5 
billion.
  So this is SCHIP, Socialized Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals 
and their Parents. This is the cornerstone of socialized medicine. It's 
put in place. That's what this debate is about: Make people dependent 
so they don't have individual responsibility and you can have more 
people dependent upon your votes on the floor of this Congress and less 
vitality in America.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds for purposes of 
responding to the comments just made.
  I want my colleagues to take a careful look at the remarks just made 
and the poster just presented. Every one of those statements is false. 
There is no treatment in this for illegals. There is no treatment in 
this for their parents. This is not socialized medicine.
  It is supported by the health care industry. It is also supported by 
the insurance industry. It has no relationship to and it doesn't even 
look like the Hillarycare thing about which the gentleman complains.
  I would note something else. This is a proposal which is a block 
grant to the States. It is not an entitlement.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  First of all, I'm just amazed that the Republicans are worried that 
we can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure 
don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. 
Where are you going to get that money? You are going to tell us lies 
like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war?
  You don't have money to fund the war or children, but you're going to 
spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow 
old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the 
President's amusement.
  This bill would provide health care for 10 million children; and 
unlike the President's own kids, these children can't see a doctor or 
receive necessary care. Six million are insured through

[[Page 27570]]

the Children's Health Insurance Program, and they'll do better in 
school and in life.

                              {time}  1115

  In California, the President's veto will cause the legislature to 
draw up emergency regulations to cut some 800,000 children off the 
rolls in California and create a waiting list. I hope my California 
Republican colleagues will understand that if they don't vote to 
override this veto, they are destroying health care for many of our 
children in California.
  In his previous job as an actor, our Governor used to play make-
believe and blow things up. Well, the Republicans in Congress are 
playing make-believe today with children's lives. They claim they can't 
afford health care. They say the bill will socialize medicine. Tell 
that to Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, and Ted Stevens, those socialists 
on the other side of the Capitol. The truth is, the CHIP program allows 
States to cover children primarily through private health care plans.
  But President Bush's statements about children's health shouldn't be 
taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth 
is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United 
States, and in Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to override his veto. America's children 
need and deserve health care despite the President's desire to deny it 
to them.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to engage in 
personalities toward the President.
  Mr. McCRERY. I thank the Speaker for that admonition.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, that gentle reminder is not 
enough. It is despicable to have a Member of this Congress accuse this 
President, any President, of willfully blowing the heads, quote, 
blowing the heads off our young men and women over in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Having a brother who is an Army medic and served in Iraq, 
having spent this weekend with a family who lost their son in Iraq, it 
is beneath contempt, beneath contempt, to have a Member of Congress 
stand here and accuse the President of, in effect, assassinating our 
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is dead wrong. And it is beneath 
contempt as well that we will sit here silently and allow such a remark 
to be tolerated, accepted if not embraced. And I will guarantee you, no 
Member on this side will stand up here and disavow those remarks, 
unfortunately, today.
  It is bad enough that we are playing politics with the war. Now we 
are playing politics with our kids. The claim that the Republicans 
don't support this program is equally untrue. We created it. This is a 
great program. It keeps kids healthy. It helps their families avoid 
serious illness, keeps them out of our emergency rooms. It is a great 
program.
  When we created it, we did it the right way. We sat down with the 
President, President Clinton, and we worked out a good plan for kids. 
And then, more importantly, we believed in it enough to pay for it. We 
paid for the whole 10 years. This plan does not. It is only half paid 
for. It is only half paid for. It is just like these predatory loans; 
the first years are affordable, and then it balloons beyond what we can 
pay for it. If we believe in it, let's pay for it now. It allows abuses 
to continue. It doesn't cover the poor kids first.
  My question is, why don't we sit down, why don't we quit playing 
political games with our kids, sit down with Republicans and Democrats 
with the White House and find a solution that is right for our 
children.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) 1 minute.
  Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I have long stated that caring for our 
children is always the right thing to do. Every parent in my State of 
Utah and in this country knows that access to health care and 
preventive medicine for our kids is the right thing to do.
  It has been 10 years ago that we passed this program. It has helped 
insure more than 6 million children, and that is a good thing. And we 
have made that type of progress even as health care costs have gone up 
and the number of people struggling to get and to pay for health 
insurance has increased. We made that progress through the Children's 
Health Insurance Program because it is a model that works. The States 
do their part, the Federal Government does its part, private insurance 
does its part, and the families through copays and premiums do their 
part as well.
  At a time when it is often tough to make progress on important 
issues, why would we want to turn our backs on our kids and stop 
progress in its tracks?
  As Members of Congress, none of us have to worry about this. We all 
have insurance for our kids. We don't need to worry about being one 
huge medical bill away from facing bankruptcy. Let's think about the 
folks who aren't in the same situation that we all have as Members of 
Congress. The best investment we can make is in our kids. I urge 
Congress to override the President's veto.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  There has been a lot of rhetoric today and a lot of talk about 
polling and how Americans everywhere support this, Governors support 
this, people at the local level support it.
  We have in this country something called representative government. 
We are sent here and we are given access to figures and numbers that 
perhaps others don't have. What figures and numbers I am talking about 
tell us that we cannot sustain the trend that we are on, particularly 
ramping up a program like this and spending more than we have in the 
past. We simply can't sustain it, particularly when gimmicks are used 
in the outyears to pay for it. We know that. Perhaps those who are 
responding to the polls do not.
  George Washington once said: If to please the people we do what we 
ourselves disapprove, how will we afterwards defend our work?
  That is what we are here for, to do what we know is right. When I am 
told you have got to do what your conscience says, my conscience says 
that we can't afford this. If we have to use gimmicks in the outyears 
to pay for it, we simply can't afford to expand this program.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize for 1 minute a 
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlelady 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) who, unlike the Republicans, has had 
some experience with the truth and knows that occasionally it hurts.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. The President has rejected legislation to strengthen 
and expand CHIP for 10 million children of hardworking American 
families. The President's veto makes it clear that he has chosen to 
ignore the financial struggles of working families in this country who 
are unable to afford health care for their children. His veto makes 
clear that health care for America's children simply is not a priority 
for him; and the Republicans in this Chamber who support his veto today 
illustrate that they, like the President, does not understand or have 
chosen to ignore how well CHIP has worked and how positively it has 
impacted the lives of millions of American families.
  The Nation's Governors, health care providers, children's advocates, 
insurance executives, labor unions, religious leaders, parents and 
grandparents all support CHIP's affordable coverage for millions of 
American children. They know the President's veto is shortsighted, it 
is callous, and it is wrong.
  Today is the day of decision to stand with the President or to stand 
with America's children. Ten million American children and their 
families are waiting.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I recognize for 1\1/2\ minutes the 
distinguished gentleman from California

[[Page 27571]]

(Mr. Herger), the ranking member on the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways 
and Means Committee.
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, all of us support SCHIP and we all want to 
reauthorize it, but we need to put low-income kids first.
  This bill would expand the program to families making more than 
$60,000 a year. That is not low income. It is a majority of the 
households in America. There is a better way. Reauthorize SCHIP and 
keep it focused on truly needy children, and then tackle rising health 
care costs that are squeezing middle-class families.
  Tax credits could help 10\1/2\ million kids from middle-income 
families gain or keep their health care coverage. Millions more would 
benefit if families could purchase less expensive health plans from 
across State lines. Let's defeat this motion and get to work on making 
health care more affordable for all Americans.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to show 
the bipartisanship of this bill which is supported by one of every four 
of our Republican colleagues, including our dear friends Mr. Grassley 
and Mr. Hatch in the Senate. At this time, I yield to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) 1 minute.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Ten years ago, the Children's Health 
Insurance Program passed with a Republican Congress and a Democratic 
President. Now we are trying to reauthorize it with a Democratic 
Congress and a Republican President. We should be able to do this, and 
we should be able to do it in a bipartisan way.
  The Children's Health Insurance Program has reduced the number of 
uninsured children in this country and has given them access to primary 
care. They live healthier lives because of it. This is not a great 
bill, but it is a good bill; and I have supported this bill, and I 
encourage my colleagues to support it again today.
  In particular, it phases out the participation of adults in this 
program. This program is for kids, for low-income kids, not for adults. 
And successive administrations have been approving the admission of 
adults to the program, and that was not its intent.
  New Mexico in particular will benefit from this program because it 
allows lower income kids to be participants in the program. Because of 
an anomaly of the original law, New Mexico's lowest income kids are not 
eligible for this program. I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor 
of the bill today.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a 
distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mrs. 
Blackburn of Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, we do all know what this debate is 
about, but I think there is still confusion about the context of this 
bill and the content of this bill. We have heard our colleagues across 
the aisle saying that it has to do with supporting health care for 
disadvantaged children. But, unfortunately, that is not exactly what 
this bill does.
  We are all for health care for children of the working poor, but some 
of the things that this bill is about: It would move a very successful 
block grant program to an entitlement. It would provide free taxpayer-
funded health care to illegal immigrants. It would add more adults than 
what our own IRS calls high-income families to the government health 
care rolls. It would remove people from private insurance and put them 
over on the government rolls. It would, in many cases, replace the 
doctor-patient relationship with the bureaucrat making the decision.
  It doesn't live up to its name. It doesn't live up to what it is 
supposed to do. How do you pay for it? With budget gimmicks. Look at 
what happens in 2012. Let's show respect for the issue. Take it back. 
Sustain the President's veto.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hall) 1 minute.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Speaker, in a move that defies logic, 
President Bush made the mistake of vetoing the Children's Health 
Insurance Program, or CHIP, contradicting an explicit pledge he made 
during the 2004 campaign to ``lead an aggressive effort to make sure 
uninsured children receive health coverage, guaranteeing them a healthy 
start in life.'' Instead of living up to that promise, he is denying 
millions of children access to high quality, affordable health care.
  CHIP is a vital program for both the Nation and the State of New 
York. Since 1997, it has proven to be a popular, successful program, 
covering 6.6 million children nationwide, and helping to reduce the 
number of uninsured children in my State of New York by 40 percent. The 
bill he vetoed would help 268,000 more of New York's kids.
  The President has said that children don't need health care; all they 
need to do when they get sick is go to an emergency room. I am not sure 
if that comment was uninformed and irresponsible or simply callous, but 
I think that parents of New York would like to see the veto overridden.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Hulshof, 
a member of the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, be 
permitted to allocate the remainder of the time on my side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Never in my wildest dreams would I imagine that on a day in August of 
1997 that a Democratic President would sign a bill presented by a 
Republican Congress, and that that would be a high-water mark as far as 
consensus between a divided government, 10 years ago, the high-water 
mark of a divided government coming together to create a solution. I 
was here to help create the bill. In that instance, a Republican 
Congress worked with, negotiated with, compromised with the President 
of the other party to create a solution to the problem of children who 
had no health insurance.

                              {time}  1130

  Now, I would say, Madam Speaker, that the 2007 version of the 
Children's Health Insurance Program is almost unrecognizable from the 
original bill, and certainly beyond the original intent of that bill.
  For instance, New Jersey currently has a planned amendment that would 
use income disregards which would allow it to raise its SCHIP 
eligibility levels to 350 percent of poverty. That's about $71,000 for 
a family of four. And don't just take my word for it. Look at section 
114, subparagraph A under the bill. And that would continue under this 
bill.
  Many adults without children would be eligible under this bill. Don't 
take my word for it. Read subparagraph A of section 112 of the bill. 
You know, the bill allows States to move them to Medicaid, but allows 
it to pay.
  The Federal Government should not be, in my humble opinion, in the 
business of paying for States who want to cover childless adults that 
are grandfathered in this bill. And on behalf of my constituents in 
Missouri, should I ask them to reach in their pockets then and to pay 
for health care for a family of four in New Jersey making $70,000 or a 
family of four in New York making $80,000?
  So it comes down to this. In fact, there are still 79,000 kids in 
Missouri, Madam Speaker, that are still at or below 200 percent of 
poverty. Those are the kids we need to reach out to to provide health 
insurance.
  So the question at the end of this vote is this, to my friends on the 
other side, Do you want the politics or do you want the policy?
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield to the distinguished 
majority whip, the gentleman from South Carolina, my friend, Mr. 
Clyburn, 3 minutes.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, when it comes to the war on terror, the 
President is always quick to remind members of the international 
community that they're either with us or against us. There is no 
neutral or impartial position that can be taken. Well, I'm here to tell 
my colleagues today that there is no nonaligned position that they can 
assume on child care. You either support working families with health 
care for their children, or you don't. It's just that simple.

[[Page 27572]]

  Now, I've heard the specious claims that SCHIP is a form of 
socialized medicine. The President did not call it socialized medicine 
when he promised the American people he would seek to expand the 
program when he was accepting the party's nomination for a second term. 
Then again, how can it be socialized medicine when it covers 10 million 
children and not be socialized medicine for 6 million children?
  And the outrageous claim that this Congress is neglecting poor 
children is inaccurate. We already provide assistance to poor children 
through Medicaid. SCHIP is designed to provide assistance to those 
working families whose incomes are too high to qualify for Medicaid and 
too low to purchase private health care coverage.
  If you do not want to provide relief to middle-income families, you 
should just have the guts to say so. But don't come here to the floor 
and mislabel this bill as socialized medicine or accuse Democrats of 
not prioritizing the needs of America's children.
  I implore those of you who plan to vote to sustain the veto to 
reconsider your position. Think of how devastated you would be if your 
children and grandchildren had to go without basic health care. Imagine 
the hopelessness and despair you would feel in such a situation.
  This is where we are today, because when you cast your votes today, 
you either stand with our children or you stand against them. There is 
no in between.
  Let's vote to override the President's veto.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a 
distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Walden 
of Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I rise today to say that I 
support expansion of the children's health care program, but not in its 
current form, and here's why. Half of the 1.2 million new enrollees in 
the expansion of SCHIP under this proposal already have insurance, 
already have insurance, and that's according to the Congressional 
Budget Office. When it comes to adults, they cost 60 percent more to 
care for than kids. This program should be about helping expand 
coverage to children whose families do not have access to health 
insurance.
  I spent 21 years in small business. I'd never sign a contract that I 
knew I couldn't keep my word on. This bill is unfunded after year 5. In 
year 6, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this program is 
short about 80 percent.
  Beyond that, if we took the million and a half adults off of this 
program and put them on Medicaid, which they're eligible to do, then 
that would free up funds that could go to help kids. In fact, I think 
it's about 780,000 adults in 2012 would still be on this program. That 
would fund 1,150,000 children who could be put on Medicaid.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to recognize the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), the chairman of 
the Democratic Caucus, who has a brilliant 3-minute speech, and I yield 
him 1 minute in which to present it.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, Dolores Sweeney, from my district, works 
for an insurance company that doesn't provide health care for her or 
her children. She earns a paycheck, not a welfare check. She has 3 
children and would like to buy private health care, but can't afford to 
do so.
  Dolores Sweeney's children are on SCHIP, and without the SCHIP 
program they would go without health care, or she would have to go 
without a job.
  Our bill does right by Dolores Sweeney and the other 10 million 
children from working families.
  I believe that you care about the poor, but I wonder why you voted to 
cut $8 billion from Medicaid.
  I believe that you think this is excessive cost, but you never said 
that about the $680 billion for Iraq, no questions asked.
  And I believe that you say that this is a taxpayer-funded government-
run health care, just like the health care your kids get in the Federal 
Government program. This is exactly that.
  I believe the sincerity of your positions; but time and again, when 
it came to standing up for poor kids, you cut Medicaid. When it came to 
excessive cost, you provided $680 billion for the war in Iraq. And when 
it comes to government-funded health care, if it's good enough for your 
kids, it's good enough for Dolores Sweeney's children.
  Mr. HULSHOF. I continue to reserve my time, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I reserve my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished Congressman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I believe that every child deserves 
proper health care. I support SCHIP's renewal with increased funding. 
And I also support its expansion, but I believe it must be done in a 
responsible manner, a manner that ensures valuable resources target our 
Nation's most vulnerable children without unnecessarily expanding the 
program to those who do not need it.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, of the 4 million 
children who would receive coverage under the current proposal, 
approximately 40 percent already have private insurance. Our dialogue 
should focus on our children who are uninsurable, sick children who 
have exhausted private coverage, and families who cannot afford 
coverage for their children. Yesterday, I introduced a measure that 
seeks to achieve this goal.
  Congress now has the opportunity to engage in a productive, 
bipartisan discussion focusing on strengthening the SCHIP program.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, the moment of truth has arrived. And now, 
our Republican friends have a very clear choice that they must make. 
They can stand with 10 million American kids who need, deserve and 
currently are eligible for health insurance under the CHIP program.
  They can stand with the bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate 
who supported compromise legislation to reauthorize CHIP, including 18 
Republican Senators and 45 House Republicans.
  They can stand with the States' Governors, the American Medical 
Association, the Association of Health Insurance Plans, pharmaceutical 
companies, nurses, children's advocates. And most important, they can 
stand with the American people, 81 percent of whom support expanding 
the CHIP program to cover more low-income children, according to a 
just-released CBS News poll.
  This poll, of course, was taken long after the American people knew 
exactly what the terms of this bill are all about. Eighty-one percent, 
including a large, over two-thirds majority of independents and 
including over 60 percent of the Republicans polled, believe that we 
ought to move forward on this bill.
  Or, Madam Speaker, House Republicans can choose today to stand with 
President Bush, who earlier this month broke his own campaign promise 
to extend insurance coverage under CHIP to millions of additional low-
income American children, low-income American children.
  They can choose to stand with President Bush, who continues to make 
inaccurate and misleading claims about the bipartisan bill that he has 
vetoed; claims that have been repudiated by Senators Hatch, Grassley, 
Roberts and many other Republicans.
  Let me remind my Republican colleagues, who I believe want to help 
children, as the gentleman who preceded me said, here is what President 
Bush told the American people 3 years ago when he was seeking their 
votes for re-election at the Republican National Convention, the 
President of the United States, 2004, seeking re-election, promising 
what he would do: ``In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to 
enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for 
government health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of 
attention or information to stand between these children and the health 
care they need.''

[[Page 27573]]

  That is what President Bush said in 2004 when he was seeking the 
votes of the American people for re-election. Yet, the President's own 
proposal that he has made this year would force nearly 1 million 
children from low-income families who are participating in CHIP to be 
dropped from the present CHIP program. So his proposal not only does 
not add the millions that he promised to add in 2004, but it drops over 
830,000 children.
  In sharp contrast, Madam Speaker, through this bipartisan compromise 
this Congress has done exactly what the President said he would do if 
re-elected.
  The American people have heard both sides of this issue, and they 
have disagreed with the President. They stand with America's children, 
and so must this Congress.
  I urge my Republican colleagues, and the reason I say I urge my 
Republican colleagues, because we believe that there are very few, if 
any, Democrats who will not vote with the children this day.
  Look at the facts. Look into your hearts. Look beyond partisanship 
and politics. Look at the pictures of your loved ones back in your 
office and ask, what if they were the ones today who needed health 
insurance?
  Luckily, our children are covered. Our children are covered.

                              {time}  1145

  But think of the millions of children to whom President Bush referred 
to in 2004 that he promised to add to this critical program.
  This, I suggest to all of us, is a defining moment for the Congress 
of the United States. Will we, as the Founding Fathers contemplated, 
exercise the policymaking authority, or will we once again crumble, 
complicit in the President's failure to respond to the views of the 
American public and to our children?
  My friends on both sides of the aisle, let us come together. Let us 
come together and do the right thing for our children and for our 
Nation. Let's override the President's unjustified veto of this 
compromise, bipartisan legislation. Let us ensure that 10 million low-
income children have the health care coverage they need and deserve. 
This will not be a partisan victory if we override this veto. It will 
be a victory for our children and for the President's promise.
  Vote to override this veto. Vote for our children.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, this is a moment of truth for millions of 
American children and the hardworking families who love them. With this 
vote we can say yes to providing health care to 10 million children.
  The Children's Health Insurance Program is pro-family and pro-work.
  You know, there has been a lot said over the last 7 years about 
leaving no child behind. Well, today we can do something about it. The 
choice is clear: A ``yes'' vote means 10 million children receive 
better health care. A ``no'' vote will leave millions of children 
behind without adequate health care.
  Our children don't need slogans. They don't even need good 
intentions. Today, they need our vote. Today, they deserve our vote.
  I would ask each Member one question: If this vote meant the 
difference between your child or grandchild having health insurance or 
not, how would you vote? How would you vote?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to a 
distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, I listened to one of my colleagues just a 
moment ago say that this bill should be easy to reauthorize and should 
be done on a bipartisan basis, and, indeed, it should. But it is not 
because it has fallen victim to politics. It is victim to overreaching 
and political exploitation.
  This is a program that is supposed to be about uninsured poor 
children. But the President vetoed it because the majority insisted on 
expanding it to already insured middle-class children and adults.
  We can reform this program and keep it where it is supposed to be, 
and then we can move on to real health care reform. In his State of the 
Union address this year, the President proposed an idea to help every 
uninsured American, a proposal to end the outrageous discrimination by 
which those who have employer-based insurance get it with pretax 
dollars but the rest, who don't, have to pay more.
  We can do better for all Americans. We can help all the uninsured. 
And when this veto is sustained today, as it should be, let's 
reauthorize this program, but then let's reform health care for all the 
uninsured.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield for the purpose of 
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
  I proudly rise to vote to override the President's veto and to 
support 10 million children with health care.
  Madam Speaker, as the chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I 
rise to announce that I will proudly cast my vote to override the 
President's veto of H.R. 976, the ``State Children's Health Insurance 
Program (SCHIP) Authorization Act of 2007.''
  By vetoing the bipartisan SCHIP Authorization Act, the President 
vetoed the will of the American people. By vetoing this legislation, 
the President turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to the loud message 
sent by the American people last November.
  I will vote to override the President's veto because I can think of 
few goals more important than ensuring that our children have access to 
health coverage. I will vote to override the President's veto because I 
put the needs of America's children first.
  Madam Speaker, this important legislation commits $50 billion to 
reauthorize and improve the State Children's Health Insurance Program 
(SCHIP), and it also makes critical investments in Medicare to protect 
the health care available to our Nation's senior citizens. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to join me in voting to override the President's 
veto.
  Madam Speaker, SCHIP was created in 1997, with broad bipartisan 
support, to address the critical issue of the large numbers of children 
in our country without access to health care. It serves the children of 
working families who earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but 
who either are not able to afford health insurance or whose parents 
hold jobs without health care benefits.
  Children without health insurance often forgo crucial preventative 
treatment. They cannot go to the doctor for annual checkups or to 
receive treatment for relatively minor illnesses, allowing easily 
treatable ailments to become serious medical emergencies. They must 
instead rely on costly emergency care. This has serious health 
implications for these children, and it creates additional financial 
burdens on their families, communities, and the entire Nation.
  This year alone, 6 million children are receiving health care as a 
result of SCHIP. However, funding for this visionary program expires 
September 30. Congress must act now to ensure that these millions of 
children can continue to receive quality, affordable health insurance.
  As chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I can think of few 
goals more important than ensuring that our children have access to 
health coverage. It costs us less than $3.50 a day to cover a child 
through SCHIP. For this small sum, we can ensure that a child from a 
working family can receive crucial preventative care, allowing them to 
be more successful in school and in life. Without this program, 
millions of children will lose health coverage, further straining our 
already tenuous health care safety net.
  Additionally, through this legislation, we have an opportunity to 
make health care even more available to America's children. The 
majority of uninsured children are currently eligible for coverage, 
either through SCHIP or through Medicaid. We must demonstrate our 
commitment to identifying and enrolling these children, through both 
increased funding and a campaign of concerted outreach. This 
legislation provides States with the tools and incentives they need to 
reach these unenrolled children without expanding the program to make 
more children eligible.
  In my home state of Texas, as of June 2006, SCHIP was benefiting 
293,000 children. This is a decline of over 33,000 children from

[[Page 27574]]

the previous year. We must continue to work to ensure that all eligible 
children can participate in this important program. To this end, Texas 
Governor Rick Perry signed legislation in June which, among other 
things, creates a community outreach campaign for SCHIP.
  In addition to reauthorizing and improving the SCHIP program, this 
legislation also protects and improves Medicare. Due to a broken 
payment formula, access to medical services for senior citizens and 
people with disabilities is currently in jeopardy. Physicians who 
provide health care to Medicare beneficiaries face a 10 percent cut in 
their reimbursement rates next year, with the prospect of further 
reductions in years to come looming on the horizon. The budget proposed 
by the Bush administration does not help these doctors, or the patients 
that they serve.
  This is extremely important legislation providing for the health 
coverage of 11 million low-income children, as well as protecting the 
health services available to senior citizens and persons with 
disabilities. President Bush was wrong to veto this legislation. I 
stand strong with the children of America in voting to override his 
cruel veto.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of a bill that I 
do understand has expanded dental care and I do understand puts mental 
parity more on a par with physical disability.
  But I must rise today because that number of nearly 4 million 
children uninsured is almost too large for me to comprehend that we 
haven't done something before, based upon when my daughter, struck with 
a malignant brain tumor and given 3 to 9 months to live at age of 4, 
and you all provided me, as a 31-year military veteran, with the 
opportunity for her to live.
  But what I was most struck by was her roommate when she began her 
chemotherapy. A young 2\1/2\-year-old boy, where we listened and could 
not help in that small room hear social workers come and go for 6 hours 
as they tried to determine whether that young boy, struck with acute 
leukemia, whose parents did not have health care, would have the same 
opportunity as you gave my daughter; that this Nation gave them the 
time for not just quality of life but for life.
  I rise in support of this bill to give all children what you gave me 
as a member of the Armed Forces.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to an 
individual who is now the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, 
who also helped create the Children's Health Insurance Program back in 
1997, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First, I would like to make one point perfectly clear: Republicans 
support health care for low-income children.
  Second, I want to address something that was said on the floor the 
last time we considered this issue. It was said that failing to cast a 
``yea'' vote would give new meaning to the phrase ``suffer the little 
children.'' However, it's the failure of this legislation to refocus 
benefits on low-income children that gives new meaning to the phrase 
``suffer the little children.''
  If, as the verse continues, it is to these children ``that the 
Kingdom of God belongs,'' then why is this children's program failing 
to serve so many children? How is it that in my home State of Michigan 
87,000 eligible children don't have health care while 39,000 adults are 
in the program?
  How is it that in Minnesota 87 percent of the enrollees in this 
children's program are adults?
  How is it that this low-income program is covering families in New 
Jersey making more than $70,000 a year? No wonder New York wanted to go 
over $80,000.
  Ladies and gentlemen, the answer to these questions is clear. The 
majority does not want a low-income children's plan. They want what 
Hillary Clinton called for in 1994, the first step towards 
nationalized, government-run, controlled health care.
  We should not be diluting this children's program, and we should not 
be diverting money away from these low-income kids.
  I am proud to have offered yesterday the Kids First Act, a bill that 
would return this program to its roots, insuring low-income children, 
covering an additional 1.3 million American children, does not raise 
taxes, and is fully funded. This is the kind of legislation we should 
be debating instead of continuing this senseless stalemate that uses 
children as political pawns.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this veto override, and more 
importantly, I urge my colleagues to quickly compromise on this 
important issue and ensure that low-income American children have 
health care coverage.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I would just note that my good Republican 
colleagues have ignored one fact that is important, and that is that 
every time that there is an inclusion of anybody over the level of 200 
percent of poverty, it is on an express waiver granted by the 
Republican White House.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to 
the distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Dr. 
Burgess of Denton, Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I come to the floor of the House today to say that I 
support the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program. It's a good program that deserves to be reauthorized. I wasn't 
here when it was first passed in 1997, but I believe in the original 
intent of this program.
  Madam Speaker, I believe it is critical to focus on the most 
important recipients of this program: That's the poor children, poor 
kids first.
  Madam Speaker, this debate is not about money; it is about freedom. 
And it is also critical to remember to focus on what is necessary to do 
to cover the poor kids. And every opportunity for expansion, every 
opportunity for expansion based on income set-asides, expanding 
covering adults, expanding covering people in the country without the 
benefit of a Social Security number, every time we expand the benefit, 
we limit the benefit for the poor and the near poor, the initial 
population that we were supposed to be covering. We can't cover those 
other populations at the expense of people that we are required to take 
care of.
  Finding more of the truly eligible children is hard work. It's hard 
work, but it's the right thing to do. Hard work first. It is the right 
thing to do.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, today we must override the 
President's veto because it is the right thing to do for our children.
  We have a mission, an obligation, and a mandate to provide health 
insurance for all of the children and override the President's veto.
  We can spend millions and billions of dollars on war, but we cannot 
take care of health care for our children? It would be a shame and a 
disgrace not to take care of the little children.
  We must take care of the children. ``Suffer the little children.'' 
They need our help and they need it now. Override this veto.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, as Senator Grassley wrote in a letter 
to The Washington Post, it's fine to have a philosophical debate over 
the merits of this program, but opponents should be intellectually 
honest about what the bill does and does not do.
  Despite this, the President and a few supporters are still clinging 
to a series of distortions and spin to try to mislead the public. The 
President keeps talking about families earning as much as $83,000. If 
this were true, I would have voted against this program. And as for the 
exception for New Jersey, the $72,000 was requested by a Republican 
Governor and approved by President Bush's administration. Some of the 
President's supporters have claimed we didn't provide a way to pay

[[Page 27575]]

for this bill, but we did. As Americans, we want our children to be 
healthy and productive.
  The irony did not escape me that while the President was attacking 
SCHIP, I was sitting in a hearing of the Armed Services Committee, of 
which I am a member. The topic was waste and fraud in Iraq, billions of 
dollars. Like I said, the irony did not escape me, and it did not 
escape most Americans.
  We must override this veto.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, is it acceptable under the rule 
that we are operating under, as long as we control time, to recognize a 
Member more than once as long as you control the time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Recognition is within the discretion of the 
Chair.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I'm not sure I understand. Let me rephrase my 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman seeking to have another 
Member recognized that has already spoken?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to recognize myself now and then 
recognize myself later in the debate, because my speakers aren't here. 
Is that acceptable, Madam Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In controlling time the gentleman may speak 
more than once and may yield to another more than once.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, one of the things that has been talked about in this 
debate is that the pending bill before us does not allow illegal aliens 
to receive benefits, and there is a section in the bill, section 605 
that says that. But it has no enforcement. And in another part of the 
bill the requirement for citizenship verification is repealed, and the 
substitution for that is a requirement that a beneficiary or potential 
beneficiary simply show a Social Security number.

                              {time}  1200

  And as we all know, there are millions of fraudulent Social Security 
numbers floating around. So when we actually do get down to negotiating 
the conference after this veto is sustained, I hope that my friends in 
the majority will work with us in the minority to make sure that 
illegal aliens do not get benefits and that we have the appropriate 
enforcement mechanism in the bill that we send to the President.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to recognize a member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished lady from Nevada (Ms. 
Berkley) for 1 minute.
  Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, coming from a State with one of the highest 
percentages of uninsured children, I know how important it is that we 
succeed in overriding the President's veto today.
  I think it's absolutely shameful that in the United States of 
America, in the 21st century, in a country of such great abundance, we 
have to override a Presidential veto to provide essential health care 
to kids from lower-income, hardworking American families.
  Passage of this bill is essential to ensure continued coverage for 
the more than 30,000 kids currently receiving their health care by the 
SCHIP program in Nevada. And the bill will also enable Nevada to reach 
out to the nearly 70,000 children currently eligible who remain 
uninsured and not in the program because of a lack of funding.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to override this veto. It's a shame that 
he vetoed this bill in the first place.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Before yielding to my friend from Texas, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume to respond to a previous speaker, the 
gentlelady from New Hampshire, who said that she would have voted 
against the original bill had she known or had she believed that, in 
fact, a family of 4 making $80,000 would qualify their children. Well, 
in fact, I would point the gentlelady to section 114, subparagraph A of 
the bill that allows income disregards.
  And I would say to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, who pointed out that, yes, it was the 
administration that granted the waiver, there are some on this side who 
would suggest the administration has approved unwise waivers in the 
past. But even this administration has indicated to a particular 
Governor that before we allow this waiver to occur, in the instance of 
New Jersey, so many additional enrollees would have to meet the intent 
of the SCHIP program, to which the Governor said, ``I don't have to 
abide by that.'' And I find that a bit difficult to swallow as we then 
discuss whether this should be the law of the land.
  I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Ten years ago, a Republican Congress created SCHIP to provide health 
insurance benefits to children who are uninsured, who are Americans, 
and whose parents represent the working poor. Yet today, once again, 
this Democrat Congress will try to do something else, and that is, give 
these same benefits to adults, to illegal immigrants, to those who are 
already insured, and to some of the wealthiest among us. These are the 
facts.
  Although the program was designed for those up to 200 percent of 
poverty, we know today there are families of up to $82,000 of income 
receiving these benefits. Although the program was designed for 
children, we know almost 20 States now serve more adults than children. 
Although the program was designed for Americans, the Democrats strip 
out proof-of-citizenship measures. And although the program was 
designed for the uninsured, CBO said this will have the effect of 
taking 2 million off and putting them on a government insurance 
program. That is wrong.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am delighted to recognize 
the gentlelady from Arizona (Ms. Giffords) for 1 minute.
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the 179,000 
children in the State of Arizona who need Congress to stand up for 
them.
  Ten million American children need SCHIP, known as KidsCare in my 
home State of Arizona, because it changes their lives. For example, 
when Collin Bollinger was born, his mother, Sherry, did not have health 
insurance. Sherry was gainfully employed, but she could not afford her 
company's high insurance premiums and did not qualify for Medicaid. 
After Collin's second birthday and a series of ear infections, Sherry 
scraped and borrowed enough money for private insurance to cover Collin 
at the high cost of $150 per month. At times, Sherry chose her son's 
health care over paying the rent and having a full dinner.
  Then she discovered the KidsCare program; her premiums then fell by 
90 percent per month. With the money that Sherry saved, she could even 
afford her own health insurance. Now Collin is a straight A student. He 
plays football at Cienega High School and leads a happy and healthy 
life. His mother credits KidsCare.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I just have 2 speakers left, the 
distinguished minority leader and myself. I'm prepared to do the mini-
close. I assume that Ms. Pelosi is going to close for the majority, so 
we're kind of in a holding pattern here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize for closing 
speeches in the reverse order of opening: Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Stark, Mr. 
Barton, and then Mr. Dingell.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I would observe that here we have three 
speakers before we're prepared to close. And if you would permit, Madam 
Speaker, the Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, will close for us.
  Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm delighted to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).
  Mr. SHULER. I thank the distinguished gentleman.

[[Page 27576]]

  Madam Speaker, every night when we sit down, we talk to our children, 
we say our prayers, my wife and I, we thank God for the many blessings 
He has bestowed upon us, some of those blessings that we don't even 
recognize so much every single day, like having health care for our 
children. But there are children and parents every day for whom that is 
a constant reminder.
  And here we have questions about what is important, how many children 
will it be. My children, age three and six, they talk about and they 
pray that God will bless all children. We talk about, across the aisle, 
I am pro-life. My distinguished colleagues across the aisle talk about 
being pro-life. It is time they start being pro-life today and start by 
overriding this veto.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank the Chair of our Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Madam Speaker, we have a health care crisis in our country. And the 
President vetoing the SCHIP bill has made bad policy based on bad 
information. We've heard it from the floor today from the minority.
  The President should know we target low-income children below 200 
percent of poverty. The President should know that we focus SCHIP on 
children and phase out parents and childless adults that were allowed 
by this administration to be covered. The President should know that 
the bill covers 4 million children who are eligible for SCHIP but not 
enrolled. The President should know that we do not cover illegal alien 
children. It's frustrating, when we have a health care crisis in our 
country, that we can't cover the children.
  When the White House asked Congress just recently for a special $190 
billion for the war in Iraq, over and above the hundreds of billions 
we've already spent, why can't we find much less than that for covering 
10 million low-income children, parents who are working in this 
country?
  We have a health care crisis, and the Republican minority and the 
President have turned their back on that crisis, especially to the 
children.
  Madam Speaker we have a health care crisis in our country. In vetoing 
our SCHIP bill, the President has invoked a bad policy based on bad 
information.
  The President should know we target low-income children below 200 
percent of poverty.
  The President should know we focus SCHIP on children, and phase out 
parents and childless adults that were allowed by his administration.
  The President should know the bill covers 4 million children who are 
eligible for SCHIP but not enrolled.
  The President should know this does not cover undocumented children. 
Under the President's proposal, 6 million of our children eligible for 
SCHIP would remain without health insurance.
  And, an additional 700,000 children currently in the program would 
join them in the ranks of the uninsured.
  If the President is so concerned about adults and middle income 
families in the SCHIP program, he should sign this bill which 
effectively addresses those concerns.
  America's low-income children shouldn't suffer because the President 
can't get his facts straight.
  More than 8 in 10 Americans support this legislation to expand SCHIP 
for children.
  When the White House asks Congress for a special $190 billion for the 
war in Iraq, over and above hundreds of billions already spent why 
can't they find much less to cover 10 million low-income children.
  This is the people's House, and it is our duty to override this veto 
and listen to the American people.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I hope that we can find, as we close today and we come to this vote, 
enough people on both sides of the aisle who will vote to override the 
veto. It doesn't make much sense. There is no cost, there are no 
illegal aliens, there are no rich people, unless the Republicans choose 
to make it possible for them. It's a bill that is paid for, unlike the 
war, which the Republicans don't mention.
  What are you going to do for that 200 or 300 billion bucks, folks, 
that you're spending to kill these kids when they grow up? You can't 
answer that, can you? You look at your shoes, look up here, you don't 
know.
  So you don't even want to talk about $200 or $300 billion to kill 
innocent Iraqis and young men and women. There is no Member of this 
House that has an enlisted child over there. There is no risk for you 
guys.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. STARK. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  The fact that we don't want to talk about killing children that we 
send to die in a war and spend $200 billion, we're going to shuffle on, 
calling things ``socialism,'' Madam Speaker. And we're going to talk 
about if we only had a chance to do this a little better to make sure 
that illegal aliens were treated a little less fairly than they are 
now, we might vote for it. It's too bad. It's too bad they're voting to 
harm children for a bunch of really petty grievances that they have in 
the minority. I hope they will change their minds and vote to override 
the veto.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  With all respect, Madam Speaker, I don't need to be lectured to by a 
Member who did not even support the original Children's Health 
Insurance Program.
  The fact is that we reached compromise 10 years ago. And I recognize 
that the chairman of the Health Subcommittee can ram through a bill 
when you've got the votes, as the original bill was done, without any 
input from anybody else, that it's my way or the highway. And I 
recognize that when you have the votes, that's one way you can try to 
enact legislation.
  So my question still stands, after this veto is sustained, Do you 
want the politics or do you want the policy? I hope the latter. Because 
I guarantee you we can have a meeting of the minds.
  Mr. Camp and I, Mr. Boustany, in fact, introduced the Kids First Act 
that would reauthorize this program. It's similar to the alternative in 
the Senate that would increase State allotments by $14 billion over the 
next 5 years, that would allow 1.3 million new low-income children to 
be covered, that reimburses States at their Medicaid matching rate, 
fully offsets the bill without raising taxes, bolsters current 
provisions to provide premium assistance to kids who have access to 
private coverage so that we can better coordinate public and private 
programs to prevent the crowding-out effect.
  So once this political effort is done, I hope we can have a meeting 
of the minds.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, at this time I reserve my time. I have 
one more speaker and then the Speaker who will be closing for us.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

                              {time}  1215

  Madam Speaker, what we have today is a classic case of a Washington, 
DC, nonintersecting conversation. Since the President vetoed this bill 
several weeks ago, my friends on the majority side have spent 2 weeks 
encouraging outside groups and perhaps their political arm, I am not 
sure about that, to spend millions of dollars in television and radio 
ads bombarding targeted Republicans to get them to change their vote.
  Now, that is only the sixth time in history that we know of that a 
veto has not been brought to the floor immediately on the President's 
veto. The result is going to be that when we get to the vote in the 
next hour or so, the next 30 minutes or so, the President's veto will 
be sustained. Then, hopefully, we will have the real bipartisan 
negotiations that should have started 6 or 7 months ago.
  It is interesting to me that we are still having a misunderstanding 
about the basic facts. And the reason is, we have never had a 
legislative hearing in either the Ways and Means Committee

[[Page 27577]]

or the Energy and Commerce Committee. We have not had a subcommittee 
markup in either of the jurisdictional committees. And we really didn't 
have a markup at full committee, because the original bill for SCHIP 
was a 500-page mammoth bill that we got at midnight the day before it 
was supposed to be marked up in the case of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  But once we do sustain the President's veto, we are going to have 
these negotiations I hope. And first we are going to talk about the 
kids. Both sides are talking about the kids. Well, here are the facts. 
Under current law, every child in America who is below 100 percent of 
poverty is covered by Medicaid. Both parties support that. Under 
current law, every child in America who lives in a family between 100 
and 200 percent of poverty is covered by SCHIP if they will sign up. 
Now, there are some children and families that won't sign up. In 
Dallas, Texas, I am told that only 33 percent of the eligible SCHIP 
children are actually in an SCHIP program. That is a travesty. We ought 
to do something together to reach out to those children and those 
families to make sure that they either have SCHIP coverage or private 
insurance, that they have something. We can work together on that on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Now, once you get above 200 percent of poverty, we have a difference 
of opinion. The original House bill said go to 400 percent of poverty. 
That bill is dead. The bill before us goes to 300 percent. It is a 
legitimate policy argument: If you want to go above and expand the 
program, how much do you expand it above 200 percent? Do you go to 300 
percent? Do you go to 250 percent? The Republican alternative is, let's 
cover the lowest income kids first. Once we get 90 percent of those 
kids covered below 200 percent of poverty, let's let States go to 250 
percent. That is the Barton-Deal alternative that we have the discharge 
petition on. But that is a legitimate policy argument.
  Now, let's talk about illegal aliens. Under current law, you are not 
supposed to cover a child of an illegal alien. But they are covered 
because there is no verification enforcement system. In the pending 
bill, they have section 605 that says no benefit shall go to children 
of illegal aliens. But that is all it says. There is no enforcement 
mechanism. There is no enforcement mechanism. That is something we can 
work on in the conference. That is something we can work on together to 
really put some enforcement to make sure that SCHIP benefits are for 
citizens and legal residents. We can work on that.
  Let's vote to sustain the President's veto, and then let's work 
together to get a program that really is for the kids, not for adults, 
that really is for citizens, and that we can afford.
  Well, Madam Speaker, there they go again. Once again, we are being 
forced by the Democratic Leadership of the House to vote on a bill that 
exists almost exclusively to help Democrats score political points 
against the President.
  We're going to sustain the President's veto today, and we're going to 
do it because the President did the right thing by vetoing this poorly 
written expansion of federalized health care that leaves the poorest 
kids behind. Anybody who cares about needy children can vote against 
this bad bill proudly.
  I'm both proud and concerned that Republicans had no part in writing 
this legislation. Proud because this bill is an embarrassment. 
Concerned because we're all supposed to be legislating on behalf of 
children, and as everybody knows, no Republican Member of this House 
was even asked for an opinion, much less invited to participate in 
writing the Democratic SCHIP bill.
  I don't even think the Democrats who wrote it understand what they've 
done. I challenge the supporters of this bill to look people in the eye 
and say that they understand all of the provisions that are actually in 
this bill. Because I have some questions for you.
  Madam Speaker, it would be a compliment to say that the so-called 
process which produced this bill is an abuse of our democratic system 
of Government. It was so much worse than garden-variety abuse. It was 
pathetic. Yet, I'm sure that some will show up here with a handful of 
talking points from your Democratic staffers who actually constructed 
this legislation, and you will explain to us that it is not an 
abomination at all, but a wondrous triumph of bipartisanship.
  Give me the name of one Republican in the entire House of 
Representatives who directly participated in these discussions. Name 
just one.
  I know that the authors of this bill certainly did not consult with 
either Mr. Deal or myself, I know that they have not included any 
Members of the Republican Leadership in the House; and I'm not aware of 
a single Republican Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee or the 
Ways and Means Committee being invited to participate in this process.
  And although we were excluded from the negotiations and the 
Democratic Leadership has repeatedly refused to hold a legislative 
hearing on this bill, we have learned a few facts from the official 
projections produced by the Congressional Budget Office, and from what 
I've read, this bill isn't something that I could ever support.
  For example, we know that the vast majority of the people added to 
the SCHIP program under the Democrats' bill will either already have 
private health insurance or they live in families with incomes too high 
to be eligible for SCHIP coverage today.
  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office projects that H.R. 976 will 
lead to over 1.2 million new enrollees will be added to SCHIP as a 
result of an ``expansion of SCHIP and Medicaid eligibility to new 
populations.'' This means that these 1.2 million children live in 
families whose incomes are too high to qualify for the current SCHIP 
program. On the other hand, CBO projects that only 800,000 currently 
SCHIP eligible kids will be enrolled as a result of H.R. 976. This 
means that 50 percent more higher-income kids will be enrolled than 
currently SCHIP eligible kids.
  And who will be paying for this expansion of SCHIP eligibility to 
higher-income families? Well, according to the Congressional Research 
Service, the vast majority of the $70 billion in additional tobacco tax 
revenues will come from low-income families. In fact, the Congressional 
Research Service said that tobacco taxes are ``the most regressive of 
the federal taxes.''
  So, with H.R. 976, the Democrats really are taxing the poor in order 
to give to the rich.
  In their defense, I guess it is difficult for the Democratic 
Leadership to know exactly what is in their own bill since it has 
neither been subject to a single legislative hearing nor conferenced by 
the House and the Senate.
  Madam Speaker, I wonder if someone can explain to me why the 
Democratic Leadership decided to wait until just days before SCHIP 
expires to bring their reauthorization to the House floor. We have 
known for well over 10 years that the current SCHIP authorization would 
expire on September 30, 2007, and the Democratic Leadership in the 
House and the Senate have known since early November of 2006 that they 
would be in charge of actually producing a bill to reauthorize this 
vital health care program for low-income, uninsured children. Yet, here 
they were, a full 10 months later, jamming a bill through the House 
with fewer than three legislative days before the entire program 
expires and children's health care stops.
  Well, Madam Speaker, I was not sent here by the 6th District of Texas 
to be quiet and do what the gentle lady from San Francisco instructs me 
to do. I was sent here to represent my constituents' best interests and 
I demand the ability to do what I have sworn to do.
  We all know that the President promised to veto this version of the 
bill, so why did we waste precious time on a bill that we all know 
didn't stand a chance of ever becoming law?
  While we are down here on the floor participating in this Theatre of 
the Absurd, the Democratic Leadership is in the back rooms trying to 
figure how they will extend the SCHIP program for another 6 months or a 
year. We all know this to be a fact, but I guess the Democrats want to 
pick a fight with the president so they can pretend that he is against 
children, and only then will they permit everybody to do the right 
thing and extend SCHIP.
  Madam Speaker, I'm sorry it's come to this. The pettiness of this 
transparent political strategy to damage and weaken the president is a 
new low.
  I'd hoped that we would not engage in this game, and it's still not 
too late to stop it. We could start debating how to best extend the 
SCHIP program so that we can actually do the job people sent us here to 
do. We still have a chance to write a responsible, long-term 
reauthorization of the SCHIP program. Now, it's true that writing a 
solid, bipartisan bill will not give the Democrats the ``political 
victory'' that they are hoping for, but that's the price that Democrats 
will have to pay. Given that millions of needy children are depending 
on us, it doesn't seem like a big price.
  I am ready to start today to sit down with the Majority and reach a 
compromise bill so

[[Page 27578]]

we can reauthorize this program expeditiously. Short 6-week extensions 
are irresponsible. We can and should come up with a compromise that can 
be signed into law and that ensures that low income children continue 
to have access to the SCHIP program. We should not drag this political 
process out any longer than today. Let us dispense with politics and 
commence with legislating.
  Here's a way that will get me to call the President and urge him to 
sign up fast.
  Require that States find and enroll 90 percent of the kids under 200 
percent of the Federal Poverty Level before they go looking for more 
people with higher incomes.
  States should be free to spend their own money, of course, but 
Federal taxpayers in 49 States shouldn't be made to subsidize the 
health care premiums for one State making $80,000 a year.
  No adults except pregnant women, please. No more childless couples 
and, beginning in 2009, and Medicaid-eligible adults should move to 
Medicaid.
  Let's preserve the requirement that States document the citizenship 
and identity of Medicaid applicants. Just writing down a Social 
Security number doesn't make you a citizen.
  A bipartisan effort could pass this bill in a week, and doing so 
would make sense to poor kids, their families and nearly everybody 
outside the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, my good friend, the 
gentleman from Louisiana.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized 
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McCRERY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I have with me, I am going to submit this for 
inclusion in the Record, a page from a report from the Congressional 
Budget Office that we received last night. This one page puts the lie 
to the assertion that this bill is paid for, at least in any terms that 
a reasonable person would agree that the bill is actually paid for. 
What this sheet says, in 2012, under the March 2007 baseline, CBO 
estimated 3.3 million people, not just children, 3.3 million people 
would be covered. Under the President's proposal, in his budget, CBO 
estimated 4 million people would be covered in 2012. If the current 
program with all the exceptions and waivers were continued, CBO says 
that in 2012, 5.3 million children will be covered. CBO says under the 
bill on the floor in 2012, 7.8 million people would be covered. But 
then they say, in 2017, 5 years later, under the President's budget, 
2.9 million people would be covered. Under the current program, with 
all the exceptions and waivers, 5.6, and under this bill, 1.3 million 
people. So you go down from 7.8 million to 1.3 million over 5 years, 
and you are telling me that that is going to take place? It is not. You 
know it. And you are going to have to pay for it to the tune, the CBO 
says, of $40 billion.

 CBO PROJECTIONS OF SCHIP AVERAGE MONTHLY ENROLLMENT (BY FISCAL YEAR, IN
                           MILLIONS) \1,\ \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2008         2012     2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2007 Baseline \3\...............             4.1      3.3      2.1
President's FY 2008 Budget \4\........             4.9      4.0      2.9
Maintain current programs \5\.........             5.0      5.3      5.6
H.R. 976, CHIPRA \6\..................              NA      7.8     1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The figures in this table include the program's adult enrollees, who
  account for less than 10 percent of total SCHIP enrollment. These
  figures represent the average number of individuals who could be
  covered in a typical month. The total number of individuals enrolled
  at any time during the year would be about 170 percent of these
  figures. These figures do not include enrollment in the U.S.
  territories.
\2\ These enrollment figures are for SCHIP only. Relative to the
  baseline, the President's proposal and maintaining current programs
  would reduce Medicaid enrollment by shifting some children to SCHIP.
  In 2012, CHIPRA would also shift some children from Medicaid to SCHIP;
  however, in 2017 the reduced SCHIP funding levels under an
  extrapolation of CHIPRA would cause a shift in children from SCHIP to
  Medicaid. CHIPRA would increase Medicaid enrollment overall by
  providing financial incentives to states to enroll additional
  children.
\3\ Title XXI of the Social Security Act authorizes SCHIP through 2007.
  Consistent with statutory guidelines, CBO assumes in its baseline
  spending projections that funding for the program in later years will
  continue at its 2007 level of $5.0 billion.
\4\ The Administration proposes funding of $5.0 billion in 2008, $5.3
  billion in 2009, and $6.5 billion in each of fiscal years 2010 through
  2012.
\5\ Assumes increases in funding sufficient to account for increases in
  health spending per enrollee and the projected number of enrollees
  (due both to population growth and increases in the number of
  uninsured). Also assumes no change in eligibility rules or benefit
  packages after 2008.
\6\ CHIPRA authorizes SCHIP through 2012. For budget scoring purposes
  CBO has projected spending under CHIPRA through 2017, based on the
  funding level at the end of 2012--an allotment of $3.5 billion per
  year. The 2017 enrollment figures shown there reflect that
  extrapolation.
Note: SCHIP = the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIPRA =
  the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007,
  as cleared by the Congress on September 27, 2007.

  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentlewoman 
from Colorado for 1 minute.
  And pending that recognition, I would just like to point out that 
under the Republican plan, by 2017 we probably will have killed 20,000 
soldiers in Iraq spending $200 billion.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words 
be taken down.

                              {time}  1230

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the words.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  ``I would just like to point out that under the Republican plan, by 
2017 we probably will have killed 20,000 soldiers in Iraq spending $200 
billion.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The words do not descend to personality 
within the meaning of rule XVII. Nor do they engage in such 
inflammatory rhetoric as might otherwise breach decorum.
  The words are not out of order.
  The gentleman from California may proceed.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I stand with the 81 percent of Americans 
who support this bipartisan compromise bill that gives health care to 
10 million poor children in this country. It builds upon the strong 
foundation of SCHIP and covers almost 4 million additional children.
  You can use whatever words you want to talk about this bill, but 
here's the truth and here are the real facts: the bill does not cover 
adults, the bill does not cover people who are here illegally, and it 
does not cover the wealthy. It is fully paid for.
  We in Congress should hang our heads in shame if the wealthiest 
country in the world refuses to provide basic health care to the 
children of our land. Let us rekindle the bipartisan spirit of the past 
and join together to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program. Let us put the working families of this country first. Let us 
override this veto.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to yield our last minute 
to the distinguished minority leader from the State of the current 
number one college football team in the country, Ohio State, Mr. 
Boehner of Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that we have reached 
this point. I think all of us know that Democrats want to renew the 
SCHIP program and Republicans want to renew the SCHIP program. We 
haven't been afforded the opportunity to sit down and work together to 
resolve the differences we might have in order to keep this important 
program alive and available to children in America who deserve and need 
good health care coverage. I hope that that opportunity to sit down and 
work together comes today after this vote.
  In 1997, Republicans and Democrats worked together to create the 
State Children's Health Insurance Program. We worked to ensure that 
low-income children without health insurance come first. But I think 
all of us know that is not what has happened.
  Today, there are 500,000 eligible low-income children for this 
program who are not covered. Yet there are some 700,000 adults around 
America who are covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program. 
I think the numbers speak for themselves. In Minnesota, 87 percent of 
the people on the Children's Health Insurance Program are adults.

[[Page 27579]]

In Wisconsin, 66 percent of the people on the Children's Health 
Insurance Program are adults.
  Madam Speaker, what we have been working towards is trying to find a 
way to say that we ought to insure poor children first. I know States 
have all kinds of ideas about how to expand this program, but let's not 
let this become another Washington program that starts with one 
principle in mind and then becomes something for everyone. Why can't we 
refocus the program to ensure that we help those poor children who do 
not have health insurance before we get into insuring adults and people 
beyond the low-income folks that we are trying to help?
  I think the President vetoed this bill because, frankly, I think the 
majority sent it to him to ensure that it was vetoed. There were no 
conversations in this House between Democrats and Republicans on what 
this bill would ever look like. I don't think there was ever any 
intention that this bill be sent to the White House to be signed into 
law.
  It is a point that I have made here before, and I am going to make it 
again: the American people are tired of all the political games. They 
want us to find some way to work together to resolve our differences 
and to help move America forward. What we have seen over the last 
several months on this bill, and especially the last 2 weeks, is an 
example of the political games that the American people are tired of.
  Madam Speaker, when you begin to look at Congress's approval ratings, 
it shouldn't come to anyone's surprise in this Chamber that they are 
very low. And why are they low? Because I think Americans are tired of 
the rhetoric, they are tired of the political games, and they want us 
to find some way to work together to address their needs and their 
concerns.
  Two weeks ago, when the President vetoed this bill because we didn't 
put poor children first, we could have had this vote right then and 
there. We could have had the override vote. Then we could have sat down 
and begun to resolve our differences. By now we could have had them 
resolved and we could actually be here today on a new bill that makes 
sure that the poor children who don't have health insurance actually 
get it.
  Madam Speaker, what I would say to all of my colleagues is that I 
would hope that the political games will come to an end.
  On behalf of House Republicans, I again extend this invitation to all 
of you: Let's sit down and work together in a bipartisan manner to 
resolve our differences. Secondly, let's make sure that we put poor 
children first.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, before I yield to our Speaker to close, I 
yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, I will submit for the Record a letter from Peter 
Orszag, Director of the Congressional Budget Office. That office notes 
several things. First of all, 1, this bill actually saves money for the 
Treasury; 2, it is fiscally responsible; 3, it is fully paid for.
  The bill also covers approximately 10 million children in 2012, but 
it authorizes that only through 2012. In my Republican colleague's 
comparison with events in the year 2017, those comparisons are both 
impossible and bogus. I would note that the legislation covers 4 
million more children than the administration's proposal.

                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                 Washington, DC, October 18, 2007.
     Hon. John D. Dingell,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to questions that we have 
     been asked about the enclosed enrollment table that CBO 
     circulated yesterday regarding the State Children's Health 
     Insurance Program (SCHIP), two points are worth noting. 
     First, as indicated in footnote 2 of the table, the 
     enrollment figures are for SCHIP only. The Children's Health 
     Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) would also 
     raise enrollment in Medicaid by 1.3 million in 2012 relative 
     to the baseline. Second, as indicated in footnote 6 of the 
     enclosed table, CHIPRA authorizes SCHIP only through 2012, 
     and the figures for 2017 are therefore based on an 
     extrapolation of CHIPRA beyond the legislation's 
     authorization window. Under that extrapolation of CHIPRA 
     through 2017, SCHIP and Medicaid enrollment combined would 
     rise relative to the baseline.
       If you have any further questions, please feel free to 
     contact Keith Fontenot at 226-2800.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Peter R. Orszag,
                                                         Director.
       Enclosure.

 CBO PROJECTIONS OF SCHIP AVERAGE MONTHLY ENROLLMENT (BY FISCAL YEAR, IN
                           MILLIONS) \1,\ \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2008         2012     2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2007 Baseline \3\...............             4.1      3.3      2.1
President's FY 2008 Budget \4\........             4.9      4.0      2.9
Maintain current programs \5\.........             5.0      5.3      5.6
H.R. 976, CHIPRA \6\..................   not available      7.8     1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The figures in this table include the program's adult enrollees, who
  account for less than 10 percent of total SCHIP enrollment. These
  figures represent the average number of individuals who could be
  covered in a typical month. The total number of individuals enrolled
  at any time during the year would be about 170 percent of these
  figures. These figures do not include enrollment in the U.S.
  territories.
\2\ These enrollment figures are for SCHIP only. Relative to the
  baseline, the President's proposal and maintaining current programs
  would reduce Medicaid enrollment by shifting some children to SCHIP.
  In 2012, CHIPRA would also shift some children from Medicaid to SCHIP;
  however, in 2017 the reduced SCHIP funding levels under an
  extrapolation of CHIPRA would cause a shift in children from SCHIP to
  Medicaid. CHIPRA would increase Medicaid enrollment overall by
  providing financial incentives to states to enroll additional
  children.
\3\ Title XXI of the Social Security Act authorizes SCHIP through 2007.
  Consistent with statutory guidelines, CBO assumes in its baseline
  spending projections that funding for the program in later years will
  continue at its 2007 level of $5.0 billion.
\4\ The Administration proposes funding of $5.0 billion in 2008, $5.3
  billion in 2009, and $6.5 billion in each of fiscal years 2010 through
  2012.
\5\ Assumes increases in funding sufficient to account for increases in
  health spending per enrollee and the projected number of enrollees
  (due both to population growth and increases in the number of
  uninsured). Also assumes no change in eligibility rules or benefit
  packages after 2008.
\6\ CHIPRA authorizes SCHIP through 2012. For budget scoring purposes
  CBO has projected spending under CHIPRA through 2017, based on the
  funding level at the end of 2012--an allotment of $3.5 billion per
  year. The 2017 enrollment figures shown there reflect that
  extrapolation.
Note: SCHIP = the State Children's Health Insurance Program CHIPRA = the
  Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, as
  cleared by the Congress on September 27, 2007.
 

  At this time it is with great pleasure and privilege that I yield the 
balance of my time to our distinguished Speaker for purposes of 
closing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I commend him for his exceptional leadership on this issue.
  The issue of health care for Americans has been a signature issue for 
the Dingell family. Mr. Dingell, the distinguished chairman's father, 
was the author of legislation for access to health care for all 
Americans. He continues that tradition. He was in the chair the day and 
gaveled the vote on Medicare. So thank you for your years of experience 
and leadership, and, again, your leadership on this important issue of 
insuring our children.
  This isn't about an issue; this is about a value. Thank you, Mr. 
Stark, thank you, Mr. Pallone, for your leadership, and thanks to the 
distinguished Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, for 
his important and relentless leadership on this issue.
  My colleagues, as I listen to the debate today, I hear a lot of 
subterfuge and distractions; but the fact is that this is a discussion 
about America's children and it is a discussion about America. There is 
no industrialized country in the world that anyone respects that does 
not provide health insurance for its children. We are the exception. 
This is not a designation to be proud of.
  But the American people in their wisdom have this not as an issue, 
but as a value, as an ethic. That is why I am so proud of what has 
transpired since we took our first vote on this bill. That day I said 
we could establish ourselves as ``the Children's Congress,'' and we 
did. Work remains to be done to bring that to fruition.
  In the meantime, across our country, Democrats and Republicans, 
Governors and mayors, people who work with children or have the 
responsibility of

[[Page 27580]]

delivering a system of health care have been advocating for this 
reauthorization of SCHIP that we have before us today. Every 
organization you can name, from AARP to YWCA, and everything in 
between, the American Medical Association, Catholic Hospital 
Association, Families USA, every organization you can name is 
supporting this legislation.
  I am so proud, because earlier this week Easter Seals representatives 
covered the Hill with hundreds of advocates visiting Members' offices. 
We were pleased to hear from the president of Easter Seals, President 
James Williams, who said, ``Without health care coverage, our early 
intervention in other programs for children cannot be successful.'' 
That is why the Easter Seals organization was here.

                              {time}  1245

  He was very eloquent in his advocacy, but no more eloquent than the 
young children who were here to tell us their stories.
  Today, representatives of the March of Dimes, over 400 of them, are 
visiting offices on Capitol Hill. And Jennifer Howse, president of the 
March of Dimes, has stated that SCHIP ``is the health insurance 
lifeline for millions of low-income children who have no other way to 
obtain coverage.''
  Our country has put poor children first; that's called Medicaid. The 
poorest of the poor children in our country are able to receive health 
care through Medicaid.
  I wish you could have heard the stories of some of the parents who 
told us, Bethany's parents who were in the other day. The press asked 
them if they were afraid their family would come under attack because 
they were lobbying for SCHIP. They said we are already under attack, 
but we are proud to come forward to support this initiative. We are not 
proud of the fact that we are low income, they said. We are trying very 
hard to lift ourselves up into the middle class. We work very hard not 
to be on Medicaid, but to be among the working poor, it is not 
something that we brag about, but SCHIP is something that we need.
  So when the President wants to have 4 or 5 million children instead 
of 10 million children in his initiative, is he the one, the decider, 
who wants to go to that family and say, Your child is out? Bethany had 
heart problems from birth. She was 2 years old in July. They have been 
told by some people as they lobbied, The baby is better now; you don't 
need SCHIP anymore. Well, she does.
  They said, We are not just lobbying for Bethany; we are lobbying for 
all of the children.
  As far as the March of Dimes is concerned, and I am proudly wearing 
their pin, they deal with children with birth defects, and it might 
interest you to know that 1 of 8 children in America each year is born 
prematurely, around half a million babies born prematurely. Many of 
those children, I am not saying all, but many of those children have 
ongoing conditions and preconditions that bar them from getting any 
health insurance. Those children need SCHIP. They are in the category 
that makes them eligible.
  And that category does not include people earning $83,000 a year. So 
while some of you may use that as an excuse not to vote for the 
program, I hope you know intellectually it is not a reason to vote 
against this initiative. There are currently no children enrolled in 
SCHIP with family income of 400 percent of the Federal poverty level, 
$83,000 for a family of four. In fact, 91.3 percent of the children 
enrolled in SCHIP are in families of four that make less than 200 
percent of poverty. And 99.95 percent, just a hair under 100 percent of 
them, are in families under 300 percent of poverty.
  So this is a sad thing. We are asking people who are working hard and 
playing by the rules, they are taking care of their families. They 
could have stayed out of work and stayed on Medicaid, but that is not 
what we are encouraging people to do in our country. We are encouraging 
them to move on and upward. And these families have to come forward and 
say why they have not attained the American Dream of enough wealth to 
afford $1,200 a month in health insurance premiums, and that's a big 
order.
  I am so pleased, though, that with the work they have done, Easter 
Seals, Red Cross and all of the organizations I mentioned earlier, and 
the Governors and mayors, et cetera, that now 82 percent of the 
American people support this initiative. If I said it before, I want to 
say it again.
  And let me also say that there are some myths about SCHIP. Well, I 
don't think that they are myths; I think they are excuses not to vote 
for the bill. I mentioned one of them. Another one is about illegal 
aliens.
  Clearly, the bill states ``no Federal funding for illegal aliens.'' 
It says it, but it is also the law of the land. Illegal aliens do not 
get benefits, so don't use that as an excuse to deprive 10 million 
children in our country who are eligible for enrollment in SCHIP that 
they shouldn't get it.
  This has been a bipartisan effort, and some of what has been said 
about SCHIP is simply not true. But don't take it from me. Senator 
Orrin Hatch, former Chair of the Health Committee in the Senate, now 
the ranking member, said: ``I believe that some have given the 
President bad advice on this matter because I believe supporting this 
bipartisan compromise to provide health coverage to low-income children 
is the morally right thing to do. If we were truly compassionate, it 
seems to me, we would endorse this program.'' Senator Orrin Hatch, 
Republican of Utah.
  Senator Charles Grassley, former chairman of the Finance Committee, 
another committee of jurisdiction and now the ranking member said: 
``The President's claims about SCHIP are flatly incorrect. The SCHIP 
bill is not a government takeover of health care. Screaming `socialized 
medicine' during a health care debate is like screaming `fire' in a 
crowded theater. It is intended to cause hysteria that diverts people 
from looking at the facts.'' Senator Grassley, Republican Senator from 
Iowa.
  So, my colleagues, we have a decision today to override the 
President's veto, which would be, in my view, the right thing to do for 
our children and for our country. It is not about compassion. It is 
about fairness. It is about fairness. And this is a bill again that has 
been bipartisan in its development and required enormous sacrifice from 
the Democrats in the House of Representatives. We had a much higher 
goal. This is what is achievable for the children. It should have been 
signed by the President. There is no reason that he has given that is 
consistent with the facts.
  And so I urge my colleagues to think about the children, to think 
about Bethany and think about a little boy, Zeke, who was in my office 
this morning. He is the ambassador of the March of Dimes for 2007. He 
is 8 years old, born prematurely at a pound and a half, and now going 
out and speaking on behalf of the needs of other children.
  The President is isolated in this. Don't join him in his isolation. 
Come forward on behalf of the children and let's truly send a signal 
that we are about the future. I tried to do that when I was sworn in by 
being surrounded by children. It was a spontaneous moment, but it was 
one that was clear in its message: We are gaveling this House to order 
on behalf of the children.
  There is nothing more important that we have to do in our work than 
make sure that our children are healthy and safe. Today we have an 
opportunity to do that. Let's not miss that opportunity. Let's give a 
vote for the children and against the President's veto.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for 
overriding the President's veto of the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program Reauthorization. This bipartisan legislation would 
provide health coverage for 10 million of our most vulnerable children. 
It is supported by over 80 percent of the American public, as well as 
bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and 43 of our Nation's 
Governors.
  The fact that the President and the House Republican leadership 
continue to oppose this critical, life-saving legislation is difficult 
to comprehend. All of the excuses that they have

[[Page 27581]]

trotted out for blocking this bill--that it would cover the rich, or 
illegal aliens, or that it would institute ``socialized'' medicine--
have been exposed as false. This bipartisan program puts poor kids 
first, as reflected in the fact that 90 percent of families covered by 
SCHIP live under 200 percent of the poverty level. It bars coverage of 
illegal immigrants, as is spelled out clearly in the bill's text. In 
fact, the bill does not even cover legal immigrants. Finally, the SCHIP 
reauthorization does not institute ``socialized'' medicine. Seventy-
seven percent of children in the SCHIP program are covered by private 
insurance companies, and the American Association of Health Insurance 
Plans, as well as the American Medical Association and PhRMA, all 
support this bill. The Republicans' other excuse for opposing this 
bill--that we can't afford it--is disingenuous. This legislation is 
fully paid for with a tobacco tax. I also find it interesting that 
those who raise the cry of ``fiscal responsibility'' when it comes to a 
few billion dollars for poor children do not seem to have any 
objections to providing hundreds of billions for the President's 
disastrous war.
  Having revealed that the Republicans' stated reasons for opposing 
this legislation are patently false, one is forced to wonder what is 
actually motivating them. I believe that the President and his 
supporters are blocking this legislation because they are afraid. They 
are afraid of SCHIP because it demonstrates that health care guaranteed 
by the government is workable, it is affordable, and it is popular. 
They worry that if SCHIP is expanded, even more Americans will begin to 
demand that the government guarantee health care to all our citizens, 
not just to poor children. After all, every other industrialized nation 
does so, while spending less than we do and while achieving better 
health outcomes for its citizens. The Republicans will apparently use 
every means at their disposal to ensure that health care in this 
country remains a privilege for those who can afford it, rather than a 
right guaranteed to all.
  Madam Speaker, today's vote raises a moral question. Simply put: will 
we, as a nation, take responsibility for ensuring that all our children 
have necessary health coverage? All other issues raised in this debate 
are obfuscations meant to hide the fact that the party claiming the 
mantle of ``family values'' is in fact unwilling to back that slogan 
with substance. There is only one vote today that truly supports 
America's families. It is a vote to override this shameful veto.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today for one main reason: 
the 10 million low-income children in this Nation whose health, health 
care and wellness are very much at stake. This is especially true today 
as the House votes on whether to override the President's inhumane, 
unethical and irresponsible veto of the Children's Health Insurance 
Program.
  We honored the promises we made to this Nation when we not only 
passed the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act, the CHAMP 
Act, but when we exercised the art of compromise and passed a 
bipartisan CHIP bill that, though more modest than the CHAMP Act, still 
represented a respectable step in the right direction. In fact, the 
CHIP bill that so many of us stood behind would have provided health 
insurance coverage to nearly 4 million currently uninsured, low-income 
children. Unfortunately, despite our tireless efforts, the President 
opted to veto the bill that would have reduced the number of uninsured 
children in this Nation by nearly half.
  Madam Speaker, we can and should do better, not only because we 
promised to, but because this Nation's children deserve it. We cannot 
and should not shortchange the most vulnerable among us, and we cannot 
and should not relent in our efforts to ensure that our Nation's low-
income children have reliable access to the health care services and 
treatments that they will need to be healthy and to pursue their life's 
destinies.
  Madam Speaker, today we have yet another opportunity to reach across 
the political aisle and stand together to do the right thing for 
America's children. As I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
well know, the children who are currently enrolled and would be newly 
enrolled in CHIP are not undocumented residents; they are legal 
American citizens. Efforts to try to derail our intention to override 
the veto by inundating CHIP in an immigration debate are both 
unconscionable and inaccurate.
  And, the children who are and would be covered by CHIP also are not 
children from wealthy or even middle-income families who could 
otherwise afford health insurance. The mythical $83,000 CHIP family is 
just that: a myth. They are no more real than the weapons of mass 
destruction we invaded Iraq to find.
  The reality, however, is that more than 9 in 10 children enrolled in 
CHIP are from families with incomes that are below 200 percent of the 
Federal poverty level. That means, Madam Speaker, that CHIP kids are 
coming from families earning less than $41,300 a year for a family of 
four. These are not financially comfortable families. And, these are 
not families living lavishly off the backs of taxpayers. These are 
hardworking American families whose children's health care needs often 
exceed their financial means. They deserve better and their children 
deserve better, and we ought to override this veto to ensure that the 
CHIP program captures these kids and keeps them from joining the ranks 
of the uninsured.
  It is has never been lost on me or my colleagues in the minority 
caucuses that CHIP is a key minority health issue. In fact, 8 in 10 
currently uninsured African-American kids and 7 in 10 Hispanic children 
are eligible but not enrolled in the program. Without health insurance, 
children suffer worse health outcomes and are less able to enjoy their 
childhoods because of illnesses that are often preventable. Overriding 
the President's veto, therefore, not only will help reduce uninsurance 
among our Nation's most vulnerable children and improve their health, 
but also will help us reduce the racial and ethnic health disparities 
that plague our health care system.
  I urge all of my colleagues to override the President's veto. We not 
only can and should do better, but we should demand that the President 
do more for our children. Let's do it now for all of America's 
children.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise as a supporter of the 
State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, which focuses on 
covering children in families at or below 200 percent of the poverty 
level, $41,000 per year. I have voted to extend this program and to 
provide additional resources to ensure that those living in families 
below 200 percent of the poverty level, $41,000, have access to 
affordable health insurance through the SCHIP program.
  Before sharing my concerns over the bill that was vetoed by the 
President and that we are voting on today, I would like to share with 
my colleagues an overview of the SCHIP reauthorization bill that I am 
joining in introducing today. Our bill will provide families with 
health care choices, health care transferability and health care 
security.
  The bill I have cosponsored would ensure that all children between 
100 percent and 200 percent of poverty are eligible to enroll in SCHIP. 
In addition to being able to enroll in SCHIP, these families could also 
decide to use their SCHIP credit to pay for the additional costs of 
enrolling their children in the parent's employer provided health plan. 
For those making between 200 percent and 300 percent of the poverty 
level, our bill would provide a $1,400 per child health care tax 
credit. This credit would be refundable for those who have tax 
liability less than the amount of the credit. Parents could use this 
credit to pay the additional costs of enrolling their children in an 
employer provided health care plan or in another state licensed health 
care plan. This plan borrows from the proposal put forward by a broad 
range of organizations that run the political spectrum--from the 
liberal Families USA, to the Chamber of Commerce, and the American 
Medical Association, AMA.
  The biggest question remaining after this vote is taken today is 
whether or not our House Democrat colleagues will do something that 
they have by and large failed to do so far with regard to SCHIP: invite 
House Republicans to participate in developing the legislation. To 
date, House Democrat leaders have abused the rules of debate to totally 
shut Republicans out of the legislative process.
  Two weeks ago, rather than having an up or down vote on the 
President's veto, the Democrat majority chose to put off the final vote 
for two weeks in order to engage in political posturing and partisan 
attacks. Today we are holding that vote and the outcome today is no 
different than what it would have been two weeks ago. So, why the 
delay? Solely for partisan posturing. Madam Speaker, our children 
deserve better and it is time to stop using them as political pawns. 
Unfortunately, recent press reports are filled with quotes from 
Democrat leaders stating that they want to keep this alive as a 
political issue, calling for ``repeated votes'' and temporary 
extensions of SCHIP over the next year, rather than approving a long-
term bipartisan bill that secures SCHIP coverage for those it was 
intended for--children in low-income households with family incomes of 
less than 200 percent of the poverty level.
  I would now like to address once again, why I cannot support the bill 
before us. This bill: 1. Fails to place a priority on first enrolling 
uninsured children in households earning less than $41,000 per year, 
200 percent of the federal poverty level; 2. Expands government SCHIP

[[Page 27582]]

subsidies to those making far more than the Federal poverty level; 3. 
Spends half of the additional SCHIP dollars to enroll children in the 
government SCHIP program who are already enrolled in private insurance; 
and 4. Uses budget gimmicks--like booting millions of children off of 
the program in 2012--in order to fool the public into believing they 
can fund the program for the next 5 years.
  It is fiscally irresponsible to expand this program by enticing 
millions of children in families earning far above the poverty level to 
drop private coverage and enroll in the SCHIP program that cannot be 
sustained. In August, House Democrat leaders forced an earlier version 
of SCHIP through the House that cut over $150 billion from Medicare and 
moved that money into SCHIP so that they would have a way to pay for 
millions of new SCHIP enrollees over the next 10 years, including 
millions of currently insured children from middle and upper middle 
class families.
  Their plan to cut Medicare was rejected not only by Republicans but 
by the U.S. Senate, and most importantly by the public at large. The 
bill that the President vetoed is a bait and switch. This nearly 
triples the size of SCHIP over the next 5 years--including enrolling 
millions of children currently insured by private plans--only this time 
they have chosen to hide from the public how they plan to pay for the 
program for the next 10 years. They ramp up the annual SCHIP budget to 
nearly $14 billion a year, and then they simply leave it to a future 
Congress to find a way to continue paying for the massively expanded 
SCHIP program. And they hand the bill to future generations of 
Americans. It turns out that their nearly tripling of the Federal 
cigarette taxes still leaves them tens of billions of dollars short. 
Americans should be on notice that in 2012 the Democrats will ask for 
another $180 billion to continue SCHIP for another 10 years.
  Particularly troubling is that by significantly expanding SCHIP 
enrollment eligibility to those far above the poverty level, the 
Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that millions of new SCHIP 
enrollees will be children that move from private coverage to the SCHIP 
program. By moving children from private insurance onto the government 
program, this bill essentially enrolls 5 uninsured children for the 
price of 10. Enticing millions of children to drop private coverage and 
sign up for SCHIP is shortsighted and irresponsible, particularly given 
the multibillion dollar SCHIP budget shortfall that hits in 2012.
  What we should be doing is focusing this program on enrolling 
uninsured children in households earning less than $41,000 per year. 
Madam Speaker, our children and the American taxpayers deserve better 
than what the Democrat leadership has put before us today.
  In February of this year, States that had overspent their SCHIP 
funding grants came to Congress begging for more money to ``insure 
uninsured poor children.'' The root problem in many of these States was 
the fact that they had used their Federal grant to enroll children in 
the SCHIP program who were neither poor nor uninsured. New Jersey, for 
example had used their grant to enroll children in families with 
incomes of more than $72,000, even though there were and still are over 
150,000 children in New Jersey in households earning less than $41,000 
who are uninsured.
  I offered an amendment in February that would have refocused SCHIP to 
make sure that children in families under 200 percent of the poverty 
level were covered first. My amendment was rejected by the liberal 
majority on the Committee, who Stated that they had no intent to 
refocus SCHIP on lower income children. Rather, they planned to 
continue expanding the program to those well above the poverty level--
to include adults and illegal immigrants--as a step toward universal 
government-run health care. A recent op-ed in the Washington Post, by 
liberal columnist E.J. Dionne Jr., removes any doubt of this goal by 
writing: ``This battle [over SCHIP] is central to the long-term goal of 
universal coverage.''
  While the press releases about today's bill focus on uninsured low-
income children, the language in the bill is about much more than 
uninsured low-income children. If the bill before us was focused on 
low-income uninsured children, I would be voting for it. The bill 
before us does the opposite. It repeals recent rules requiring States 
to ensure that at least 95 percent of those under 200 percent of the 
poverty level are insured under their State SCHIP programs. Democrat 
leaders in Congress have responded to the rule by arguing that there is 
no way to ensure a 95 percent enrollment rate of uninsured children in 
households earning less than $41,000 per year. They argue that since 
they cannot achieve the goal we should simply expand the program to 
those in households earning more than $60,000 a year or more.
  They use budget gimmicks to say that their bill is balanced and paid 
for through higher cigarette taxes. The Heritage Foundation has 
estimated that the amount of money Democrats estimate they will raise 
from higher cigarette taxes comes up billions of dollars short and that 
over the next 10 years they will have to find 22 million new smokers to 
bring in the amount of cigarette tax revenue they hope to raise. It is 
also noteworthy that lower-income Americans pay a higher percentage of 
cigarette taxes, but it is middle-income Americans that will receive 
most of the expanded SCHIP benefits under this bill.
  I am also concerned over provisions included in the bill that repeal 
the requirement that individuals must prove citizenship in order to 
enroll in Medicaid and SCHIP. This opens the program to fraud and the 
enrollment of illegal immigrants. In 2006, the Inspector General, IG, 
of the Department of Health and Human Services found that 46 States 
allowed anyone seeking Medicaid or SCHIP to simply state they were 
citizens. The IG found that 27 States never sought to verify that 
enrollees were indeed citizens. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
estimates that repealing this requirement will cost $1.9 billion.
  And finally from a Florida perspective, Florida taxpayers come up 
short. Florida taxpayers will send $700 million more to Washington than 
we will receive back in SCHIP allocations. Where will Florida taxpayer 
dollars end up going? Residents of California, New York, Texas, New 
Mexico, Arizona and New Jersey will be the biggest recipients of 
Florida tax dollars. Yet, Florida has a higher rate of uninsured 
children than several of these.
  Florida voters will also be asked to foot part of the bill for a $1.2 
billion earmark inserted into the 300-page bill at the last minute by 
the powerful chairman of the committee for his home State of Michigan.
  Madam Speaker, let's open up the legislative process and develop a 
strong bipartisan bill. It is time to end the politics around this 
issue and ensure that low-income children have access to this program.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Madam Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote to 
override the President's veto of H.R. 976, which extends and expands 
the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP.
  We have a moral obligation to cover all our children so every child 
in America can grow up healthy. It's the right thing to do; it's also 
the cost-effective thing to do.
  The great Minnesotan Hubert H. Humphrey once said that a key moral 
test of government is how we treat those who are in the dawn of life, 
the children. We must not flunk this moral test.
  My home State of Minnesota started covering children through its 
medical assistance program even before SCHIP was created, but we still 
have far too many children without coverage--73,000 kids.
  That's why I strongly support extending and expanding SCHIP. I also 
hope we can work together to provide greater access to private 
insurance coverage for America's children and other uninsured 
Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support overriding the veto. We cannot afford 
to wait any longer. It's time to break down the barriers to health care 
for our kids. It's time to reauthorize SCHIP. It's time that all kids 
have a chance to grow up healthy.
  This legislation passed both the House and Senate with strong 
bipartisan support, and it deserves to become law.
  Let's put children's health first and do the right thing. Let's 
override the veto of the SCHIP reauthorization and reduce the number of 
uninsured children by at least 70 percent.
  There is no better investment than to invest in the health and well-
being of America's children.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Speaker, since its inception in 1997, I 
have been a steadfast proponent of SCHIP, known in Georgia as PeachCare 
for Kids, and I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in 
sustaining this successful program by voting to override the 
President's veto.
  Let me first say that, while my support of children's health care has 
been unwavering, this is not a perfect bill. Like many of my 
colleagues, some provisions in the bill concern me. But let us not let 
``perfect'' be the enemy of the ``good.''
  On health care, our country faces a tremendous challenge, and while 
disagreement still impedes finding creative solutions to encourage 
responsibility for health care to solve problems of access for adults, 
it is our moral imperative to rise up and meet these challenges for our 
Nation's children. Furthermore, as Members of this body, it is our 
solemn duty to protect the youngest and most vulnerable among us. This 
legislation presents us with such an opportunity.
  It is disappointing to see the administration throwing up so many 
roadblocks. Indeed, this

[[Page 27583]]

administration has proven its willingness to ``rise up and meet'' other 
challenges. Beyond that, it has proven its willingness to sign blank 
checks for a military operation with an ever-changing, increasingly 
expensive mission. For the past 4\1/2\ and years we have been engaged 
in an overseas conflict that has taken a large toll on this country--in 
terms of both human life and taxpayer money. While it is of utmost 
importance to ensure our troops continue to have every dollar, dime, 
nickel, and penny they need to fight this war, we must not neglect our 
domestic priorities.
  The SCHIP reauthorization asks the administration to rise up and meet 
the challenge of one of those domestic priorities. Plainly, the bill 
asks for just 41 days worth of Iraq war funding to embark on a clearly-
defined, targeted, and morally justifiable mission--providing American 
children from low-income families with comprehensive health care.
  That's right--just 41 days worth of Iraq war funding would pay for 
the entire SCHIP bill. Just one week of the Iraq war would pay for 1.7 
million children. That's enough to cover all the children eligible for 
SCHIP in Georgia, as well as several other States. One week of war 
funding would do all that.
  To my colleagues opposing this legislation, let me reiterate 
something many know very well: the President, recently, asked for 
compromise legislation.
  This bill, in fact, represents a compromise, as evidenced by its 
broad bi-partisan support. Forty-three of our Nation's Governors, 
including Governor Sonny Perdue of Georgia, support this legislation, 
as do 270 organizations representing millions of Americans, 68 Senators 
and a majority of Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to join the bi-partisan majority and vote in 
favor of overriding the President's veto.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I will vote to override the President's 
veto of H.R. 976. As the only former State schools chief serving in 
Congress, my life's work has been to provide for a better future for 
the next generation, and health care is critically important to that 
effort. There is no doubt that the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program, or SCHIP, has served this Nation well and must be reauthorized 
and expanded. The Congressional Research Service reported this week 
that, at current funding levels, 21 states would run out of SCHIP money 
before the end of the current budget year, and funding for North 
Carolina would only provide coverage for needy children through May 
2008.
  In North Carolina, over 250,000 children who would otherwise have 
gone without insurance have been served by North Carolina's Health 
Choice. The services they get through Health Choice--regular checkups 
and preventative care, doctor and hospital visits when they are sick, 
and ongoing dental and vision benefits--make sure that North Carolina's 
children are as healthy and productive as possible and grow up to 
fulfill their best potential. Untreated illnesses can have long-term 
consequences, and ensuring access to health care, as SCHIP does in 
North Carolina and across the country, allows children to remain 
healthy and strong and head off expensive treatments down the road. As 
a nation, we must follow through on the promise of SCHIP to protect our 
most vulnerable citizens.
  SCHIP is not government-run medical care as some have falsely 
claimed. SCHIP is an effective initiative to extend health insurance to 
working families who otherwise cannot afford to send their children to 
the doctor when they are sick. In North Carolina, this has meant 
providing a physician-directed managed care system modeled on health 
insurance for children of state employees and teachers. North Carolina 
has about the best child health programs of any state, providing 
seamless cost-effective care for thousands of at-risk children, each 
year reducing costs and becoming more effective at providing health 
care.
  The funding increase in H.R. 976 is necessary to address shortfalls 
in the current SCHIP funding plan, and to allow states to reach more 
eligible but uninsured children. The bill expands health care coverage 
to 10 million children in America over the next five years. In North 
Carolina the $35 billion in this legislation translates into 210,000 
covered children, an increase of 90,000 children. Only kids aged 6-17 
with families below 200 percent of the poverty level are covered by 
SCHIP in North Carolina. Even if some of these children have had 
private insurance for some of the time, their parents only were able to 
afford it by cutting back on other necessities. We owe it to these 
children to ensure that they are continuously covered and can get the 
health care they need when they need it. I wholeheartedly support the 
increased funding and the guidelines for states in this legislation.
  I have withheld my support for this bill in the past due to my 
concerns about the bill's funding mechanism, and I continue to be 
concerned about the impact of a tobacco tax increase on North 
Carolina's rural communities. I am working with the leadership of the 
House of Representatives to craft an effective disaster relief package 
that will assist North Carolina's farmers and help to counter any 
negative impact. As the Chairman of a key Agriculture Subcommittee, I 
will continue to work to address the needs of farm country, including 
finishing the Farm Bill with a real safety net for farm families and 
pursuing disaster relief for drought-stricken regions like North 
Carolina. Should the veto override fail, I will continue to urge the 
Congressional leadership to write a new bill that funds SCHIP without 
placing the burden of funding on the backs of North Carolinians.
  After careful consideration, I will vote to override the President's 
veto, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the children of 
America's working families.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, for the last two weeks the Democrats have 
continued their political games. They have failed to correct the 
inherent flaws in this legislation and at a closer section by section 
look it is clear this legislation contains numerous errors.
  Section 101: provides an appropriation of $9 billion in 2008, 25 
percent more than governors of both parties have told CMS would be 
necessary to fully fund SCHIP next year.
  Section 211: provides a new citizenship documentation option, but 
what this new provision does is completely erase the stricter 
citizenship requirements enacted in the Deficit Reduction Act. The 
Social Security Administration states that this provision will not 
guarantee that applicants who use false Social Security Numbers will be 
identified thus clearly opening the door for millions of illegal aliens 
becoming enrolled.
  I hope the other side stops using these children as political pawns 
and crafts sound legislation that does not throw away tax dollars for 
votes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of overriding 
the President's veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2007.
  I was deeply disappointed that the President exercised his veto pen 
on a bicameral and bipartisan bill. Not so long ago, the President 
pledged to expand coverage of CHIP to include eligible children who are 
not yet enrolled in the program. In his September 2004 speech to the 
Republican National Convention, the President stated--and I am quoting 
here, ``We will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor 
children who are eligible but not signed up for the government's health 
insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention, of 
information, to stand between these children and the health care they 
need.'' With this veto, the President has reversed course and turned 
his back on America's children.
  The CHIP Reauthorization Act would reauthorize and improve the very 
successful Children's Health Insurance Program for 5 years. This 
bipartisan bill would preserve coverage for the six million children 
currently enrolled who otherwise would have access to health insurance 
while extending coverage to 3.8 million children who are already 
eligible, but not enrolled in the program. The bill also includes 
guaranteed dental coverage and mental health parity in the CHIP 
program. By reauthorizing this very important program, we will 
strengthen CHIP by improving the quality of health care children 
receive and at the same time increase health insurance coverage to one 
of the most vulnerable segments of our society.
  This legislation is paid for. It increases the tobacco tax by 61 
cents to a total of one dollar. Increasing the tobacco tax will save 
billions in health costs and is one of the most effective ways to 
reduce tobacco use, especially among young children. In short, raising 
the tobacco tax will prevent thousands of children from starting to 
smoke and the proceeds of the tax will be used to provide health 
coverage for children. That is a win-win result.
  Madam Speaker, we should do the right and moral thing and override 
this veto. I strongly urge my House colleagues to override the 
President's veto on this bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. EVERETT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to 
this attempt to override the President's veto of the Children's Health 
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (H.R. 976). This bill expands a 
good program far beyond its original intent, and opens the door to 
government controlled healthcare. The SCHIP program was created 10 
years ago under a Republican led Congress to fill a gap of uninsured, 
low-income children whose families fell into a salary bracket too high 
to receive funds under Medicaid. This bill, however, takes this money 
and gives it to adults, illegal immigrants, and children whose parents 
are currently making up to $82,000 a year. This bill would encourage 
more and more children to move from private health care to

[[Page 27584]]

health care coverage from the Federal government. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, as many as two million children would make 
this shift.
  The Liberal spin machine has tried to frame the veto as ``anti-
children'', while denying the American people the facts. This bill 
would cost the American people $60 billion over 5 years. This is a $35 
billion increase over the current program, and is $30 billion more than 
the President said he would support. Even the funding sources of this 
bill have been hidden from the general public. This bill would add a 61 
cent tax to every pack of cigarettes, which the Democrats claim will 
curb smoking among children. This line of thought, however, is 
intrinsically flawed by the fact that 22 million new smokers will be 
required to pay for the cost of this bill. How can anyone be anti 
smoking when they need the very revenue it creates to pay for the 
healthcare of children? In addition, in 2012, the funding for this 
program will all but disappear. After a 5-year campaign of signing up 
as many middle-class children, adults and illegal immigrants as 
possible, program funds will be cut by 80 percent. This will cause 
millions of children to be dropped from their healthcare programs, or 
require an even more extensive funding expansion and burden on the 
taxpayers.
  While supporters of H.R. 976 claim the bill does not allow Federal 
payments for illegal residents, it severely weakens Federal law to 
leave those individuals a gaping loophole. Existing law requires 
documentation proving one's citizenship in order to be covered under 
Medicaid and SCHIP, however, this bill would merely require a name and 
social security number. According to Social Security Administration 
Commissioner Michael Astrue, a Social Security number would not keep 
someone from fraudulently receiving coverage under Medicaid of SCHIP if 
they claimed they were someone that they were not.
  Two weeks after the President vetoed the bill the Democrat Leadership 
has decided to play politics and gamble on the health of these children 
before having this override vote. This stalling tactic has done nothing 
but shorten the time we have until this program expires. I am proud to 
sustain the President's veto and I sincerely hope that my friends on 
the other side of the aisle care about these children enough to create 
a bill that everyone can stand behind, as it was when the program first 
began. I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to override the President's 
veto.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the 
President's veto. It is important for the American people to understand 
that this debate is not about whether or not to reauthorize the 
Children's Health Insurance Program, but how we reauthorize it. This 
bill completely misses the mark. It is a massive expansion of a 
government-run program that takes resources away from the very children 
it was meant to help.
  In this country there are millions of low-income uninsured children 
who are currently eligible for government help, but are not enrolled. I 
firmly believe it is our responsibility to cover the neediest of 
America's kids first.
  The bill the President vetoed did just the opposite.
  The Democrats' bill diverts money away from those who need it the 
most in order to cover kids who already have private health insurance. 
One in every three kids covered under this bill already has private 
health insurance coverage. Because the Democrats care more about how 
much they can expand taxpayer funded entitlement programs rather than 
helping those who actually need help, I will vote to sustain the 
President's veto.
  Out of respect to the American taxpayer and the uninsured kids who 
need our help--Congress can and should pass a more fiscally sound bill 
that puts the poorest kids first.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of reauthorizing a 
program that has proven to be crucial to the lives of children across 
the Nation. The State Children's Health Insurance Program--or SCHIP, as 
it is known--provides access to health care for 6.6 million children. 
Through bipartisan efforts, Congress is trying to expand eligibility to 
nearly 4 million additional underserved and uninsured kids, but the 
President a few weeks ago decided to ignore the will of the people and 
veto the bill to renew this popular, worthy and socially responsible 
program.
  I can't overstate how extraordinarily troubling this veto is. Rather 
than spending the $3.50 a day it would cost to provide health insurance 
for these children, the President instead has cynically claimed the 
mantle of fiscal responsibility. Had he not already presided over the 
largest increase in government spending since the New Deal, this claim 
might not ring as hollow as it sounds. Let's be clear: the President 
has chosen insurers and tobacco companies over the well-being of more 
than 10 million children and their families.
  This is the wrong issue and the wrong time to pander to business 
interests.
  Madam Speaker, it is unconscionable that American families must 
choose between buying a warm coat for the winter and having their 
children immunized. No American families should have to choose between 
putting food on the table and getting a life-saving operation for their 
son or daughter.
  We go back to our respective districts and meet the people who are 
forced to make these sorts of decisions on a daily basis. We feel and 
see the utter insanity of vetoing $3.50 a day for health coverage for 
our neediest children. As members of the House of Representatives, we 
speak directly for the American people and we come to the floor to vote 
with their hopes and wishes foremost in our minds.
  Each day that we fail to provide basic health care to kids, is a day 
we have failed as leaders.
  Congress is The People's House, and we have a duty to represent the 
needs of the American people, not of multi-billion dollar international 
insurance companies. This administration has sided with big business 
too many times and at too heavy a cost to the little guy.
  Republican President Calvin Coolidge once said, ``The business of 
America is business,'' and it seems that the current President agrees 
with him. I say that this Congress' business is the people's business. 
I urge my colleagues to override the President's veto and allow an 
entire generation of America's children to grow up healthy.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, the day is finally here. Today, the 
American people will see what this body is really made of and where 
members stand on the issue of children's healthcare. Is this body 
willing to stand up to the President and override his veto? Or are my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle going to fold like a house of 
cards and follow this President right off a cliff?
  The choice is easy--you are either for healthcare for 10 million 
children or you are not. You can equivocate all you want and come up 
with an excuse that is politically expedient, but when it comes down to 
it, there is no way to hide from your vote.
  When that voting board lights up this afternoon, we will know and 
remember those who let 10 million children and their families down. The 
President and most of the Republicans in Congress will tell you that we 
can't afford this bill, but don't let them fool you. This bill is fully 
paid for, unlike the half a trillion dollars that we have already spent 
in Iraq.
  And keep in mind, the members that vote against this bill today are 
going to turn right around and vote for $190 billion more dollars for 
the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, it's the children that end up with the 
short end of the stick. The children the President is refusing to 
insure today are the same ones that will be forced to foot the bill for 
the war in Iraq tomorrow.
  But you have a chance to make things right today, to set the record 
straight. You can show your constituents and this country that you care 
about the millions of uninsured American children more than continuing 
this disastrous war.
  Please, don't let these children down. They need your vote. Vote to 
override this misguided veto.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 976, the Children's 
Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. While the bill vetoed by 
President Bush was a watered down version of the bill passed by the 
House, it was at least a step in the right direction.
  The SCHIP bill that Congress sent to the President was a bipartisan 
effort that renews and improves the Children's Health Insurance 
program, providing health care coverage for 10 million children. This 
bill preserves coverage for the 6 million children currently covered by 
SCHIP and expands coverage to nearly 4 million more uninsured children.
  Madam Speaker, two-thirds of Americas' uninsured children are 
currently eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid but are not enrolled for 
various reasons. This bill gives states the resources and incentives to 
enroll, those children.
  The President's budget proposal would have increased SCHIP by $5 
billion over the next 5 years. This increase fails to cover the costs 
of simply maintaining the current SCHIP enrollment of 6 million 
children. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, over 
the next 5 years, the President's budget would result in over 1 million 
children losing their SCHIP coverage.
  Madam Speaker, the SCHIP reauthorization is supposed to be a bill to 
expand coverage, not reduce it. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the vote to 
override the President's

[[Page 27585]]

veto of SCHIP. I do so because the President's objections to government 
health insurance for low income children are outrageous.
  That said, I still believe, the bill's failure to provide coverage 
for legal immigrants is reprehensible. All children deserve health care 
coverage. Health care is a right, not a privilege. The denial of a 
lifesaving service based on an arbitrary length of citizenship is 
simply wrong.
  It is the responsibility of Congress to address the main difficulties 
that prevent legal immigrant children from gaining access to health 
care. This bill does exactly the opposite. Thus I felt compelled to 
vote against the bill after the Senate negotiators refused to provide 
health benefits to legal immigrant children. Negotiating away health 
care for 400,000-600,000 children as a political compromise is not 
acceptable.
  The President has vetoed the bill because he calls it a step toward 
socialized medicine. This perennial straw-man is trotted out when 
meritorious arguments are lacking. In fact, SCHIP uses private doctors 
and private health care plans. More importantly, however, the President 
is fond of ignoring the volumes of literature showing that government-
run health insurance programs that use private hospitals and doctors 
like Medicare and Medicaid, deliver higher quality care at lower costs 
with higher rates of satisfaction than private insurance plans. 
According to a 2007 article in the journal, Health Affairs, 
administrative costs of private plans were about twice as much as those 
for Medicaid. Medicare's overhead costs are approximately 3 percent 
while those of the private sector are closer to 31 percent.
  That is one of the main reasons that H.R. 676, the Expanded and 
Improved Medicare for All Act, is the best cure for our health care 
ills. It captures the enormous savings to be had if Americans had 
health care provided through Medicare and uses them to cover everyone 
for all medically necessary services with no copayments, no deductibles 
and now premiums. That is how wasteful private insurance is. Providing 
cheaper coverage through the private sector simply leaves Americans 
with dangerously weak coverage. About 50 percent of all bankruptcies in 
the U.S. are related to medical bills. Of those with medically related 
bankruptcies, about 75 percent had insurance before they got sick. 
Their so-called ``coverage'' did not cover them. They were, in fact, 
underinsured. The President chose to ignore this crisis by vetoing a 
bill that would have not only covered uninsured children but provided 
better coverage for many who are one illness away from losing their 
money and their home.
  The provisions in the bill would make substantial and crucial 
progress in providing health care for all American children. It would 
provide coverage for 3.8 million more children than are covered now and 
preserve coverage for 6.6 million more. It would help ensure Ohio can 
expand its program to include an additional 20,000 children. It targets 
the lowest-income uninsured children for outreach and enrollment, 
ensures dental coverage and mental health parity.
  The President was fundamentally wrong to veto the SCHIP bill. He 
needs to understand the economic and moral realities behind SCHIP. I 
cast my vote to express that.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I will vote to override the 
Presidents veto of this urgently needed legislation.
  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said ``of all the forms of inequality, 
injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' H.R. 976 
does not end health care inequality, but it would have provided 
continued coverage for children not covered by Medicare but whose 
parents cannot afford to buy insurance and whose employers do not 
provide it.
  These children--currently 6 million of them--are now eligible for 
coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)--but that 
program is set to expire and the President should have accepted this 
compromise legislation. Because the President does not accept this bi-
partisan compromise bill, these 6 million will no longer have access to 
quality, affordable health insurance.
  This legislation would assure continued coverage for those now 
enrolled and would provide coverage for an additional 4 million 
children who currently qualify, but who are not yet enrolled under 
CHIP.
  I believe that health care should be a right, not a privilege, and 
this act is a step in the right direction toward that goal. So, I 
support this bill although I wish it went further.
  Despite claims by some, this bill does not change the basic nature of 
the CHIP program. Instead, it maintains current eligibility 
requirements for CHIP. The majority of uninsured children are currently 
eligible for coverage--but better outreach and adequate funding are 
needed to identify and enroll them. This bill gives states the tools 
and incentives necessary to reach millions of uninsured children who 
are eligible for, but not enrolled in, the program.
  Earlier this year, I voted for the ``CHAMP'' bill to extend CHIP. The 
House of Representatives passed that bill, and I had hoped the Senate 
would follow suit. It would have increased funding for the CHIP program 
to $50 million, instead of the lesser amount provided by this bill. The 
CHAMP bill would have also addressed major health care issues, first by 
protecting traditional Medicare and second by addressing the 
catastrophic 10 percent payment cuts to physicians who serve Medicare 
patients.
  However, the bill vetoed by the President represents a compromise 
between the House and the Senate and deserves support today. It will 
pay for continued CHIP coverage by raising the federal tax by $0.61 per 
pack of cigarettes and similar amounts on other tobacco products. 
According to the American Cancer society, this means that youth smoking 
will be reduced by 7 percent while overall smoking will be reduced by 4 
percent, with the potential that 900,000 lives will be saved.
  H.R. 976 has the support of the American Medical Association, 
American Association of Retired Persons, Catholic Health Association, 
Healthcare Leadership Council, National Associations of Children's 
Hospitals, American Nurses Association, US Conference of Mayors, NAACP, 
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, and United Way of 
America.
  It is imperative that we vote to override this veto in order to 
protect those that are most vulnerable in our society by increasing 
health insurance coverage for low-income children. I hope that we have 
the opportunity to take up the other important Medicare issues 
addressed in the CHAMP bill soon.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this effort to 
override the President's veto of H.R. 976, the Children's Health 
Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization bill.
  Virtually everyone with a stake in public health and health care is 
calling for this bill to be passed. There are 270 groups supporting 
this bill: 43 Republican and Democratic governors, including Governor 
Schwarzenegger, the American Medical Association, AARP, America's 
Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the Healthcare Leadership Council, and 
Catholic Charities, among others.
  There are at least 10 million reasons to insure the children of our 
Nation because 10 million children don't have healthcare coverage 
today.
  The bill provides dental care, mental health benefits, and other 
medically necessary benefits that are part of the program.
  The bill provides coverage to expectant mothers.
  The bill allows States to provide assistance for CHIP-eligible kids 
to secure private insurance through a parent's employer-sponsored 
coverage.
  The bill is fully funded by a 61-cent per pack increase in the tax on 
cigarettes.
  The opponents of this bill are hiding behind the thinnest arguments.
  They say there are only 500,000 uninsured kids who are eligible for 
CHIP that we need to enroll. This is incorrect. According to the Urban 
Institute, there are more than 6.6 million low-income children who 
qualify for CHIP but are yet to be enrolled. This bill provides States 
with the resources and incentives to ensure these kids get the coverage 
they're eligible for.
  The President says the program will cover children in families with 
incomes of up to $83,000 a year. Senator Grassley, the Ranking 
Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, disputes this charge, 
saying ``the president has been served wrong information about what our 
bill will do.'' In fact, the bill provides incentives for States to 
enroll children below 200% of poverty and any State that chooses to 
provide more generous coverage must get approval from the 
Administration.
  Opponents assert that the bill increases taxes on ``working people.'' 
The truth is it increases taxes on smokers. Not only does this help pay 
for the program, but according to the Institute of Medicine, by 
increasing the tobacco tax, there will be a decrease in tobacco use, 
particularly among young people.
  Opponents assert the bill will cover adults not children. Although 
the program has been used to cover adults in the past, this practice 
will be phased out over the next two years.
  Opponents assert that the bill gives coverage to undocumented aliens. 
There is nothing in the bill that would provide such coverage. In fact, 
the bill says, ``nothing in this act allows federal payment for 
individuals who are not legal residents.''
  The moment has arrived for the House of Representatives to override 
the President's veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program, and 
when we do, we will stand next to the children and on the side of a 
brighter future for them and our entire country.

[[Page 27586]]


  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, this is the choice we have to make 
today. We stand up for our children and their future or we stand down 
with the President and tobacco companies. Good health or no health for 
millions of poor and disadvantaged children across America--that is 
what's at stake today.
  The President will spend $50 billion in 5 months on a war in Iraq, 
but he won't spend $35 billion over 5 years on poor and vulnerable 
kids. We pay for SCRIP but we will keep paying for the war for decades 
to come. We take care of our children while the President passes his 
war costs on to our children, and grandchildren.
  We can vote to provide access to quality, affordable health care for 
our Nation's children by voting to override this veto, or we can vote 
to sit back and watch the economic security of our working families 
erode day by day, as this Administration has done.
  The President said he is using his veto pen on SCRIP to show he is 
relevant, but with the stroke of a pen he has merely shown he is 
irresponsible with the health and welfare of America's future.
  Let's set a good example for our children and support a bipartisan, 
fiscally responsible, health care bill that will get us one step closer 
to universal coverage for all Americans.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, in Massachusetts, we have begun to 
address the crisis of the uninsured. We believe health care is a right, 
not a privilege for the wealthy.
  The president's veto of the bipartisan SCHIP compromise abandons 11 
million children, including 90,500 Massachusetts children. That is 
unacceptable.
  I wish President Bush would take the time to meet hardworking 
families like the O'Neils of Fall River. They were just blessed with 
their first child, Sean. Dad works several jobs while his wife recovers 
her health.
  But the cost of all those doctors' visits and immunizations add up. 
Thanks to SCHIP, Sean is a happy, healthy baby.
  But thanks to the President's veto, my proactive State exhausted its 
SCHIP allotment on October 1. Even with the extension, all of its funds 
will be gone by January 11.
  To justify his position, the President has decided to distort what 
this good bill actually does. It doesn't cover well-off families. It 
doesn't cover illegal immigrants. What it does do is give a hand to 
millions of families who are struggling to provide health care for 
their kids.
  I simply don't understand the President's priorities. He's more than 
happy to sign bills giving billions of tax breaks to oil companies and 
multi-millionaires, but he won't sign a modest, fully-paid-for bill 
that helps millions of low-income children? He's willing to spend 
hundreds of billions of dollars--none of it paid for--in Iraq but is 
unwilling to sign a bill that is paid for and will keep children from 
losing their health care?
  That makes no sense to me.
  This bill has the support of the medical community, children's 
advocates, and even the insurance industry. There is simply no reason 
for the President to reject it, other than partisan politics.
  I will continue to fight for this important program, and I urge all 
of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to do the same.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Madam Speaker, this is a defining moment for the state of 
health care in this Nation . . . a defining moment for this Congress . 
. . and a moment when the country will watch this government take 
sides.
  The State Children's Health Insurance bill is one of the best pieces 
of bipartisan legislation the House has considered in a decade. It lays 
bare the most significant difference between what this Congress 
supports and what the President--and those who stand with him in 
support of his veto--supports.
  Supporters of SCHIP stand with working families and children . . . 
opponents here in Congress--and the President--stand with insurance 
companies. The President's veto cut off health care for over 120,000 
kids in Texas.
  There's just no lipstick to pretty up this pig. The President's veto 
was downright mean. He leaves a legacy of a war he won't pay for and 
children he won't give health care to. Being for war and against kids 
is an awful record and a horrible legacy.
  Those who stand with the President today in sustaining his veto of 
this bipartisan bill will bear the ridicule of that record the next 
time they face the voters.
  Those who do an unpopular thing--knowing it is the right thing to 
do--are rewarded by history. History will accurately note that those 
supporting the President in this veto are doing the bidding of the 
health insurance companies, at the expense of our children. Those 
supporting the President's veto are doing the wrong thing for the wrong 
reasons.
  Congress created SCHIP in 1997 with broad bipartisan support. This 
year, 6 million children have health care because of SCHIP. The program 
has worked well in Texas. This has been an excellent investment for our 
nation, given that health care costs without insurance would be much 
more expensive.
  The President highlighted his support for SCHIP while running for re-
election in 2004. Today he--and those who stand with him in sustaining 
this veto--show their true colors: say one thing in political 
campaigns, do another when the moment comes to record your vote . . . 
when the rubber hits the road.
  I urge my colleagues to override this veto. We are the last hope of 
children and families all over this country. They are watching us--all 
of us.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, today the House of Representatives has 
an historic opportunity to provide health insurance for 10 million 
children from low-income families. In fact, when the House takes up a 
motion to override the President's veto on the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act, it will be the second 
time in as many months that Congress votes to provide low-income, 
working families with health insurance for their children.
  This legislation, passed by Congress in September, is an essential 
step in providing better access to healthcare for the 47 million 
uninsured individuals in this country, 5 million of whom are children. 
One could argue that the state of Texas, which has the highest 
percentage of uninsured individuals of any state in the Nation, needs 
this bill the most. Texas is home to a staggering 1.4 million children 
who lack even the most basic health insurance.
  The CHIP Reauthorization that President Bush vetoed provides health 
insurance for 10 million underprivileged American children. The bill 
adds $35 billion for the CHIP program over the next 5 years. It 
maintains coverage for the 6 million children who are already enrolled, 
and allows for an additional 3.8 million who are already eligible for 
the program to start receiving benefits.
  Instead of supporting this modest expansion, President Bush wants to 
increase funding for CHIP by a mere $5 billion over the next 5 years. 
Such a proposal would not allow for any new eligible, uninsured 
children to enroll in the program. In fact, according to the non-
partisan Congressional Budget Office, President Bush's proposal would 
result in 840,000 children losing their CHIP coverage.
  We cannot in good conscience enact a program that will push children 
from the CHIP rolls. I will stand behind the Congressionally-passed 
CHIP authorization and hope that my colleagues in the House of 
Representatives join me and override the President's veto today.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, it's disappointing that the 
Administration and many Republicans can't get their priorities in order 
and support an expansion of SCHIP. The Administration's veto of H.R. 
976, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act, shows just how 
far its priorities are from the rest of this country.
  The Administration said it's too expensive. Yet the Administration 
has had no trouble spending half-a-trillion dollars on the occupation 
of Iraq. The Administration's priorities are clear: Unlimited money for 
occupation, no money for kids. Currently, we're spending about $14 
million dollars per hour on the occupation. That means we could provide 
medical, dental, and mental health care to more than 10,000 low-income 
children for the cost of just one single hour in Iraq.
  This bill was an opportunity for us to stand up and say that 10 
million of our Nation's children deserve health coverage and access to 
dental and mental health services. In California, that would have 
provided 607,000 additional children with health insurance. By vetoing 
this bill, the Administration has turned its back on these children.
  Additionally, the Administration has abandoned its promise to our 
Nation's military service members and their families. This legislation 
amends the Family and Medical Leave Act, the landmark workplace 
protection legislation passed 14 years ago, to provide the spouse, 
child, parent, and next of kin of an injured service member with 6 
months of unpaid, job protected leave to care for their wounded loved 
one. This language is identical to the bipartisan bill, H.R. 3481, the 
Support for Injured Servicemembers Act, which Chairman George Miller 
and I have championed in the House and Senators Christopher Dodd and 
Hillary Rodham Clinton have fought for in the Senate. We have a moral 
obligation to honor our military families, who should never have to 
choose between keeping their jobs and support and meeting the needs of 
their loved ones. As the Chairwoman of the Workforce Protections 
Subcommittee, I believe we can no longer afford to deny these dedicated 
men and women the urgently needed protections included in this bill.

[[Page 27587]]

  Children are 25 percent of our population but 100 percent of our 
future. I look forward to working with my fellow Members to continue to 
protect the health and well-being of our Nation's most valuable 
resource: Its children.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, despite all the rhetoric 
about the State Children's Health Insurance Program which was created 
by Republicans, the fact remains that we all want low-income children 
to have access to health care. The only difference is that Republicans 
have stood by the principle of covering poor children first and not 
covering adults, illegal aliens, and those already covered by private 
insurance.
  The President's SCHIP proposal provides an increase of $5 billion to 
cover those who are currently enrolled and the 500,000 children 
eligible but not yet covered. The billions more in spending that the 
Democrats are requesting will use taxpayer dollars to provide health 
care for individuals SCHIP was never meant to cover. Additionally, the 
Democrat proposal pulls the rug out from underneath these children when 
funding to the program is drastically cut in 2012.
  When you take the Democrat legislation at face value and look past 
the political rhetoric and the demagoguery, the Republican proposal to 
promote SCHIP is best for families and children.
  In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget 
September 11.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of overriding the 
President's veto on the Children's Health Insurance Program.
  The bill would provide health coverage to more than 10 million low-
income kids. In my home State of Michigan, this means expanding a 
program that works to 80,900 kids that are already eligible. The 
families of these kids make between $20,535 and $41,300 a year.
  The claims against the bill are false.
  This program is not for well-to-do families. Most kids the bill would 
cover are in families making less than $41,300 a year.
  This is not about socialized medicine. It covers kids under the same 
private health plans and private doctors that treat the 6 million kids 
in the original program authorized in 1997 under a Republican Congress.
  This is not about providing health insurance to illegal immigrants. 
Undocumented immigrants have never been eligible for the Children's 
Health Insurance Program and this bill requires that kids show proof of 
citizenship to enroll.
  Today we have a choice to make. Do we, as Representatives of the 9 
million uninsured kids in America, expand an effective program to 
provide insurance to 10 million low-income kids? Or do we let rigid 
ideology and false arguments stand in the way?
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I am deeply troubled by the 
high-pitched rhetoric that dominated the recent SCHIP debate. Very 
unfortunately, the remarks of a few Members of Congress on both sides 
of the aisle crossed the line between civil discussion and a partisan 
shouting match. Not only are such comments inappropriate, but they 
distract from the critical issues facing America today.
  I hope that, as the debate on SCHIP moves forward, Congress can move 
past the political rhetoric and focus on what really matters: helping 
low-income families who have no other way to afford health care for 
their kids.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of this effort to override the President's veto of the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act.
  This legislation would provide health care coverage for 10 million 
American children, at a cost of less than $3.50 a day per child. The 
State Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act is 
supported by individuals and organizations from across the political 
and ideological spectrum. It is supported by 81 percent of Americans, 
the majority of Congress, 43 Governors, and more than 270 
organizations, including AARP, American Medical Association, and 
America's Health Insurance Plans.
  The arguments against this bill are at best distorted and at worst 
flat wrong. This legislation targets low-income children, it utilizes 
private health insurance, and it is paid for. H.R. 976 is also a 
bipartisan compromise bill created with cooperation of the House, 
Senate, health care providers, and consumers. Most importantly, 
ensuring our children have health care is the right thing to do.
  As a mom, it is unconscionable to me to choose not to provide health 
care for children in need. As a Member of Congress, I am disappointed, 
but not surprised, that this President has put politics before the 
health of America's families.
  Investing in our children's health care must be a priority. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting to override the President's misguided 
veto of H.R. 976.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding?
  Under the Constitution, the vote must be by the yeas and nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 273, 
nays 156, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 982]

                               YEAS--273

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

                               NAYS--156

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof

[[Page 27588]]


     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Carson
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     King (NY)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). The Chair will remind all 
persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and 
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or 
other audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.

                              {time}  1317

  So (two-thirds not being in the affirmative) the veto of the 
President was sustained and the bill was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, due to the sudden circumstances 
regarding my mother's health, I will not be present during today's 
rollcall vote on the override of the Presidential veto of the 
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (H.R. 976). If 
I were present, I would vote ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The veto message and the 
bill will be referred to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways 
and Means.
  The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.

                          ____________________