[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27770-27772]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE AND FISA

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am so pleased the Presiding Officer is the 
junior Senator from the State of Virginia. I don't believe there is a 
Senator during these last 9 months who has added more structure to the 
Iraq debate than the Senator from Virginia. I say that because today I 
received a call from the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, Mr. Nussle, who said: I am going to send you the rest of the 
supplemental appropriations bill for the war in Iraq. I said: Thank you 
very much.
  We are now being asked to appropriate another $200 billion for 2008 
for the war in Iraq. Another $200 billion. That is $200 billion on top 
of the $450 billion in the Defense appropriations bill. That is $650 
billion--none of it paid for. The entire war in Iraq has been paid for 
with borrowed money. We are borrowing money from China, India, Saudi 
Arabia, Japan, and Mexico to finance this war.
  When we sent a bipartisan--and I mean bipartisan--children's health 
care bill to the President, it was paid for. It was bipartisan. We had 
some of the most conservative Members of the Senate supporting the 
Children's Health Initiative. Senator Grassley from Iowa, Senator Hatch 
from Utah were the leaders, two of the leaders in moving this forward, 
a bill to provide health care for kids.
  It was so important when this bill passed 10 years ago on a 
bipartisan basis, children's health. Why did it pass? Because we found 
there were children who did not qualify for Medicaid. The poorest of 
the poor get Medicaid. We found there were a number of children whose 
parents didn't make much money--100 percent of poverty, 200 percent of 
poverty. Therefore, we passed a bill for these children who had fallen 
through the cracks so they would be able to have some health insurance. 
Did it cover all children? No. But it covered a lot of the children who 
needed help. By the time 10 years had gone by, 6\1/2\ million children 
were covered.
  This bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation that passed here 
would provide for another 4.4 million children, for a total of 10 
million children who would qualify for this program. Ninety-two percent 
of the children were on this program when the President vetoed it. 
Ninety-two percent of them were 200 percent above poverty. How much is 
that? It is debatable how much it is but about $35,000. How would 
parents with two children pay for health insurance? The average cost of 
health insurance for a family of 4 is $1,500 a month, $18,000 a year 
for health insurance for their children. When they only make $35,000 a 
year, half of their income would go for health insurance. There would 
be no money left for groceries. Also, they have to pay taxes, fuel 
costs, a place to live. So this is the group of people whom Congress 
decided to help.
  What did the President and his people do? They came back and said it 
is a socialized medicine program. I don't know what that was supposed 
to mean, because the program is private insurance. The States issue the 
amount of

[[Page 27771]]

money they have to health insurance companies, and the kids who are 
covered are privately insured there. The President is so far off base. 
He and his people also said one of the Congressmen from Nevada agreed 
with the President, and he couldn't support this because it helped 
illegal aliens. That is factually baseless, meaning not 1 percent of 
that statement is correct. In fact, in the legislation that was vetoed 
by the President, a child who is an immigrant would have to have been 
legally in the United States for 5 years before they qualified. 
Therefore, the program would not even cover legal immigrants, unless 
they have been here 5 years. It was totally paid for, unlike the Iraq 
war. It was all paid for.
  Because of the President's hard-heartedness, in the State of Nevada, 
far more than 100,000 will be eliminated from the program.
  The first elected job I had in the State of Nevada was for a county 
hospital, an indigent hospital, frankly. One of the problems we had was 
children who were uninsured. It is still that way. It is still that 
way. This is a program that would allow children who are sick or 
injured to go to a hospital--that hospital, the one where I was, now 
the University Medical Center--and the children's bills would be paid 
for by an insurance company. If not, those children who have no 
insurance come to the facility, and who pays for that? You do. I do. 
Everybody in this room pays for it, because their health insurance 
costs more money because of indigent care. Taxes are raised to take 
care of indigents' health care. Insurance premiums are raised to take 
care of all this. It affects us all. It is a very poor quality of care.
  The President had the audacity to say not long ago that everybody has 
insurance, in effect. They can go to an emergency room if they are 
sick. The most inadequate care is administered in emergency rooms 
because it is not set up to be the family physician.
  Every dime of the money for the Children's Health Initiative was paid 
for. It is no wonder the American people are frustrated. We have been 
fighting for America's priorities while the President continues 
investing only in his failed war strategy, and he wants us to come up 
with another $200 billion and sign off on it. That is what he said 
today. He gave his press statement today and he said: Those people who 
won't sign off on this bill immediately are not for the troops in Iraq. 
Isn't this getting to be a little old? Pretty soon we will be 
approaching the sixth year of this.
  This war is costing the American people three-quarters of a trillion 
dollars, money borrowed from other countries. This is so even as his 
own Pentagon leadership is now on record saying our ground forces are 
stretched dangerously thin because of the current Iraq strategy. GEN 
Casey told Congress very recently:

       The Army is out of balance and the current demand for our 
     forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with 
     meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to 
     provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other 
     potential contingencies.

  This is the man who is in charge of the Army, the Secretary of the 
Army. He takes care of the Army. He is the commander of the Army. I 
don't remember the title; I have lost it momentarily. But he is the guy 
in charge. He certainly should know. The Iraq war is leaving us less 
secure and unprepared to fight an effective war on terror and spawning 
the unexpected. And the unexpected can come at any time. That is the 
world in which we live. President Bush should not expect Congress to 
rubberstamp this latest supplemental request. We will not do that, Mr. 
President.
  In the coming weeks, we will hold it up to the light of day and fight 
for the redeployment and change in strategy that is long overdue.
  I wish to comment on FISA, which has gotten so much attention. We 
will continue to stand up for the American people. We will continue to 
do the best we can to revise and improve the FISA bill. It is important 
that we do that. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is so 
important. It has been good for this country for many decades. We need 
to update that. We all agree it is important to improve the temporary 
surveillance law the President signed in August by enacting new 
legislation that provides strong intelligence tools to fight terrorism 
while protecting the privacy of law-abiding citizens. There is no 
contradiction between security and liberty. We can fight terrorism 
without compromising liberty and the values embedded in our 
Constitution.
  Last Thursday, Senator Rockefeller and the Intelligence Committee, on 
a bipartisan basis with Senator Bond, took a step toward improving the 
flawed surveillance law the President signed in August. I appreciate 
the hard work of Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond and the 
members of the committee in seeking to address the complex issues that 
are at stake.
  In the coming days, other Senators will examine in great detail the 
work of the Intelligence Committee. I am sure other Senators will weigh 
in with ideas for defining and improving the legislative efforts, so 
that all Americans can have high confidence in the effectiveness and 
constitutionality of our intelligence tools. In particular, the Senate 
Judiciary Committee has shared jurisdiction over the FISA law and is 
going to mark up the Intelligence Committee bill. The Judiciary 
Committee has an important role to make sure the final product protects 
the constitutionally and the legally sound basis that the Intelligence 
Committee sought.
  Mr. President, I believe the administration has chosen again to 
stonewall Congress from finding the information and documents needed 
for Congress to properly consider this legislation. Remember, the 
Intelligence Committee said we are not going to deal with immunity 
until we look at those documents. They were able to look at the 
documents with nothing preconceived. They had the opportunity to look 
at those with no--I have talked to Senator Rockefeller, and there was 
no agreement between the administration and the Intelligence Committee 
as to what would happen if they looked at those documents.
  Here is why I am so disturbed. The White House said, on October 19, 
through their advocate, Dana Perino--the question was asked:

       I'm wondering if, in general terms, you can describe those 
     documents and perhaps lay out who else in Congress he may 
     allow to see them?

  ``He'' meaning the President.
  Here is what she said:

       The Senate Intelligence Committee . . . had showed a 
     willingness to want to include in their legislation 
     retroactive liability protection for companies that were 
     alleged to have helped the United States in the days after 9/
     11. Because they were willing to do that, we were willing to 
     show them some of the documents they asked to see.

  Mr. President, Jay Rockefeller told me within the past hour that 
there was no preconceived agreement at all. They wanted to see the 
document to find out what they should do legislatively.
  She says:

       But to the extent of anyone else being able to see the 
     documents, I think we will wait and see who else is willing 
     to include that provision in the bill.

  I want the record to be very clear that the Judiciary Committee 
should be able to see those documents. How else can they make a 
judgment as to what they should do legislatively? They should not have 
to make some deal with the White House that ``we will let you look at 
these, but we will write the legislation for you.'' That is wrong. I 
think it is very clear that the House committees of jurisdiction should 
also see those documents. It is absolutely wrong for the White House to 
say, I repeat, that they will let you look at these, but only if you 
will agree to sign this legislation or you give your approval of the 
legislation.
  We can't do that.
  On Friday, the White House Press Secretary said the key documents 
would be held out to the congressional committees as a prize for anyone 
willing to commit to a specific legislative path. That is an insult to 
the American people and to Congress.
  I repeat in the most emphatic terms that the administration must turn 
over these documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee and to the 
relevant

[[Page 27772]]

House committees to do their business as they must, and they must do so 
immediately.
  We believe this administration should move forward quickly. I would 
like to do it before Thanksgiving. Why do I want to do that? This 
legislation which came out of the Intelligence Committee is good. It 
strengthens our national security. It provides the Intelligence 
Committee the tools it needs to go after foreign terrorists and other 
threats to the American security.
  Does this mean the Judiciary Committee cannot improve the 
legislation? I am confident that perhaps they can. Is the Intelligence 
Committee's work the know-all and do-all? No. That is why we had joint 
referral. But it is a good piece of legislation. It gives better 
protection for America and increases the role of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Court. Two, it requires court approval to 
target U.S. persons overseas. Three, it explicitly prohibits targeting 
any person reasonably believed to be in the United States. Four, it 
eliminates ambiguous language on warrantless domestic searches. Five, 
it states the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and 
interception of domestic communications may be conducted.
  Also, just as important, other than those five points, it increases 
oversight and accountability by expanding the requirements in the 
semiannual report submitted to the congressional Intelligence and 
Judiciary Committees on intelligence collecting that is authorized by 
the act. It also requires the head of elements of the Intelligence 
Committee acting under their authority to conduct yearly audits of 
intelligence collection. Third, it requires the inspectors general of 
the Department of Justice and the Intelligence Committee to review the 
use of the new authority with respect to references to U.S. persons' 
identities and communications. And it grants limited immunity from 
potential liability to any telecommunications company that may have 
assisted the Government in the aftermath of September 11. That is why 
it is so vitally important that the Judiciary Committee and the 
respective House committees see what the Intelligence Committee saw 
without any preconceived arrangements by the White House. Five, it sets 
forth the procedures so that the Federal courts can review an attorney 
general certification to determine whether the electronic communication 
service provider acted within specific orders and in accordance with 
the certification as directly prescribed by statute. Finally, it sets a 
6-year sunset to allow Congress to evaluate the new authority to be 
carried out, should any of this be changed. That is why we have joint 
referral, to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at this.
  The Intelligence Committee has worked hard to come up with what 
should be the final legislation that comes to the floor. Finally, the 
House passes legislation, and we work it out in conference.
  We want to move forward. It is important to do that. We acknowledge 
that. I think it is so wrong that the White House is saying: You can do 
this but only as we tell you how it can be written; otherwise, we are 
not going to show you the documents
  That is defenseless on the part of the White House.

                          ____________________