[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 28306-28317]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3963, CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE 
                  PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentlewoman from New York 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on H. Res. 774, and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 774 provides a closed rule for consideration of 
H.R. 3963, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act 
of 2007. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided among and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce and the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand before you on the floor this afternoon with 
mixed emotions. I along with a majority of Members of the House are 
disappointed that we have to reintroduce a bill, passed by enormous 
bipartisan support, which would have provided millions of children 
across the Nation with access to health care.
  The memory of what took place here on the House floor a week ago 
today will not soon be forgotten. On that day, we saw a few Members 
stand in lockstep with the President and with that deny health care 
coverage for millions of our children.
  However, coupled with my disappointment, Mr. Speaker, is the 
consuming feeling of promise. I have hope for those children, along 
with a belief that those Members who were unable to break away from the 
President's mistaken rhetoric will stand for what is right today and 
vote to overwhelmingly pass this vital legislation.
  I feel strongly that what motivated me and so many of my colleagues 
to come to Washington in the first place was the thought that on any 
day a vote could be held that would improve the lives of millions of 
people throughout our country. And that is exactly the chance that we 
have been given here today.
  We are again granted the chance to vote for a bill that will advance 
medical care in this country, improve the health of our youngest and 
neediest citizens, and offer new hope for literally millions of 
children who would otherwise be left without either.
  I think everyone listening today recognizes the reality of the 
situation we face. Should we not act, the health care of millions of 
children will be yanked away on November 16. Not providing health care 
to millions of children when given the opportunity to do so is 
appalling, but to strip away benefits from those who currently have 
them is simply indefensible.
  Mr. Speaker, in our vote to expand SCHIP last month, we made a 
genuine dent in one of the most shameful inadequacies of our health 
care system: the lack of coverage for millions of America's children.
  Congress created the State Child Health Insurance Program in 1997 
with broad bipartisan support, including some of my colleagues who now 
oppose it. As a result, over 6 million children currently have health 
care coverage that otherwise would not. In my home State of New York, 
over 400,000 children are enrolled, the second highest in the Nation.
  The SCHIP reauthorization bill would preserve access to health care 
for 6 million children already enrolled in the program, while bringing 
desperately needed health care coverage to almost 4 million more 
children. As a result, in my home State of New York, an additional 
268,000 children who need it will have health care coverage. That means 
they will be able to get their immunizations before starting school, or 
see the dentist when they have a toothache.
  This new bill also makes changes by phasing out childless adults 
after 1 year, and also puts in a cap on children whose parents' income 
are over 300 percent above the poverty level. The bill also requires 
States to develop plans and implement recommended best practices for 
addressing crowd-out.
  Make no mistake, 43 Governors from red States and blue, 69 Members of 
the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, 273 of my 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle in the House, and 81 percent of 
the American public, including a large majority of Republicans, support 
our bipartisan expansion of SCHIP.
  Yet, presented with this overwhelming support from all sides, the 
President decided to dust off his veto pen and with it deny millions of 
children access to health care. In spite of the unquestionable benefits 
and in spite of the overwhelming popularity and accomplishments of this 
program, SCHIP is under attack.
  We saw reprehensible smear attacks on families who were brought into 
the public eye to showcase the benefits of the program. In the face of 
the lifesaving chance that was bestowed on the family due to this 
program, the harshest rhetoric was not cast against the bill, but 
against this family, including the children.
  We saw persons go to the home of one of the families and harass them 
in public, talk radio and blogs made wild and audacious accusations, 
and we even saw staffers on Capitol Hill who clearly intended to assist 
this fabricated, coldhearted smear campaign.
  It is simply beyond comprehension to me that many are willing to 
score political points by denigrating our Nation's children, 
particularly those who owe their very lives to this program.
  But the American people saw through the attacks. They understood that 
the health of our Nation's children is simply not worth scoring a few 
political points.
  Mr. Speaker, the President chastises the $35 billion bill, which is 
fully paid for, as ``too expensive.'' And with the same breath, he 
seeks an additional $190 billion for the Iraq war, all of which is at 
the expense of the taxpayer.

[[Page 28307]]

  This is simply unconscionable when you realize the amount of money it 
takes to provide the health care for 10 million children for an entire 
year is what we spend in Iraq in just 41 days. We need to get our 
priorities straight.
  I am enormously proud of the accomplishments we have done this year, 
from education to health care, but nothing means more to us than SCHIP. 
The American people expect us to tackle this health challenge before 
us. Last week we fell short of overturning the veto by just 13 votes. 
To those Members who know that providing health care to vulnerable 
children is the right thing to do, I say to you: Join with Democrats 
and Republicans and with the American people in passing the bill today.
  Healthy children make a healthy Nation, Mr. Speaker. I hope every 
Member takes a long and hard look at the bill that we are presenting 
today and sees not just the words and the numbers, but the faces of 10 
million children whose fate they hold in their very hands.
  It is time to put principles before politics. It is time to stand in 
defiance of misplaced priorities. And it is time to vote with our 
Nation's children and provide them with the health care they need and 
deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
40th completely closed rule to be reported by the Rules Committee in 
the first session of the 110th Congress, a rule that fails even to 
provide the minority with a substitute amendment and to the underlying 
legislation that the minority did not receive until 7:30 p.m. last 
night.
  Might I also add, perhaps the American public is sold on this, but 
there is not one cosponsor of this bill in this body. And when the bill 
was presented to the Rules Committee last night, no one even took 
credit for it. Those that brought the bill forward said, ``Not my bill, 
this is the Senate bill.'' An interesting twist of fate.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, for the third time in as many months, I 
oppose the way this legislation has been brought to the floor without a 
single legislative markup. I oppose the fact that despite Speaker 
Pelosi's promise to run the most honest, open and transparent House in 
history, today we are being provided with a process and a product that 
is none of the above.
  Mr. Speaker, what we do have is a bill that neither the Republican 
leadership nor the Republican members on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee nor the administration had any opportunity to participate in 
crafting.
  What we do have is a process that has been politicized and 
mischaracterized over and over again by the new Democrat majority in 
the hopes if the same skewed numbers and faulty facts are repeated 
enough times, then somehow they must be true.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, we learned that when it comes to 
playing by their own PAYGO rules, the Democrat majority wants to have 
things both ways. We learned that this majority only agrees with the 
facts presented by the Congressional Budget Office when it suits their 
needs. When the CBO estimates that the bill raises taxes enough to pay 
for the additional $35 billion in spending that it creates, they would 
be for it. However, when confronted by the fact that CBO estimates that 
this legislation falls 26 percent short of the often-repeated claim of 
covering 10 million children, all of a sudden the CBO's calculator is 
broken and their ability to estimate anything accurately is certainly 
put at dispute.
  The CBO also estimates, as my good friend and colleague from Texas, 
Dr. Michael Burgess, points out in his testimony late last night in the 
Rules Committee, this legislation will move 2 million children who are 
already being covered by private health insurance into a Washington-
based system that deliberately undercompensates physicians for their 
services by approximately 40 percent, creating a net loss for the 
overall quality of patient care.
  What we do have is a process that for the third consecutive time 
still increases government spending and dislocates the private 
marketplace, diverting much-needed funds away from helping our Nation's 
poorest children.
  One new bit of information which has been represented about this 
legislation is that it finally prevents undocumented workers and adults 
from receiving those funds intended to pay for the medical cost of 
children of the working poor.

                              {time}  1245

  Since we got this 293-page bill just a few hours ago, I will have to 
take the Democrats at their word. But if this is the case, it means 
that despite all of their protests to the contrary, and consistent with 
now-vindicated Republican criticisms, the first 2 SCHIP bills passed by 
the House did cover undocumented workers and adults.
  I would like to congratulate Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the new 
Democrat leadership team for finally agreeing with what Republicans 
have been saying all along, because we all began at the same point, and 
that is, you can't have a fix if there's no problem to begin with. We 
knew there was a problem, and they finally admitted it in this new 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm not here to oppose the idea of SCHIP. It was a 
Republican-controlled Congress that created SCHIP; and I support its 
original, true mission statement. But H.R. 3963 is yet another thinly 
camouflaged attempt at slowly siphoning Americans from insurance plans 
in the private market into a Washington-based, government-run, single-
payer health care system.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have failed to address one of the most serious 
issues facing our Nation, how to make the health insurance system more 
affordable and accessible for all Americans. So, most of all, I rise to 
oppose the Democrat leadership playing political games with children's 
health in order to score electoral points.
  It is a well-known and often-cited axiom that ``success has a 
thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.'' That statement is no more 
true than in Washington, DC today, where everyone clamors to be 
associated with success but sets new land-speed records in distancing 
themselves from responsibility.
  You see, last night in the Rules Committee, we were told time and 
time again that the bill being brought forward by this rule is not a 
House product; it is a Senate compromise that we all just have to 
support. The chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my good 
friend Mr. Dingell, reiterated the point over and over again to the 
committee in his testimony.
  In fact, despite asking for one, I'm still unable to find 1 House 
Democrat willing to take responsibility for all the shortcomings of 
this bill. And if we can't find 1 Member of the House, much less a 
thousand, willing to take credit for this bill, then I guess if we're 
simply judging the bill a success or a failure, it's pretty obvious 
which category this falls into.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to oppose this completely 
closed rule that breaks every promise made in Speaker Pelosi's ``New 
Direction for America,'' and this politically motivated and ill-
conceived legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, the 
distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, and I thank you for 
bringing this opportunity to the floor where Congress again will have 
to make a decision about our priorities. The Congress will, I know, in 
a very strong bipartisan vote, support the children of America because 
this has always been, as the gentlewoman indicated, a bipartisan 
initiative.
  I first want to acknowledge the distinguished chairman of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, for his work over the years. I 
believe his committee had seven hearings on the legislation regarding 
SCHIP. And the distinguished Chair of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. 
Pallone, is with us here.

[[Page 28308]]

  I also want to acknowledge the great work of Charlie Rangel, the 
Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, who has been such a strong 
advocate for America's children in every way and, in particular, in 
this. He, too, had his markups on the bill, which improved the bill; 
and I want to acknowledge him and his distinguished Chair of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Stark.
  But my highest praise goes to Republicans. Without the Republicans we 
wouldn't even have SCHIP. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah really is the 
father of this initiative. As he tells us, two families in Provo, Utah, 
visited him in his office. Both of these families have 2 wage-earners, 
both of them making minimum wage, trying to support their families of 
four each. They pled with him that they could not provide health 
insurance for their children. Because they were working and they were 
above the poverty line, they did not qualify for Medicaid, and so their 
hard work was rewarded, not so, by not having health insurance for 
their children and that was where this all began.
  Ten years ago, under a Democratic President, President Clinton, and a 
Republican Congress, this initiative, SCHIP, State Children's Health 
Insurance Program, became the law of the land; and God bless that 
bipartisan effort for making that possible for the health of our 
children.
  So Senator Hatch was very much a part of putting this legislation 
together, and the gentlemen are right, this is largely a Senate 
initiative. Senator Grassley, the former Chair of the Finance Committee 
from Iowa, also a distinguished Republican Member of the United States 
Senate, has worked harder than anyone to make this the law of the land 
again, to reauthorize this SCHIP, this children's health initiative, by 
his intellect, and helped shaping the bill, by his persuasion in 
talking to Members, including his persuasion of many of us who had a 
far different bill in mind but agreed to the compromises that he has 
put forth for the good of the children.
  That bill was vetoed. The original bill was vetoed by the President, 
as we all know. The veto was not overridden. So here we are again with 
another SCHIP in the image of the bill that received all of the 
attention before, but improved upon by suggestions made by our 
colleagues in the minority, our Republican colleagues.
  It wasn't that these issues weren't covered in the bill; but the 
clarity sought by the Republicans, and agreed to by all of us, I think 
are a definite improvement on the bill, and these fall into 3 areas.
  First, there was the question of the now-famous unlimited amount of 
wealth that a person could have in order to be able to avail themselves 
of SCHIP. I hesitate to even repeat the charge because it was so untrue 
and was known to be untrue, because none of the waivers for such action 
were ever given by President Bush.
  So that factual statement did not exist, but in any event, the fact 
is now and I thank our Republican colleagues for insisting upon the 
clarity that says no one making over 300 percent of poverty, no State 
can allow people to receive the benefits of SCHIP. So there's a cap, a 
300 percent of poverty, as to who may receive the benefit.
  Secondly, the question of undocumented, those people who are in our 
country but have not been here that length of time that would qualify. 
So the undocumented are one category, and the undocumented are not 
allowed to receive benefits from this initiative. It was clear in the 
first bill. It's even clearer in the second bill.
  So the cap on who can receive it, stronger language as to 
undocumented, and, third, the issue of adults. Adults were in the 
program because people thought as a lure to families they could get 
children in the program. Republicans objected to that. There was an 
exaggeration of the number of adults who are in the program; but, 
nonetheless, in the interests of the children the new legislation 
contains a provision that adults, under one circumstance, will be 
phased out in 2 years and, in another circumstance, in 1 year, so that 
it's a faster, faster removal of adults from the system.
  As a mother of 5, though, I have to insist that Governors still be 
allowed to provide health care to pregnant women because we cannot talk 
about the health of our children, especially getting one out to the 
earliest, healthiest start, unless we talk about the health of pregnant 
women.
  So, again, 3 areas: the cap, 300 percent; no illegal aliens, to use 
your term, I prefer undocumented, are able to get benefits; and adults 
are phased out of the program. The adults were only in the program 
because the Bush administration gave the waiver to enable them to be in 
the program; but, nonetheless, that is now out of the question.
  So we have this opportunity, once again, for this Congress to speak 
and vote in support of children. This is so important. It's a very 
positive day for me because when people ask me what are the 3 most 
important issues facing the Congress, I always say the same thing--our 
children, our children, our children: their health, the education, the 
economic security of their families, a safe and healthy environment in 
which they can thrive, and a world at peace in which they can reach 
their fulfillment.
  And on every one of those scores, this Congress has acted in a strong 
bipartisan way on behalf of the children. The health, we're talking 
about today. The education, this Congress in a strong bipartisan way 
passed the biggest package for college affordability since the GI Bill 
of Rights was signed by Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, over 60 years ago, 
and this Congress said we are standing with the children in terms of 
expanding their opportunity.
  The health today, the education and many other educational 
initiatives. I point that one out because it's a start. The economic 
security of their families, this Congress voted in a very strong 
bipartisan way to raise the minimum wage, the first time it was raised 
in 10 years, and with a strong bipartisan vote.
  Also, in a very strong bipartisan vote, we voted for the Innovation 
Agenda, the COMPETES Act, our commitment to competitiveness to keep 
America number one, keep good-paying jobs and businesses in the United 
States, helping the economic security of our families.
  And then the environment in which they live, again in a strong 
bipartisan way, we passed legislation to make the air they breathe, the 
water they drink cleaner. All of this was done, again strong bipartisan 
votes, highest ethical standard, no new deficit spending, all of it so 
that none of the advantages that we were conveying to children would be 
accompanied with a bill heaping mountains of debt onto them into the 
future.
  Part of that also was to operate in the most honest and open way. In 
a strong bipartisan way, we passed our ethics reform bill so that we 
are here for the children's interest and not special interests.
  So this Congress this year has had a strong bipartisan record in 
support of our children, and I thank both the Republicans and the 
Democrats for supporting those initiatives. Almost all of that except 
this SCHIP has been signed into law by the President of the United 
States.
  Some mention has been made about the fact that there is a fire in 
California, and as one who has had the privilege of representing the 
great Golden State of California for 20 years in the Congress, one who 
understands we had an earthquake in San Francisco, an earthquake in Los 
Angeles and now these disastrous fires, we all understand how important 
it is for Members to be at home with their constituents at a time of a 
natural disaster, a time of tragedy. But that doesn't mean we don't 
continue with the work of government.
  As Mr. Taylor so eloquently said earlier, he was with his 
constituents in Mississippi while we passed legislation that affected 
those people here in the Congress, and that was the appropriate way to 
go. It was then; it is now.
  As a matter of fact, I spoke to Governor Schwarzenegger the other day 
and acknowledged his leadership and the rapid response of the 
California

[[Page 28309]]

emergency services team, which is the gold standard, a model for the 
country. I wanted to find out from him what needs he had from the 
Federal Government. At the time we had emergency designation. Now we 
have a major disaster designation by the President, and I salute the 
President for making that designation, and I thank him for visiting 
California today.
  According to Governor Schwarzenegger, all of the Federal resources 
that are available to those affected by the disaster, those resources 
are accessible to those who can help people with that, but we will be 
taking a bipartisan delegation of appropriators and others who can help 
meet their needs and get a better picture of what's on the ground there 
after the fire subsides.
  So this is something that is a very high priority for this Speaker of 
the House, the first Californian to ever serve as Speaker, with great 
love for our great State.

                              {time}  1300

  The Governor in that conversation then said, How are we doing on 
SCHIP? He told me of the calls that he had made, and how important it 
was to pass this legislation. That's why we are here today.
  This is important not only to California's children, but children 
across the country. The Governor knows a million people have been 
displaced in California in this natural disaster, and 1.2 million in 
California will benefit from this SCHIP bill that we are passing in the 
Congress today. The Governor understands that. He has been a strong 
supporter of it, and he is helping us to pass this legislation, 
recognizing that we have to get the job done. Again, I salute him for 
his leadership, and I thank him for his support on SCHIP.
  Earlier this year under the chairmanship of George Miller, 
Congressman Chaka Fattah and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro we had a 
summit, a children's summit, where we had hundreds of scientists from 
all over the country who came and spoke about our children again, their 
health, their education, housing, really, every aspect of their lives. 
One of the people who spoke there was Dr. James Heckman, who is a Nobel 
laureate, received the Nobel Prize for his work on economics. He is the 
Director of the Center for Social Program Evaluation, Harris School of 
Public Policy at the University of Chicago.
  What he said that day was that the accident of birth is the greatest 
source of inequality in American society. He said, a good public policy 
for our children makes good economic sense. That is from an economist.
  I know, as a mom and a grandmother that it makes good sense to care 
for the health of our children. Our Members, I am sure, across the 
aisle and all of us here know how important the health of our children 
is. People across America have understood it.
  Easter Seals was here last week to advocate for this legislation. The 
March of Dimes was here on the day of the vote last week to advocate 
for this SCHIP legislation. Every organization from AARP and the AMA, 
the American Medical Association, to YWCA and everything in between 
alphabetically, Catholic Hospitals Association, Families USA, are out 
there beating the drum for the passage of this legislation.
  Imagine Easter Seals and March of Dimes, within 1 week, both sending 
hundreds of people to Capitol Hill to lobby for this legislation. It 
was astounding.
  I hope today, when our colleagues have to make a decision about this 
vote, that they will be thinking about the record of bipartisanship on 
behalf of America's children and families that this Congress already 
has. Sometimes it is eclipsed by the disagreement that we have on the 
war, but it is a fine record, and it is stronger because it is 
bipartisan.
  I hope that our colleagues will be thinking about the children. Some 
of these little children, one of them, Zeke Taylor, he wasn't a 
beneficiary of SCHIP. March of Dimes helped him through his early years 
when he needed health care. But he wanted other children to have that, 
because he, at age 8 years old, as the ambassador for the March of 
Dimes, knew that it was important to him and, therefore, it was 
important to other children as well.
  As my colleagues, we are pretty blessed, when you think of it. Think 
of those of us who will be voting today. We all have health insurance 
for our children. In my case, it's grandchildren. My children are 
grown, so it's not a question of that. But you who have children who 
are still, God bless you, I am so jealous, have your children home, you 
have health insurance for your children.
  The people we are trying to reach with this health insurance can't 
afford it. By the way, nearly, over 90 percent of them make one-fifth 
of what a Member of Congress makes, one-fifth of what a Member of 
Congress makes. So we are talking about people who are playing by the 
rules who are working to lift themselves into the middle class or to 
sustain their place in the middle class.
  We are talking about a country who has not as an issue, not as a 
piece of legislation, but a deeply held value, an ethic, that to be a 
great Nation we have to take care of the health of our children. It 
should almost go without saying, but it doesn't, and we need the public 
policy, as Dr. Heckman said, good public policy for our children. We 
say it is necessary for their health and well-being. He also says that 
it is essential to our economy.
  So there is every compassionate, humanitarian, motherly, fatherly, 
family reason to be for this legislation, but it also makes good 
economic sense. By the way, it also makes good national security sense.
  Again, we have had our moment. We are like a family here. We have had 
our moments. It's time to put the children first.
  I urge all of you to support this legislation that is before us for 
America's children, for all of America's children, to take our country 
in a new direction for them.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party does support SCHIP. 
We do not support taking 2 million children that today are in private 
health insurance programs and moving them to the government, 
Washington-based/run health care program. That is where we offer our 
differences today on the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pasco, 
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to thank my friend and colleague 
on the Rules Committee from Dallas for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the third time the House has considered 
legislation to renew the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It 
is the third time that it is being considered under a closed rule that 
denies each and every Member of this House an opportunity to offer an 
amendment to improve it. It's the third time that we Republicans first 
saw the text the night before it comes up for debate. It is the third 
time that the Rules Committee has met at all hours of the night on 
these suddenly appearing bills.
  Last night, it was almost until midnight. The second time we met, it 
wasn't until almost 10 p.m. And the first time we met on this bill, it 
was from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. in the morning. It is the third time the 
Democrat bill allows thousands of adults to sign up for children's 
health care. It's the third time it moves those with private insurance 
into a government-run program. And it's the third time it doesn't focus 
on caring for thousands of the poorest kids in our country who are 
eligible for coverage today but who haven't been signed up by the 
individual States.
  Last night, from 9 p.m. until nearly midnight, the Democrats claimed 
this bill was really different, that they had changed it to address the 
problems. But the nonpartisan analysis by the Congressional Budget 
Office says that they are flat wrong.
  Under this bill, we would have more adults on children's health 
insurance than we do today. SCHIP would actually cost more than the 
previous bills while covering less kids, and that several million 
enrollees in the program today would leave their private insurance for 
tax-funded programs. This bill

[[Page 28310]]

isn't a true effort to reach a new accord to renew SCHIP. It is a 
political game being played out at its political worst.
  Speaker Pelosi, who just spoke very eloquently on the floor, her Web 
site still has a statement on it, and I quote from that statement, 
``Under Democratic leadership, this Congress is changing the way we do 
business in Washington--restoring accountability and working together 
to get the job done.'' I wish this promise wasn't being broken every 
time the SCHIP bill is brought to the floor of the House, but it is a 
promise that is being broken.
  I want to go on, since the Speaker spoke so eloquently. In her ``New 
Direction for America,'' she states, ``Regular meetings between Chairs 
and ranking members of committees and staff should be held.'' That 
didn't happen on this bill. That's another promise that was broken.
  Further, in her ``New Direction for America,'' she states, and I 
quote, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure 
that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment 
process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, 
including a substitute.'' That's another promise that was broken.
  To my Democrat friends, I must say that you can't reach an agreement 
by only talking to yourselves. You don't work together by ignoring 
Republicans, hiding the text of the bill from the Republicans until the 
night before the debate, shutting down any opportunity for amendments 
to be made in order to improve the legislation on the floor.
  In 1997, a Republican Congress and a Democrat President actually held 
discussions on creating SCHIP. They talked together, worked together 
and reached an agreement to provide health insurance to the poorest 
kids in our country. That approach was successful, and it created this 
program. That is the right approach to reach agreement to renew SCHIP 
and to keep the focus on caring for kids that are most in need.
  The tactics last night and today by Democrat leaders aren't about 
bipartisan talks; they are about partisan posturing. To me, it's 
terribly disappointing. SCHIP should be renewed, and it will be renewed 
as soon as an honest effort is made on a bipartisan agreement.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of SCHIP and the millions 
of children from poor families who would be covered by this bill. It is 
critical that we take action immediately to save this important 
program. I wholeheartedly supported earlier versions of the SCHIP 
reauthorization, which would have enhanced and preserved a successful 
program that has made health insurance a reality for over 6 million 
children from low-income families.
  I was tremendously disappointed that the President did not agree that 
strengthening SCHIP was a national priority. I could not disagree more 
with him.
  But in response to his opposition, the House leadership has put forth 
the compromise version of this bill, one that addresses lingering 
concerns while retaining the core principles of this important program. 
This bill will protect the existing coverage for children and ensure 
that the lowest income children who are currently eligible but not 
enrolled would gain coverage, an additional 4 million children on top 
of the 6 million who are already covered.
  It is the right thing to do. It is the moral and compassionate thing 
to do, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the 
accompanying legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the distinguished 
gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are here once again on an issue 
that should have been solved, like, March of this year.
  An emergency meeting of the Rules Committee was noticed at 7:30 last 
evening to be commenced at 8:30. That meeting lasted until midnight.
  Dr. Michael Burgess, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
attended with me to represent the Energy and Commerce Committee in the 
negotiations before the Rules Committee. He offered an amendment to 
this bill and was told it was not in order because he didn't get it in 
time. Didn't get it in time. An emergency meeting that is noticed at 
7:30, that starts at 8:30, that lasts till midnight, Dr. Burgess shows 
up with his amendment and is told, I am sorry, we can't have your 
amendment in order because it wasn't in time. We didn't even know there 
was going to be a meeting until 7:30.
  Once again, we have a closed rule, which means there are no 
amendments made in order. Once again, we have a bill that was not seen, 
at least by those of us on the minority side, until approximately 7 to 
7:15 last evening. Once again, we have a bill where there have been 
really no bipartisan negotiations. There have been some consultations 
with certain members of the minority party, I have to admit that.
  I don't know what the distance is from here to there, but I am going 
to guess it's about 12 feet. Let's see. It's 18 feet. Now, if I really 
wanted to negotiate, and I was in the majority, I would say, let's get 
together and talk. I would reach out to my left and I would reach out 
to my right, each of us come about 9 feet, we could negotiate.
  But here is how the Democrats do it. They haven't even said we wanted 
you to negotiate, but if they did, they head out the door. They are 
going around the world to meet us halfway when they could just do it 9 
feet apart. I don't understand that.
  Let's vote the rule down. Then let's get together and really 
negotiate.
  Now, I want to give Ms. Slaughter some credit. She was born in Texas. 
Her instincts are right. We did get a motion to recommit today, for the 
first time. When we get to the motion to recommit, we are going to have 
an opportunity to put forward a proposal that is positive for SCHIP 
that has been put together by the Republicans.
  I will tell my friends on the majority side, it's not going to be a 
gimmick. I think it will say ``forthwith,'' which means if we adopt it, 
we vote on it.

                              {time}  1315

  So I look forward to the debate, and I look forward to the motion to 
recommit. If we really want a bill the President would sign, I would 
say vote for the motion to recommit. But right now, vote against the 
rule so we can get some amendments made in order and have a real 
debate.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could ask how much time is remaining 
on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentleman from Texas has 16 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 20\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to 
sometimes look back and see how we got to where we are.
  On March 13, 1996, I was in the Florida Senate. I pulled up an old 
newspaper article that talked about ``the million-dollar team of 
tobacco lobbyists figured they had their votes yesterday to override 
the Governor of Florida. Then Senator Ginny Brown-Waite of rural 
Hernando County stood to address the chamber. Her vote was crucial to 
the tobacco companies who wanted to scuttle Florida's tough anti-
tobacco law. They thought they had her. But they didn't know that in 
the last 26 years she had lost her mother, father and sister, all 
smokers, to cancer.''
  I stood up and said, and it's quoted in here:

[[Page 28311]]

  `` `I can't sit here any longer and play the tobacco game,' Brown-
Waite said in a hushed emotional voice. `I was awake all last night 
laboring over this.' ''
  ``Minutes later, pro-tobacco forces withdrew their motion.''
  Ladies and gentlemen, the reason I am bringing this up is this is 
where the money came from for the original SCHIP bill. It was because 
of overturning that vote and other States then followed to go after the 
tobacco companies for funds for third-party reimbursement. That's where 
the money came from for the SCHIP program. I was proud of that vote. I 
was very, very proud of that vote. I think the tobacco companies, for a 
long time, lied to the American public.
  So after that, that was in 1996, after that, in 1997 Congress created 
the SCHIP bill. Great use of the tobacco litigation third-party 
reimbursement money. Great, great use for it. In Florida we created our 
own program from it.
  But what we have here today is kind of what a farmer in my district 
once told me. He said, You can take horse manure and roll it in 
powdered sugar and it doesn't make it a doughnut. That, ladies and 
gentlemen, I think is kind of what we have here today.
  It's a magnet for illegal aliens. We have income disregards in here 
that will encourage States to disregard anything at all. There are no 
guidelines. They can disregard any form of income, child support, child 
care costs, anything that they want to get to that 300 percent of 
poverty level.
  This is not about supporting the President and the override. Lord 
only knows, this President knows he can not rely on my vote because I 
have stood in this Chamber and voted to override his veto of the stem 
cell bill. I disagreed with him on many, many issues.
  Madam Speaker is absolutely right. This is about the children. Like 
her, I'm a mother and a grandmother. Wasn't it interesting that she 
couldn't use the word illegal. It was undocumented. Whether she prefers 
to call them undocumented or illegal, this is a magnet which will draw 
even more people illegally, I don't have a problem using that word, 
illegally into our country.
  If children really are what my friends on the other side of the aisle 
care about, then why did they hold up this vote for 2 weeks? Now kids, 
on November 16, unless we can really, really compromise, they will be 
without health care. I think that is cruel. I think we need to get 
serious.
  I told Majority Leader Hoyer this morning that this bill is just so 
outrageous. I almost wish I could turn back the clock and change my 
vote. I never thought I would say that. I absolutely, Mr. Speaker, 
never thought I would say that. I was very proud of that vote.
  We need to make sure that we do cover kids and that we get serious 
about seriously negotiating a good bill, not a bill called a doughnut.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Space).
  Mr. SPACE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the SCHIP bill that we 
will, again, today, be passing with bipartisan support. This is a bill 
which is not intended to be a handout. This is not a form of welfare. 
This is legislation that will provide assistance to working families, 
specifically 10 million children of working families who have had a 
very difficult time in today's economy, a difficult time with high gas 
prices, high prices of natural gas, electricity, struggling to make 
ends meet.
  In Ohio we lead the Nation in foreclosures or are near the top. We're 
near the top in bankruptcy. In Ohio's 18th district there's an air of 
desperation, given the loss of manufacturing jobs.
  The working families of this country need help. And this is a chance 
to give it to them. To call this a magnet for illegal immigration, to 
classify this legislation as Washington, D.C.-based health care is a 
gross misstatement of the facts, and nothing more than a red herring.
  The truth is this legislation will enhance the lives, the quality of 
lives of 10 million young Americans. We have an obligation as a 
government to do that.
  I thank those Republicans with the courage to vote to override the 
almost certain looming dark cloud of a Presidential veto and urge those 
with the foresight and courage to do so again as we proceed on this 
important legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my wonderful friends on the 
other side that if they are serious about this bill maybe they would 
start by trying to negotiate with the administration, or by reaching 
across just 9 feet, as the gentleman from Texas said, Mr. Barton. Why 
not try? It's amazing what you would maybe get, maybe some bipartisan 
help.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from the Intelligence and Energy and Commerce 
Committees, the gentleman, Mr. Rogers.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how 
disappointed I am in my colleagues across the aisle. Many of us reached 
out and said we'd like to help craft the language that solves the 
problems that we all agree are problems.
  Even the Speaker of the House acknowledged that illegals in that 
other bill was a problem; that adults on the bill was a problem; that 
people collecting over 300 percent, in some cases $83,000 or up to 
$100,000, that was a problem. The fact that we're taking millions of 
children and forcing them off of their private insurance and onto a 
government program was a problem.
  All was acknowledged. But not one constructive meeting happened where 
we actually sat down and said, we all agree that those are problems. 
You agree and we agree. Let's work out the language so that we can get 
a bill that takes care of poor children. That's what we believe.
  But, Madam Speaker, I would encourage you to read the bill. As a 
matter of fact, she was proud to say that they capped it at 300 
percent. We got the bill last night. We're still finding some real gems 
in here.
  Denial of payments for expenditures for children health care 
assistance for children whose effective family income extends 300 
percent of the poverty line. Basically, they said, we capped it, see?
  And then you read down a little bit, under rule of construction: 
``Nothing in these amendments made by this section shall be construed 
as changing any income eligibility level for children under this 
section.''
  You didn't change anything. As a matter of fact, you made it worse, 
actually made it worse. So you know that same $83,000 family that we 
all agreed and the Speaker stood right on this floor and said is a 
problem is still a problem in this bill.
  I encourage all of you to read the bill. The rhetoric is great. Who's 
against poor kids? Nobody. But if you want to do something that has 
meaning, if you want to say that everybody's vote counts, that 
everybody should participate in this process, and you want to stand for 
kids and not behind them, then we need to reject this rule and come 
back and write a bill that doesn't allow illegals to have welfare 
benefits, that doesn't take these 2 million kids and throw them off 
their private health care, that doesn't have families making $83,000 
subsidized by hardworking middle-class families. We can do it if you 
just try. You didn't even try.
  The only people that are welcome now on that side of the aisle's 
leadership offices are pollsters, focus groups, people who are running 
TV ads. Last night we had Members getting calls on the bill that we 
didn't see, advocating for the bill. Oops.
  To say that this has been honest and fair and open is a disgrace to 
this institution, and it is a great institution.
  There's lot of people over there I have just so much respect for, and 
so many of them were trying to reach out and do this; but they were 
completely cut off from anything that resembled reasonableness.
  I just want to cover quickly, Mr. Speaker, the things that the 
Speaker said again. No illegals. CBO says that, in fact, is not true, 
and you confirmed in a meeting earlier with your leadership that no 
proof of citizenship is needed in this bill. Reason enough.

[[Page 28312]]

  Adults, you said we took care of the adults issue. CBO scores 10 
percent of all the participants by 2012 will be adults.
  Nothing over 300 percent. You heard the language in there that 
actually obliterates that. We don't take these working-class families 
off of their private health care insurance. CBO says 2 million will 
lose it.
  If you honestly believe by your words in this well that these were 
problems before that you tried to fix, we need to reject this bill, 
start talking, cooperating and negotiating; and we're going to have a 
bill that truly helps poor children.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Ms. SOLIS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. And I ask 
my colleagues to please rise with us today on behalf of the many, many 
children, 10 million children, that will benefit from the 
reauthorization and on this rule so that we can hear the discussion and 
the debate on the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization 
Act of 2007.
  We can't afford not to help those 10 million children. These families 
here will be the ones that benefit, and future generations, Americans, 
citizens, will benefit. The SCHIP Reauthorization Act will help reduce 
what we call health care disparities that currently exist in our 
communities and in this country.
  And although programs such as SCHIP and Medicaid have decreased the 
number of uninsured children over the last few years, there still has 
been a lack of funding and outreach efforts that have left millions of 
eligible children just like these without any form of health care 
coverage. In fact, 70 percent of Latino children are eligible for 
health care coverage through public programs, but remain uninsured.
  This bill that we are going to debate will reduce the number of 
uninsured children of color by supporting community health care workers 
who are better known to give advice to many in our community. These are 
people that they can trust. These are people that can help inform them 
on how to go through the process of receiving this type of aid and 
assistance through the SCHIP program.
  While we're doing that, we're going to reach millions of people who 
have otherwise not been enrolled in the program, particularly those 
communities that speak other languages, not just bilingual, but also 
people from different ethnic background like Armenians, Russians, 
Pacific Islanders and, yes, of course, Latinos.

                              {time}  1330

  The compromise legislation, as I see it, before us today is a step in 
the right direction, and we have an opportunity and a moral obligation 
to do what is right for our children and our families. These are the 
most vulnerable communities in the United States. Children of all ages 
and of all communities of color are counting on us to do the right 
thing.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this rule for the sake of 
the 10 million children and their families that will benefit from the 
increase in funding for health care coverage for the most vulnerable 
populations in our society.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3963.
  This bill is not about politics. It is about hardworking families, 
the poorest amongst us. It's about 10 million children who will 
benefit, 10 million children that we have to put a face on. Our 
children.
  As Christians, as humanitarians, we must think of the individuals who 
need help, children like Kristofer and Felecity Famutimi from San 
Bernardino County who were hospitalized because they needed sickle cell 
anemia care. Their families were financially strapped. SCHIP is the 
only reason that they were able to pull through.
  For a month now, SCHIP has been under attack in the news. Enough is 
enough. Our children must come first. Our children must come first.
  We have worked hard on a bipartisan basis to include provisions by 
the other side. We have included language to minimize substitution of 
employer-sponsored coverage with SCHIP and phase out childless adults 
after 1 year and even clarify that CHIP is only for U.S. citizens. Only 
for U.S. citizens. They are trying to use scare tactics by saying that 
undocumented children will be able to receive it. It is only for U.S. 
citizens.
  This bill is not perfect, but we have done our part to work out the 
differences. Let's get our priorities straight. We spent a lot of money 
on the war, a war we should have never been in. Now we are talking 
about our children right here in the United States who need help. It is 
our responsibility. Our children deserve it. We must do better.
  I ask my colleagues to support this bill. It is important for the 
poorest children. Support H.R. 3963.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, just so that the Members of Congress that 
are around understand this, that 10 million figure cannot be 
substantiated. As a matter of fact, the last bill had 7-some million. 
This new bill, 7.4. So for the Members that want to talk about 10 
million, that's not truthful. That is just not true. CBO says it will 
serve 7.4 million people; about 10 percent will be adults, and 2 
million children will go from private insurance into government-run 
Washington, DC-based health care.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida, Dr. Weldon.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As a physician who practiced medicine for many years prior to coming 
to the House, I dealt with the issue of the uninsured on a daily basis. 
Indeed, I used to see it regularly, up close and personal. And 
certainly I think it is a noble endeavor for this body to try to 
address this issue.
  But I would have to say I think it is really shameful and disgraceful 
the way the majority has proceeded in this whole process. The first 
time they brought the bill forward they gave it to us at the 11th hour 
with no opportunity to amend it. They did it the second time. They did 
it the third time now. Never, as I understand it, sitting down and 
seriously trying to discuss this issue with the President. The 
President needs to sign it.
  And people keep coming to the floor and saying we need to do this for 
the children. What about the children who have to pay for this? I mean, 
let's talk about all of the children. The way this bill is crafted, the 
nonpartisan CBO has estimated it will migrate 2 million kids in middle-
class families who currently have insurance onto the government 
payroll. And, jeepers, we can't afford Social Security. We are told 
that that is going to be insolvent. We can't afford Medicare. Under the 
current Medicare formula, doctors in this country are supposed to get a 
10 percent cut in reimbursement. And now we are going to expand this 
program.
  And the other thing I just want to point out, we are really creating 
a new entitlement. And one of the very reasons I came here is that this 
body year after year was creating entitlements that it didn't have the 
ability to pay for. And all I can say is here we go again. We are 
expanding this program, we are making it like an entitlement, and we 
are saying over and over again we are doing it for the children.
  What about the tens of millions of children, the hundreds of millions 
who are going to have to clean up this mess?
  I am against this rule. I am against this bill. I'm going to vote 
against it again.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
chairwoman for her leadership, along with Chairman Dingell and Chairman 
Rangel.

[[Page 28313]]

  You know, as I listen on the floor, it is so curious to hear us 
quarreling over helping children, falling down on incorrect facts, 
details, while our country is facing tragedy. Our friends in California 
are suffering because of a natural disaster, and here we are on the 
floor trying to help our children, many of them who live in a suffering 
State because they have no health insurance.
  Today I will vote in a bipartisan manner with my colleagues to 
support this bill, and I will again hope the President will sign it. 
But I will join my bipartisan colleagues, 72 percent of the American 
public who support it, two-thirds of the Senate, the majority of the 
House. We will stand for the children.
  And in particular, as I come from the State of Texas, this is a bill 
that we need. This bill will provide and is capped at 300 percent of 
poverty. This bill is standard law. We will cover legal immigrants, and 
the law already indicates that those who are undocumented will not be 
covered.
  In my own particular community of Harris County, we started in 
September of 2006 being able to do 56,000. This is a county of 4 
million people, and now in the metroplex we are up to 62,000. Do you 
think that is enough? Absolutely not. In our own State, the Center for 
Public Policy Priorities Associate Director says Texas will need 
additional Federal funds in coming years if the State wants to cover 
the 300,000 children eligible. We are a State that is 20 million plus, 
but not enrolled in the program today is a mere 300,000. The State is 
20 million plus, but we have 300,000 that can't get health insurance, 
as well as pregnant women. We need this bill. The Texas version of 
SCHIP covers children and families with incomes at or below 200 percent 
of the Federal poverty level.
  Our State representative, Representative Coleman, has said this veto 
handcuffs Texas' ability to continue to reduce the number of uninsured 
children in our State.
  You can bet your bottom dollar I'm going to stand with the majority 
of this Congress in a bipartisan way, not quarrelling over serving our 
children.
  Vote for the SCHIP bill. This is the best way to save our children 
here in America.
  Mr. Speaker, as the Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I 
rise to announce that I will proudly cast my vote in support of H.R. 
3963, the ``Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization 
Act of 2007.'' I rise in strong support of this legislation because I 
am listening, and responding to the will of the American people. Last 
November 2006, Americans went to polls by the millions united in their 
resolve to vote for change. They voted for a new direction and a change 
in the Bush Administration's disastrous neglect of the real needs of 
the American people, particularly children who lack health insurance 
through no fault of their own. The new Democratic majority heard them 
and responded by passing H.R. 976, ``State Children's Health Insurance 
Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007.'' The President vetoed the 
bill, basing his decision on the absurd and laughable claim that the 
program was thinly-disguised ``socialized medicine'' and that it was 
too costly to provide health insurance for America's needy children.
  The President's senseless veto of the SCHIP bill suggests that this 
Administration is operating under the misimpression that it is entitled 
to a continuation of the ancient regime under which the Republican-led 
Congress look askance and gave the President a blank check to mismanage 
the affairs of our nation.
  Those days are over. No matter how many veto threats the President 
issues, this Congress is not going to give him a blank check to 
escalate and continue the war in Iraq or to ignore the pressing 
domestic needs of the American people. It is long past time for change 
in Iraq and in the direction of the United States. Just as the people 
and government of Iraq must responsibility for their own country, the 
people's representatives in Congress must take the lead in addressing 
the real problems of real Americans living in the real world.
  H.R. 3963 is a necessary step in the right direction because it 
provides dependable and stable funding for children's health insurance 
under titles XXI and XIX of the Social Security Act in order to enroll 
all six million uninsured children who are eligible for coverage today, 
but not enrolled. That is why I strongly support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, next to the Iraq War, there is no more important issue 
facing the Congress, the President, and the American people than the 
availability of affordable health care for all Americans, especially 
children.
  By vetoing the bipartisan SCHIP Authorization Act, the President 
vetoed the will of the American people. By vetoing that legislation, 
the President turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to the loud message 
sent by the American people last November.
  I voted 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 voted to override the President's veto because I put 
the needs of America's children first.


                             Texas Children

  I am extremely pleased to know that the children in the State of 
Texas stand to benefit tremendously from the SCHIP Reauthorization Act. 
Texas has the highest rate of uninsured children in the nation, and 
Harris County the highest in the state. The bill goes a long way to 
provide coverage for the 585,500 children enrolled in Texas's CHIP 
program; and to reach the 998,000 children in families with incomes 
under the 200 percent Federal Poverty Level (FPL) who remain uninsured.
  Mr. Speaker, this important legislation commits $50 billion to 
reauthorize and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) 
and cover the six million children who meet its eligibility criteria.
  Mr. 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 healthcare. 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 healthcare 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 healthcare as a 
result of CHIP. However, stopgap funding for this visionary program 
expires November 16. 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 CHIP. 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 healthcare 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 CHIP 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 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 healthcare 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 six 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

[[Page 28314]]

with the children of America in voting to reauthorize this program. I 
urge all members to join so that we pass the bill with a veto-proof 
majority.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
  According to Center for Public Policy Priorities Associate Director 
Anne Dunkelberg, Texas will need additional federal funds in coming 
years if the state wants to cover the 300,000 children eligible but not 
enrolled in the program, as well as pregnant women. Texas' version of 
SCHIP covers children in families with incomes at or below 200 percent 
of the federal poverty level.

                                                                        TEXAS CHIP ENROLLMENT COUNTY/MONTH FISCAL YR 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         County Name                            Sep-06     Oct-06     Nov-06     Dec-06     Jan-07     Feb-07     Mar-07     Apr-07     May-07     Jun-07     Jul-07     Aug-07
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher......................................................         32         29         29         30         30         34         33         31         28         30         29         29
Floyd.......................................................        105        107        122        126        130        130        124        122        113        121        128        129
Foard.......................................................         24         30         32         33         37         39         39         38         36         36         33         31
Fort Bend...................................................      5,009      5,144      5,662      5,728      5,726      5,840      5,843      5,855      5,604      5,573      5,660      5,625
Franklin....................................................        156        168        170        169        170        176        179        174        166        161        149        121
Freestone...................................................        164        173        165        174        170        170        171        161        148        138        143        148
Frio........................................................        276        284        299        296        284        286        283        275        268        269        271        263
Gaines......................................................        471        505        511        506        481        472        455        437        446        453        436        424
Galveston...................................................      2,379      2,435      2,731      2,763      2,845      2,922      2,889      2,839      2,545      2,448      2,473      2,427
Garza.......................................................         74         78         88         84         77         85         85         95         93         86         91         90
Gillespie...................................................        333        351        351        360        354        353        354        363        355        348        343        325
Glasscock...................................................         24         25         22         21         25         25         22         23         17         15         15         18
Goliad......................................................         55         67         70         71         69         74         75         72         70         69         70         60
Gonzales....................................................        299        297        301        273        270        262        252        222        224        235        222        211
Gray........................................................        157        151        163        175        173        185        186        200        179        171        191        178
Grayson.....................................................      1,156      1,175      1,191      1,216      1,196      1,193      1,193      1,188      1,144      1,119      1,098      1,081
Gregg.......................................................      1,856      1,917      1,872      1,820      1,713      1,668      1,654      1,631      1,573      1,560      1,614      1,552
Grimes......................................................        260        277        270        256        249        249        268        248        239        229        226        218
Guadalupe...................................................        925        964      1,062      1,107      1,101      1,133      1,112      1,085      1,033      1,014      1,022        997
Hale........................................................        364        364        450        459        462        472        478        479        437        428        458        454
Hall........................................................         43         42         46         50         56         56         56         57         48         51         36         39
Hamilton....................................................        147        147        138        141        143        148        138        132        127        118        117        100
Hansford....................................................         54         59         70         66         69         71         73         72         74         82         84         83
Hardeman....................................................         48         48         44         43         45         42         40         33         38         34         31         36
Hardin......................................................        719        731        779        763        754        735        740        741        692        650        647        651
Harris......................................................     56,211     58,711     65,292     66,989     66,696     67,701     67,712     67,044     62,581     61,344     62,184     62,390
Harrison....................................................        751        755        756        751        715        719        733        738        701        706        717        707
Hartley.....................................................         20         24         23         26         30         32         36         35         34         35         22         30
Haskell.....................................................         83        108        105        105         99        103        108         91         91        103         97         89
Hays........................................................      1,342      1,371      1,460      1,456      1,489      1,480      1,455      1,460      1,358      1,266      1,336      1,330
Hemphill....................................................         39         35         40         45         45         40         47         46         39         30         30         30
Henderson...................................................      1,064      1,147      1,135      1,123      1,065      1,049      1,064        996        979        997        918        932
Hidalgo.....................................................     16,082     16,874     16,580     16,681     16,124     16,237     16,054     15,835     15,724     15,546     15,367     15,539
Hill........................................................        534        557        568        580        568        559        556        539        498        487        493        476
Hockley.....................................................        253        246        289        258        267        271        286        304        297        310        293        297
Hood........................................................        568        577        570        579        578        560        542        566        541        549        545        546
Hopkins.....................................................        488        485        493        486        493        494        488        477        490        484        467        478
Houston.....................................................        194        202        196        199        202        198        189        213        216        208        199        198
Howard......................................................        422        426        418        409        400        430        433        426        423        410        385        361
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the former member of the Rules Committee, the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Children's Health 
Insurance Program, but not this program and not this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I have spent 26 years of my life as an OB-GYN physician 
delivering over 5,000 babies. I have a number of reasons to be in 
opposition to this bill and this rule, but not the least of which is 
the way the Democratic majority pays for this, how they raise the $71 
billion that they are required to in their PAYGO rules. And, Mr. 
Speaker, that is this cigarette tax of 61 cents a pack. If you crunch 
those numbers to raise $71 billion to pay for this massive expansion so 
that Democrats can now cover an additional 4 million children under 
this program when there are only about 750,000 out there in the 100-200 
percent Federal poverty level of not being covered, it makes really no 
sense. And to pay for it, they would have to have 22 million additional 
men, women, and, yes, maybe even some of those children I delivered 
take up the smoking habit. So what kind of sense does that make here? 
We are trying to provide health insurance for children, but we can only 
do it if we can encourage 22 million of their grandparents, parents, 
and, indeed, yes, some of these very children I delivered to take up 
the smoking habit.
  It's like the Pied Piper, maybe being Ms. Pelosi, walking along 
heading for a cliff smoking cigarettes and all these adults right 
behind her smoking cigarettes and behind them these little children, 
and they are headed for that cliff, Mr. Speaker.
  This is a terrible bill. I am totally opposed to it. I am not opposed 
to expanding the program to cover the uninsured that are eligible or 
even increasing a bit, as the President has said he is willing to 
increase maybe $10 billion for this program, but I am opposed to the 
bill. It's wrong.
  Let's vote against the rule and against the bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).
  Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I rise in 
support of it because this is the sole reason I ran for Congress. I owe 
this Congress. I owe this Nation for what it did for me. A lot of 
people think because I spent 31 years in the military that I got in 
because of Iraq. I did not. It was this bill.
  In my last year in the military, my 4-year-old daughter was diagnosed 
with a malignant brain tumor, my sole daughter. She was given 3 to 9 
months to live, and my entitlement from the Federal Government gave her 
an opportunity to be here today.
  But during that period of time, there was a young boy, Lance, 2\1/2\ 
years old, who was, as she began her chemotherapy, my daughter's 
roommate. And that first day he was there, we listened as the parents 
of that child sat with social workers for 6 hours who came and went to 
see if that young boy would be given the same opportunity, the same 
entitlement as an American citizen, my daughter, had. It is for Lance 
that I got in this race.
  I owe you because my daughter is here today because of the medicine 
that you voted for as a military member. I would like to see every 
young child in America have that one opportunity my daughter did, to 
have the opportunity to be a productive, healthy child and contribute 
to this Nation.
  So thank you for the opportunity to speak today and thank you, both 
sides, for giving me the chance for my daughter and, hopefully, Lance 
in the future to be all they can be. I appreciate it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this rule and this bill. Mr. Speaker, I 
believe that SCHIP should ensure that poor kids are covered first 
before providing massive tax increases and coverage for adults and 
illegal immigrants.

[[Page 28315]]

  The Democrats' SCHIP bill before us today has a 5,900 percent tax 
increase. It provides coverage to 500,000 adults. And it costs Federal 
taxpayers $3.7 billion because of illegal immigration.
  Let me be specific. With respect to the 5,900 percent tax increase, 
it takes the tax on cigars from a nickel to $3. With respect to the 
adults, 500,000 adults whose children are in SCHIP will still be 
covered.

                              {time}  1345

  With respect to illegal immigration, $3.7 billion was provided by 
CBO.
  Since I'm against that, let me tell you what I'm for. I'm for H.R. 
3888, which provides the coverage to kids first without having tax 
increases or coverage for adults and illegal immigrants. That's what we 
need. I urge my colleagues to support that legislation, and not the 
bill before us today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend for yielding.
  As a physician for over 25 years, we've got a diagnosis for what's 
going on here today. It's called ``a crying shame.'' Crying shame.
  You hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that there 
are multiple improvements that are made in this bill. Well, they didn't 
improve the portion of the bill that said we ought to take care of poor 
kids first. What they did was weaken the requirements for making 
certain that you were providing benefits to legal residents in both 
SCHIP and in Medicaid, and they did all that with a massive tax 
increase. It doesn't sound like improvements to me, Mr. Speaker.
  But there is an alternative. It's H.R. 3888. It provides insurance 
for the same number of kids that this bill does. It does so in a way 
that didn't move kids from personal private insurance to government-run 
bureaucratic health care; and it does all of that without a tax 
increase, all of it without a tax increase.
  So why proceed today? Because, as the majority party knows, this is 
about all politics, all the time.
  So the diagnosis, Mr. Speaker, ``a crying shame.''
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. This bill 
will ensure that 10 million of America's children will finally get the 
health care they deserve, preventive health care, not expensive 
emergency room health care or poor choices.
  Recently, my son, Gus, celebrated his first birthday. My whole family 
joined in celebrating this occasion. Shortly after I returned to 
Washington, my wife noticed that Gus wasn't feeling well; he was 
fussing and not sleeping. She was able to take him to the family 
doctor, who diagnosed a double ear infection, prescribed antibiotics, 
and Gus is a healthy 1-year-old back on the mend. The thought that any 
child would suffer through something so preventable in this richest 
Nation the world has ever seen and a parent would have to make that 
decision is unacceptable.
  Budgets are far more than fiscal documents. They are a moral document 
that reflects the values of this Nation. Every Member of this House of 
Representatives speaking against this bill receives taxpayer-funded 
health care, and their children don't have to make these choices that 
10 million do.
  I ask that my colleagues join me in doing the right thing, 
reauthorize with an overwhelming bipartisan majority.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the 
previous question so that I may amend the rule to have Speaker Pelosi, 
in consultation, that's called bipartisanship, with Republican Leader 
Boehner immediately appoint conferees to H.R. 2642, the Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill for 2008.
  The American Legion and the VFW already have, along with multiple 
requests from Republican Members, including this Member of the House, 
urged both Speaker Pelosi and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Reid to 
end their PR campaign and begin conference work on the Veterans 
appropriations bill. Unfortunately, it appears as though all these 
commonsense requests have fallen on deaf ears, and our Nation's 
veterans are being forced to pay the price for continued Democrat 
partisanship and lack of leadership on this issue.
  I ask all of my colleagues to support this motion to defeat the 
previous question so that we can put the partisanship aside and move 
this very important legislation forward.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and 
extraneous material appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend this bill and the 
children of America.
  It has been painful for me to hear the mischaracterizations again of 
this bill. In the first place, adults will have 1 more year on this 
bill. And let me remind everybody listening that the only reason adults 
are on there is because the Bush administration gave States the right 
to do it. They will all be gone within 1 year. Nobody will be moved off 
of private insurance onto the Federal insurance. The bill even allows 
States to give money to private insurance companies to keep the 
children on those rolls.
  I've never heard so much obfuscation, even praising tobacco for 
medical people to try to stop taking care of America's children. A 
healthy group of children growing up in this country will absolutely 
redound on every one of us by the benefits that we will get from it.
  It is a tragedy to me, it is something that none of us should be able 
to even tolerate the thought of, that there are children in this 
country that don't have the vaccinations, that don't have the health 
care they need, that they are prevented from getting doctors 
appointments because they have no way to pay for them.
  It is an obligation if ever there was one. We have an opportunity to 
do it. It is paid for. We're not asking to increase the debt or 
anything else. It is a bill that deserves the vote of every Member of 
the Congress, and the President's signature, if ever there was one.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

       Amendment to H. Res. 774 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
     for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by 
     the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees 
     immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of 
     rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader 
     prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees 
     otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees 
     instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the 
     Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional 
     legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
                                  ____

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

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the

[[Page 28316]]

     control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution--[and] has no substantive legislative 
     or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what 
     they have always said. Listen to the definition of the 
     previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 774, if ordered; and 
approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 188, not voting 23, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1006]

                               YEAS--221

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

                               NAYS--188

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

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bilbray
     Boren
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Carson
     Davis (CA)
     Dreier
     Feeney
     Filner
     Gallegly
     Hastert
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lewis (CA)
     McHenry
     Moran (VA)
     Shea-Porter
     Tancredo
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining in the vote.

                              {time}  1412

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1006, I was not present 
because I was helping my constituents cope with the fire crisis in San 
Diego, CA.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, 
nays 187, not voting 30, as follows:

[[Page 28317]]



                            [Roll No. 1007]

                               YEAS--215

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

                               NAYS--187

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

                             NOT VOTING--30

     Bilbray
     Boren
     Brown, Corrine
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Carson
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Dreier
     Filner
     Gallegly
     Gohmert
     Hastert
     Hinojosa
     Hunter
     Israel
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lewis (CA)
     McCarthy (CA)
     McHenry
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Saxton
     Shea-Porter
     Tancredo
     Wilson (OH)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1420


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1007, I was not present 
because I was helping my constituents cope with the fire crisis in San 
Diego, CA. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1007, I 
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay.''

                          ____________________