[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 25]
[House]
[Pages 34067-34076]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007--VETO 
  MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 110-80)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto 
message from the President of the United States:

To the House of Representatives:
  I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 3963, the 
``Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.'' 
Like its predecessor, H.R. 976, this bill does not put poor children 
first and it moves our country's health care system in the wrong 
direction. Ultimately, our Nation's goal should be to move children who 
have no health insurance to private coverage--not to move children who 
already have private health insurance to government coverage. As a 
result, I cannot sign this legislation.
  The purpose of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) 
was to help low-income children whose families were struggling, but did 
not qualify for Medicaid, to get the health care coverage that they 
needed. My Administration strongly supports reauthorization of SCHIP. 
That is why in February of this year I proposed a 5-year 
reauthorization of SCHIP and a 20 percent increase in funding for the 
program.
  Some in the Congress have sought to spend more on SCHIP than my 
budget proposal. In response, I told the Congress that I was willing to 
work with its leadership to find any additional funds necessary to put 
poor children first, without raising taxes.
  The leadership in the Congress has refused to meet with my 
Administration's representatives. Although they claim to have made 
``substantial changes'' to the legislation, H.R. 3963 is essentially 
identical to the legislation that I vetoed in October. The legislation 
would still shift SCHIP away from its original purpose by covering 
adults. It would still include coverage of many individuals with 
incomes higher than the median income in the United States. It would 
still result in government health care for approximately 2 million 
children who already have private health care coverage. The new bill, 
like the old bill, does not responsibly offset its new and unnecessary 
spending, and it still raises taxes on working Americans.
  Because the Congress has chosen to send me an essentially identical 
bill that has the same problems as the flawed bill I previously vetoed, 
I must veto this legislation, too. I continue to stand ready to work 
with the leaders of the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, to reauthorize 
the SCHIP program in a way that puts poor children first; moves adults 
out of a program meant for children; and does not abandon the 
bipartisan tradition that marked the original enactment of the SCHIP 
program. In the interim, I call on the Congress to extend funding under 
the current program to ensure no disruption of services to needy 
children.
                                                      George W. Bush.  
                                    The White House, December 12, 2007.

                              {time}  1900

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The objections of the 
President will be spread at large upon the Journal, and the veto 
message and the bill will be printed as a House document.


                      Motion Offered By Mr. Hoyer

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hoyer moves that further consideration of the veto 
     message and the bill, H.R. 3963, be postponed until January 
     23, 2008.

  The SPEAKER tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) each be 
allowed to control 15 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent 
that we shorten the debate to 15 minutes on each side. We don't have 
that many speakers and the hour is late. I have a feeling people's 
minds are not going to be swayed by the eloquence on either side on 
this debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman for 
his comments. I think perhaps we may not need to have a vote on this, I 
would agree, but there are some number of speakers on our side who 
would like to speak. I don't know whether we will have 10, maybe 15 
speakers cumulatively. If the gentleman might prevail on his side, 
maybe we wouldn't ask people to come back for a vote, but we do have 
Members on our side who want to speak.
  Madam Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I thank Mr. Hoyer for his leadership on this very important 
legislation. He has worked very hard to try to achieve a level of 
bipartisanship on this legislation that could override the President's 
veto. In the United States Senate, there is a substantial bipartisan 
majority large enough to override the President's veto. I hope that we 
could achieve that in this House. We are not going to take up that vote 
tonight, as has been indicated by Mr. Hoyer. That debate and that vote 
will take place on January 23.
  It is just very interesting to hear the reasons why the President of 
the United States said veto to the children of America. Veto in Latin: 
I forbid. I forbid the children of America, the children of working 
families who play by the rules and want the best for their children, 
who are struggling to make ends meet and who need health care and the 
health care that keeps them in the workforce and off of welfare and off 
of Medicaid.
  Madam Speaker, it is particularly interesting to hear in this debate 
on the omnibus bill where there is talk of hundreds of billions of 
dollars more for the war in Iraq. For 40 days in Iraq, we can insure 10 
million children in America; 40 days in Iraq, 10 million children in 
America. This is not an issue. This

[[Page 34068]]

is a value. This is an ethic of the American people. The Democrats and 
Republicans, people of no party affiliation, everybody cares about the 
children of America. Over 80 percent of the American people support the 
SCHIP expansion that we want to do to double the number of children.
  So when the President says we have not met his objections, he is 
moving the goal post. In his first veto message, he said he is 
concerned about the fact that people making $80,000 would be eligible 
for SCHIP. Not so. The only way they could be eligible is if the 
President of the United States himself gave them a waiver. The 
President has given waivers to families making 300 percent of poverty. 
The President himself has given that waiver. And now he is complaining 
about that level of income for families, hardworking families to 
receive SCHIP.
  The President said he is concerned that there are still adults in the 
program. The Democratic response, bipartisan, strong, with 45 
Republican votes, said that the adults would be phased out. The reason 
some of them are in there in the first place is that in order to get 
the children into the program, Governors had thought that it would be 
important to bring families into the program, and the President of the 
United States, President Bush's policy allowed that to happen. So he is 
turning his back on his own policy. He is turning his back on these 
children by saying their families should be off of SCHIP.
  So when the President says he is opposed to the bill because it 
raises taxes, then we get to the heart of the matter. This bill is paid 
by an increase in the cigarette tax, and this is really why the 
President is vetoing the bill. The President is saying that rather than 
raise the cigarette tax, he would prefer to prevent an additional 5 
million children in our country from getting access to quality health 
care.
  The President has also said in other comments about this legislation, 
everyone in America has access to health care; they can just go to the 
emergency room. That was probably one of the most ill-informed, with 
stiff competition for that honor, but nonetheless probably one of the 
most ill-informed statements that could ever be made by anyone dealing 
with public policy and access to health care.
  So again, I think all the Members of Congress who voted for this in a 
very strong bipartisan way in the House and the Senate can take great 
pride in setting a high watermark for what this Congress should be 
doing for children of working families in America.
  I salute Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Stark 
for their exceptional leadership. I also salute Mr. LaHood for what he 
tried to do to bring bipartisanship to all of this. I commend Senator 
Grassley and Senator Hatch for their courageous leadership in the 
Senate, in leading the way to a veto-proof majority of Democrats and 
Republicans in the United States Senate.
  Whether you are talking about Easter Seals or the March of Dimes, the 
Association of Catholic Hospitals, AARP, AMA to YWCA, to everything 
alphabetically in between, everyone supports SCHIP except the President 
of the United States and those in this body who will side with him on 
this vote.
  What a sad day. What a sad day that the President would say, rather 
than insuring 5 million children, I don't want to raise the cigarette 
tax. What a sad day when we would spend in 40 days in Iraq what it 
takes to insure 10 million children in America for 1 year. But we are 
not going to let this veto stand. We will act upon it and we will 
continue to fight the fight until 10 million children at a minimum in 
America have access to quality health care under the SCHIP program. It 
is the wish of the Governors.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished minority leader from the great State of Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding.
  On the opening day of this Congress, the Speaker of the House said, 
let's have partnership, not partisanship. And over the course of this 
year, I have been looking for that partnership to occur. There is 
probably no better example that the partnership has never occurred over 
the course of this year than this bill.
  On this bill, there were no hearings in the relevant committees. 
There was no markup through the regular legislative process in the 
Energy and Commerce Committee. And then the bill was brought to the 
floor in what I would describe as a very partisan way. The majority 
prevailed, but there was a significant number of people opposed to the 
bill.
  And we are talking about the Children's Health Insurance Program. We 
are talking about a program that was developed by Republicans and 
Democrats together to go out and serve the needs of the working poor in 
America. And yet over the course of the 10 years, I think the program 
has gone astray. We are starting to put more adults in a program than 
we did children. And what Republicans and I think Democrats want to do 
is reauthorize this program in a way that meets the needs of poor 
children first. That hasn't been happening, and I think all the Members 
know it hasn't been happening.
  And so after this veto the first time was upheld, we began some 
bipartisan talks trying to find common ground to see if we couldn't 
reauthorize this program in a way that the American people expect of 
us. They expect us to come here, work together, and find a way to get 
this program reauthorized.
  We had Members locked in a room for 2 months, a lot of conversation, 
a lot of very descriptive things that had to happen. We weren't 
expecting miracles. And at the end of the day, my Members looked up and 
said, there is no movement. No movement at all. And I think that this 
deadlock that we find ourselves in is unfortunate, because there is a 
population in America that need this program. We could have resolved 
the differences in this program in 10 minutes if the majority wanted to 
resolve the differences.
  But as we see again tonight, there is no attempt to resolve the 
differences. This has become a partisan political game that we are 
involved in. The motion that we are debating here is to move the vote 
on overriding the President's veto until January 23. Hello. And this 
happens to be about 6 days before the President is going to come and 
give the State of the Union address.
  We can have this vote right now and the outcome is certain. But no, 
no, we can't have an outcome that is certain; we have got to continue 
to play political games. That is exactly what the American people are 
disgusted with when they look at this Congress and we see the approval 
ratings where they are.
  I think it is time for us to resolve our differences in a bipartisan 
way and reauthorize this program and make sure that poor children in 
America have the kind of health insurance that they deserve.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me say it really pains me to listen to the 
minority leader say that no attempt has been made to resolve the 
differences on this legislation. I can't think of a single bill in this 
Congress where the Democratic leadership has been reaching out to the 
Republican side of the aisle on a daily basis. There have been so many 
meetings. I mean, there have literally been hundreds of meetings trying 
to reach out to the Republican side in the House to try to reconcile 
differences on this bill and come up with a consensus piece of 
legislation. The Republicans in the Senate have always been willing. 
They have been out there to meet. Some Republicans here in the House 
have been as well. But the leadership on the Republican side has not 
been. So I think it is very unfortunate that, as stated today, that 
that has not been the case. We have been reaching out constantly, and I 
defy anyone to say differently.
  Madam Speaker, today for the second time this year President Bush 
turned his back on the health care needs of 10 million children. It was 
just 2 months ago when the President vetoed the Children's Health 
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, which had passed

[[Page 34069]]

both the House and the Senate with overwhelmingly bipartisan support.
  After that first veto we came together once again, Democrats and 
Republicans, and wrote a different bill that addresses many of the 
President's concerns, including enrolling lower income children first. 
Today, President Bush vetoed the second effort, saying that it was 
almost identical to the first bill. And I would say it was not, and the 
President knows better.

                              {time}  1915

  The President's second veto of CHIP legislation is a slap in the face 
not only to this Congress but to the millions of children who, without 
this bill, continue to be uninsured, or worse, basically lose the 
insurance they currently have.
  Every day the parents of more than 9 million children worry when 
their kids have an earache, toothache, asthma, all this before they 
finally have to take them to the hospital emergency room. And the 
President seems satisfied with the status quo. In fact, in the past he 
has stated that every American has access to health care because they 
can always go to the emergency room.
  Let me tell my colleagues, this fall I visited an emergency room in 
my district and it was not a great place for a kid to visit. It is the 
scene of trauma. Children are forced to share space with people who 
have overdosed on alcohol or drugs. Most emergency rooms are 
overwhelmed with real emergencies and have few resources to treat 
people who need regular family care.
  The beauty of CHIP is that children get to see a doctor on a regular 
basis. And the President is deluding himself if he doesn't think this 
veto is going to hurt millions of children. And those Members voting to 
sustain the President's veto are just as guilty of turning their backs 
on millions of children who will be denied regular visits to see a 
doctor.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to vote their conscience. Let's 
override the President's veto so that we can ensure that 10 million 
children receive the health care they need to grow up healthy and 
strong. This is the right thing to do for our country.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, everybody has said all that needs to be said on this 
debate; we just haven't said it this third or fourth time that we are 
here on the House floor.
  As the minority leader pointed out, at some point in time it still 
may be possible to reach a consensus on reauthorizing the SCHIP program 
because people on both sides of the aisle want to keep the program 
moving forward. The problem that most Republicans have is that we 
support the base program for near low-income children between 100 and 
200 percent of poverty. We don't think that the SCHIP program, which 
was a children's health program, should be for adults. We don't think 
it should be for illegal aliens. We think it should be for children 
between 100 percent to 200 percent of poverty, and perhaps slightly 
higher than that if a good-faith effort has been made to cover children 
in that income bracket.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle appear to want to use this 
as a surrogate for universal health care. In some versions, the 
original version that came out in the CHAMP bill, they wanted to go as 
high as 300 and 400 percent of poverty. They continue, although they 
say they don't want to cover noncitizens, they won't agree to 
enforcement measures that make that possible. And they don't want 
adults on the program to have to exit the program in some reasonable 
time period, so we have the impasse that we have today.
  There haven't been many times in our Nation's history that we have 
postponed a veto override. I think less than 10 percent of the time, 
maybe even less than 5 percent of the time, but we have done it twice 
in a row on this particular bill. So we will postpone the bill until 
the week of the President's State of the Union so there can be more 
political posturing on the majority side right before the President 
comes before a joint session of Congress.
  This majority is right to try to postpone that vote to that time. It 
would be better if we went ahead and voted on it tonight, sustained the 
President's veto tonight so we could then hopefully continue work or 
start working in a bipartisan way to actually get an SCHIP 
reauthorization that was more than a 1-month extension at a time.
  If we have the vote tonight, the President's veto will be sustained. 
When we have the vote in January, the President's veto will be 
sustained. At some point in time we may yet get together and try to 
work out a compromise that both sides can agree to and have a 435-
Member vote. Apparently that will not be any time in the near future.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways 
and Means Committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Let's be very clear about what is being postponed and 
who is doing the postponing. When this President exercised his second 
veto, he postponed our desire to see that children get the health care 
that they need. And tonight, when Republicans in this House and their 
nicotine-peddler allies stand in the way of the door at the doctor's 
office, millions of children are denied the care that they deserve.
  This President's holiday season veto of our efforts to aid these 
ailing children is neither sound fiscal policy nor good medicine. And 
for the President to make the incredible statement that the children of 
the working poor should ``just go to the emergency room,'' that is 
neither compassionate nor conservative. With his ideological blinders, 
he just doesn't seem to see the children of the working poor who are up 
all night with an aching ear, an abscessed tooth, or can't get 
antibiotics for strep throat. Those are the challenges working families 
face who do not have access to health care.
  A healthy body, like an educated mind, is an opportunity that all of 
our children should be permitted to share. For as long as the President 
and a minority of this House stand between children and the lifesaving, 
pain-reducing care that they need, we will work to overcome their 
intransigence, whether it takes one time in January or another time 
thereafter. We cannot yield to those who would block our children from 
the care they need.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Deal), a member of the Health Subcommittee.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Speaker, well, here we are again. When the 
bill came up the first time, we had not had a chance to mark it up in 
the committee. We were not allowed amendments on the floor. And the 
process has been a take-it-or-leave-it because it appears that the 
issue is let's talk about children going to emergency rooms rather than 
doing something about extending the SCHIP program.
  And here we are again saying we don't want to do anything tonight; we 
want to reserve the time to talk about it in January.
  Well, there is an old saying that we ought to mean what we say and 
say what we mean.
  If the Democrats really want an SCHIP program, which I think they do, 
and Republicans do as well, then there ought to be some principles 
which have been on the table all along that should be able to be agreed 
to. One is that this is children's health insurance plan, and there 
ought not to be either a continuation of nor an expansion of the 
addition of adults into that program. And yet that continues to be one 
of the issues on which there is no agreement.
  Another issue is that it was intended to be for children at the below 
200 percent of poverty level. We have said we should have been a 
saturation below 200 percent of poverty at 90 or 95 percent of those 
children before States start moving up the ladder, not to the working 
poor, but in some cases by many States' standards to the very rich or 
at least the middle income when you get to 300 and 350 and 400 percent 
of poverty. There has never been an agreement to say let's saturate the

[[Page 34070]]

low-income children and cover them first as a prerequisite.
  And lastly, it is a program for American children and the continued 
efforts to create loopholes so that people who are not citizens, who 
are not legally in our country, who are not entitled to be covered 
under this plan which is for American citizens, they continue to insist 
that that loophole should not only be continued but also expanded.
  I would urge us to go ahead and vote now. Let's don't just talk about 
it. Let's do and say what we mean.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).
  Mr. KAGEN. Madam Speaker, I thank our leadership for offering an 
opportunity, not just this evening, but during this next month for our 
Nation to begin to answer the question of our time, and that question 
is this: What kind of Nation are we when we turn our back on our 
children on whose future we all depend? And what kind of President 
would turn more towards saving the profits of a corporation than the 
lives of our children?
  The SCHIP bill is good for our Nation's health. It is good for our 
children. It is far more economical to have children be seen by their 
physicians in their doctor's offices than in the emergency room. It 
just makes sense. But sometimes I am coming to find here, if it makes 
sense, it may not happen while we have the President that we do.
  I have been witnessing a great deal of misinformation about this 
bill. I have read every single page of the SCHIP bill, and I have heard 
the opposition in the minority speak up regarding with what I call 
misinformation. The fact is that this bill provides for children who 
are 19 years and under, and yet I have heard them say age 25.
  I have read the bill and it says it is two times poverty, $41,000 of 
annual income, and yet I have heard them stand up and claim that it 
will cover people up to $83,000. That is misinformation.
  I have heard them claim it is not really private health care but the 
slippery slope to socialized medicine. Well, we don't need socialized 
medicine in America. This is private health care. It is private 
doctors, private clinics and insurance companies, private hospitals 
providing the care that these children require.
  It does not cover any illegal immigrants. It covers people who are 
here legally. So no more misinformation, no more lies. SCHIP is good 
for our children. It is good for our economy. It is good for our 
Nation's soul.
  Madam Speaker, I ask everyone to understand that the people of 
Wisconsin sent me here because they feel the same as we all do. We want 
our country back. People all across Wisconsin are saying the same 
thing, they want their country back. They want a country that has a 
border they can see and defend, and they want a country that believes 
in providing access to affordable health care for all of our children, 
no matter their economic means. We must have this time to discuss SCHIP 
all across the Nation and answer the question: Whose side are we on and 
what kind of Nation are we?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) who has been one of the 
Republican negotiators on this issue in the informal talks that have 
been occurring at various times over the last month.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, as many of my colleagues know and as the 
gentleman from Texas has said, I have been part of a group of Members 
from both sides of the aisle and from both Chambers who have been 
meeting actually over the past few months to try to find common ground 
on SCHIP legislation.
  I am afraid that some of the facts that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
stated, he made some statements that I would hope he would join our 
group and we could go over those facts, such as the $83,000.
  For my colleagues who have taken part, they know very well that these 
discussions that we have been having were productive at times and less 
productive at other times. But despite our disagreements and the bumps 
in the road, I think we persisted and continued to meet because we 
believe this is one of the most important issues that Congress will 
address.
  The genesis of these meetings originated from a letter that 38 House 
Republicans sent to the President on October 18, and in that letter we 
laid out principles that we believed would be necessary to secure our 
votes on the legislation and make this truly a bipartisan 
reauthorization of SCHIP. These basic principles included covering low-
income children first, SCHIP for kids only, SCHIP should not force 
children out of private health insurance, SCHIP is for American 
children, and the funding should be stable and equitable.
  It is important to note that the letter did not mention the tax 
increase or the $35 billion in additional spending, two significant 
concerns for many Members on this side of the aisle.

                              {time}  1930

  Democrats also had their principles for the reauthorization. With 
these principles, we agreed to discuss how we could change the bill in 
a way that would gather the support of a significant number of House 
Republicans and still have the support of the Members on the other side 
of the aisle. After weeks of negotiations, we came to a point where I 
think both sides realized that if a deal was going to be possible, we 
both had to give some ground for the benefit of a bill.
  I think that we are and were very close to agreement in principle and 
a framework that both sides can support. To be frank, the agreement 
isn't a bill that I would write if I had the choice. I am sure that my 
friends on the other side of the aisle feel the same way. But this is 
how a negotiation works. I think if we both came away with a little bit 
of feeling like we hadn't won, then that's a true negotiation and both 
sides have compromised.
  Unfortunately, I think we've run out of time for this year, and given 
that the current reauthorization ends on the 14th and there are a 
number of States projected to run out of SCHIP funding next year, I 
hope we can agree to an 18-month extension with additional funding to 
ensure that States will not have to drop children from the program.
  But I would also ask that we continue working on a final bill when we 
return in January. I have spoken with the leadership on both sides and 
expressed my desire to do so. We need to put partisanship aside, and I 
would hope that we can continue to discuss this issue.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, at this point I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, the President and the Republican 
leadership in Congress never miss an opportunity to not miss an 
opportunity. There was a bipartisan consensus for 10 million children 
to have health care, and because the President didn't agree with it, he 
vetoed it.
  Now, some people here say that we could have this vote now. We can 
have this vote in January.
  The truth is the real vote will be in November of 2008. Some of us 
disagreed with the President of the United States on stem cell 
research. There was an election, and now we have a new Senator from 
Missouri, we have a new Congressman from Arizona, all because of that 
issue.
  And the real vote, and people don't want to talk about it, say it's 
political, that's what a democracy is about. And there will be a vote 
about this, and the American people will vote on this. And those 
Members of Congress that are happy about denying 10 million children 
health care will get a chance and an opportunity to explain that vote. 
Those of us who think it's important will get that.
  My own view, I wouldn't want to mix politics with policy, if there's 
going to be a few less Members who vote against 10 million children 
because the American people will make a judgment about that. And we 
shouldn't deny that.
  And so I give you credit. You never miss an opportunity to miss an 
opportunity. So, remember, some have

[[Page 34071]]

talked about for 40 days in Iraq you could fund 10 million children's 
health care. Forty days in Iraq.
  President Kennedy once said, ``To govern is to choose.'' Well, you've 
made your choice. We've made our choice. And the American people in 
November are going to make their choice.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I'm going to yield myself 2 
minutes.
  I want to thank my friend from Illinois for being honest. This is all 
about politics. It's not about policy. It's not about the children. 
It's about politics. So I commend him.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Will my good friend yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I'll yield for 30 seconds, sure.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Okay. I come from a family. I believe politics is a good 
thing, because we have differences, and you work them out on election 
day and the American people make a decision, except for when you do 
special redistricting. But usually you let it out on election day. And 
I believe in that. I don't have a problem with that.
  It's not about scoring points. There's differences. You don't support 
this. And I won't go through this. I was in the room when we negotiated 
this in 1997. When President Clinton proposed this, the Republican 
leadership at the time, and he said there will be no balanced budget 
without a children's health insurance program that had eye, dental and 
pediatric. The Republican leadership said at that point it was welfare. 
President Clinton said there will be no balanced budget agreement 
without this. Finally, you guys offered pediatric care but no eye and 
dental. And then the deal we cut was the SCHIP we have today. And the 
very flexibility that you oppose that our Governors are exploring was 
what you demanded back in 1997. But the original children health 
proposal wasn't a bipartisan agreement. It was President Clinton saying 
there will be no balanced budget agreement without 6 million children 
getting their health care. I believe that politics is a good thing, and 
that's what it proved.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I respect the gentleman from Illinois. I think 
we should do more of this, quite frankly.
  Madam Speaker, I'm going to yield myself such time as I may consume 
now to respond to my good friend from Illinois. I was in the House when 
SCHIP was passed. I was not in the leadership, but I was on the 
committee. My recollection is a little bit different than my friend 
from Illinois.
  There were some Republicans, I think Senator Hatch was one of the 
ones in the Senate; Congressman Archer, who was the chairman of the 
Ways and Means Committee. This did come out of the effort to reform 
welfare as it was then. There was a concern that as we tried to move 
primarily women who were single head of households off of welfare, if 
they didn't have a job that had health care, their children, in order 
for them to work, transition to work, that they needed health care. And 
President Clinton and the Republican leadership in the House and the 
Senate did agree that SCHIP was the answer. And it was a bipartisan 
agreement. I would give the President credit for supporting it, but I 
would also give the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate 
credit for supporting it also at that time.
  The bill that is before us tonight is not the bill that passed in 
1997. We have over 600,000 adults on SCHIP, a children's health 
insurance program. Rhetorically, my friends on the majority side say 
they really don't want adults to be covered. But nothing in this bill 
moves those adults off of SCHIP.
  We don't know how many hundreds of thousands of noncitizens are 
covered. But most people agree that there are hundreds of thousands, if 
not millions. Nothing in this bill has an enforcement mechanism to move 
children who are not U.S. citizens off the rolls. Not one thing moves 
that. And the 200 percent of poverty, the original SCHIP bill was 
between 100 and 200 percent of poverty. That's still a good principle. 
There are not 10 million children in America between 100 and 200 
percent of poverty that qualify for SCHIP. The most authoritative 
number is that there may be an additional 800,000.
  Now, the current SCHIP bill covers about 6 million children. In order 
to get to the 10 million number, you have to go way above 200 percent, 
probably above 300 percent and maybe even as high as 400 percent. So 
this 10 million number, there are about 80 million children in America. 
Most of those children, luckily, have health insurance through some 
sort of a private sector employee-sponsored health insurance program. 
Six million have it under SCHIP, and then there are several million 
that have it under Medicaid. But there are not 10 million between 100 
and 200 percent of poverty.
  Those of us on the Republican side, we support SCHIP. We support the 
original program. We may even support something expanding it beyond the 
original program. But we don't support some of the ideas that take it 
up to as high as 300 to 350 percent of poverty, that cover noncitizens 
and that cover adults. That's what this debate is all about.
  So we hope that we have an opportunity. We hope that we have a veto 
vote and that we sustain the President's veto, and then maybe my friend 
from Illinois and myself can actually enter into a bipartisan 
negotiation that does exactly what he wants to do and what people like 
myself want to do.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Can I ask the ranking member to yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would yield for 30 seconds.
  Mr. EMANUEL. First of all, it wasn't part of welfare reform. Welfare 
reform had a 1-year transitional for Medicaid. It wasn't part of that, 
which is a point you made.
  Second is, SCHIP was so successful, while the rest of the population 
actually had an increase in uninsured, the only group in America for 
the last 7 years that had actually a decrease in the uninsured was 
children until last year. This is a product of answering the 
shortcomings between Medicaid and private insurance.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. We support that.
  Mr. EMANUEL. The fact is there have been a million additional 
children in the last year and a half whose parents work full-time who 
don't have health care and this would cover.
  And to the other point you said, actually there have been Democratic 
and Republican Governors and principally signed by this President where 
the adults have come from. This President signed those waivers for 
Democratic and Republican Governors.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. That doesn't mean that we need to continue those 
waivers.
  With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I'm a new Member of this 
Chamber, and so I don't know all the history of SCHIP. I don't know all 
of the reasons why the bill was written, why it was, the history of 
negotiations, and with all due respect to my friends who were here, I 
don't really care, because what I know is that right now there are 
millions of children throughout this country who go to bed each night 
ill, simply because they can't afford to see a doctor. And let me tell 
you why I think it's a good thing that we should wait a couple of weeks 
in order to take this vote. Because, frankly, I'm a hopeless romantic 
when it comes to this House, the people's House's ability to impose the 
will of the vast majority of Americans. Call me crazy, but I think that 
when 80 percent of Americans, as the CBS News poll told us some weeks 
ago, support advancing children's health care, then maybe, maybe, this 
House should do something about it. I'm also unapologetically 
idealistic about our moral obligation as a society and as a Congress, 
because I know every single one of us, if we were walking down the road 
and we saw a sick child on the side, we would stop everything we were 
doing and try to help that child. And I don't understand why that 
argument isn't extrapolated to those children throughout this country 
who are sick only because they can't afford health

[[Page 34072]]

care. We have a moral obligation to help those kids. And we have a 
fiscal obligation as well, because that system of universal coverage 
that extends only to people that go to emergency rooms when they get so 
sick that that's the only place that they can go, that costs us money. 
As moral and fiscal custodians of this great Nation, we have an 
obligation to pass this bill, to override this President's veto and to 
give all the time in the world to your constituents and our 
constituents to make that case over the next 4 weeks.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Let me inquire how much time I have remaining, 
Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 14 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to yield 4 minutes to a member of the 
committee and also a member of the ad hoc negotiation team, Mr. Walden 
of Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I think it is important to start 
by noting there is not, I don't think, a Member on either side of the 
aisle that doesn't support continuing the existing SCHIP program, 
continuing providing insurance coverage for 4.04 million American 
children. What we're debating is how you pay for an expansion beyond 
that, how you go from 200 percent of poverty level to a family of four 
that would be at 300 percent of poverty level. For the record, that's 
$61,950. Some of us believe that before you expand to 300 percent of 
poverty, or a family of four making nearly $62,000 a year, we should 
make sure that those kids who are in families that make enough that 
they don't qualify for Medicaid, that those from there on up to 200 or 
250 percent of poverty actually are being insured by the States to whom 
we send this money back to.
  There has been discussion that 10 million kids will be covered under 
the bill that the President vetoed. I wish somebody would give me a 
Congressional Budget Office summary that says that, because what CBO 
found when they analyzed this bill was that by 2012 there would be a 
total of 7.4 million kids insured under SCHIP under the bill we're 
debating tonight. If you've got a different document from CBO, I'd love 
see it. I've not seen it.
  Further, CBO claims that the way this bill is structured, there would 
be 2 million children in America, 2 million of this 7.4 that either 
already have health insurance or have access to health insurance 
through their families or their families' employers. Two million. This 
is Congressional Budget Office data.
  The effect of the way this bill is structured, those 2 million kids 
would probably be shifted onto a government plan. We ought to be trying 
to get kids who don't have access to health insurance first, and we 
should be trying to get the kids who are at the lower end of the 
economic scale insured first. Those are principles that we're fighting 
for in this.
  Finally, two other points. I don't think it's asking too much that 
when a parent brings in their children and their children don't have 
ID, that the parent simply present ID, a driver's license, something 
that proves who they are when they certify these are their kids. That's 
something we're asking for.
  The third and final point, this program, the way it's crafted under 
this legislation, even with the tax that's proposed, by the next 10 
years, the end of 10 years, you have borrowed forward $80 billion, with 
a B, that has been borrowed, and in 2013, the program's out of money.

                              {time}  1945

  We have got enough of those Federal programs today. I mean Members on 
both sides of the aisle would have to agree that we haven't fixed the 
Medicare fix yet for docs. Their funding is going to be cut. I've got 
seniors in my district who can't get access to a physician.
  Why would we enact a program today that we know, based on independent 
analysis, comes up $80 billion short? You take the money for 10 years 
and you spend it in the first 5. What happens after that? Isn't it 
better to create a program that takes care of kids who are on the 
lowest end of the economic scale but whose parents make too much to be 
in Medicaid, make sure they're covered first, make sure we're not 
crowding out people who have access to health insurance for their kids 
through their employer or some other way, and that they don't shift to 
save money for themselves from a government-run program?
  At the end of the day, I think we all want to take care of kids' 
health needs. We want to do it in a responsible way, fiscally 
responsible, that can be sustainable so that we don't end up with kids 
on a cliff in 5 years because you spent the money that was allocated 
over 10 in the first 5 because you borrowed. That doesn't make sense.
  I never knowingly in 21 years in small business entered into a 
contract that I knew I couldn't fulfill. This is a contract that can't 
be fulfilled the way it is crafted. We can do better than this. It 
doesn't have to be a campaign and political issue. It can be a policy 
issue that works.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, this is about health care 
for kids. It's an important and humane bill that's illustrative of who 
we are as Americans. It's paid for, and moreover, it saves us money. It 
saves us money by keeping kids out of the emergency room, and anytime 
that you can prevent or cure an illness before it becomes acute, that 
saves us money as well.
  It's bipartisan, not only in the House and the Senate, but 43 
Governors have endorsed this measure. Over 80 percent of the American 
people support the SCHIP program.
  We should not let the President deny health care to 10 million kids 
of working moms and dads. We're better than that. We need to override 
this veto.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I believe we only have two more 
speakers, so I'm going to reserve my time at this point.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, a while ago the President of the 
United States looked out in front of a very elite crowd and said to all 
of them: Some people call you the elite. I call you my base.
  You know, we should have listened a little more carefully because he 
really wasn't kidding. They were his base. The President has said 
``yes'' to them ever since. Yes to Big Oil. Yes to Big Pharmacy. Yes to 
anything they want. Yes to tobacco companies. Yes to their tax cuts. 
And no to the middle class and no to the poor except for one yes. Yes, 
you can pay for them.
  And so the President of the United States, with his helpers on the 
other side, have made it extremely difficult for the middle class and 
the poor not only to pay for their energy bills, not only to pay for 
all the other essentials, but now to take their children to the doctor 
or to the hospital.
  What is wrong with us that we are having an argument about whether 
children should be insured and how many children should be insured?
  I'm a former social worker. Every single day of my life I had 
stories, tragic stories, stories that should embarrass all of you that 
you're standing here fighting against these children, and how hard it 
was for these families to get their prescriptions, how hard it was for 
them and how they had to decide exactly at what temperature do you take 
a child to the doctor, at 101, 102 or 103 degrees, because we don't 
have the money, and so we're not going to take our child to the doctor 
unless we absolutely must.
  And yet we stand here tonight and the President tells us that he is 
going to not allow this program. Why? Why? Because we put a tax on the 
tobacco company. Shame on all of us that are standing in the way of the 
children of this country. There's just no excuse for it.
  And how many children are we talking about? Somebody on the other 
side

[[Page 34073]]

said there really aren't that many children, maybe 1 million. Well, the 
Congressional Budget Office said to the Senate Finance Committee in 
July or August that there are about 5 to 6 million children.
  The Democrats are dead on target with this, and the American public 
knows that and stands with us.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) 
has 10\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, this issue boils down to a 
practicality of ideology. The Republicans and the Bush administration 
has repeatedly shown that they really quite honestly do not get it when 
it comes down to health care, and particularly for those who need the 
health care the most. This is not just the beginning of this. This 
argument started back during the winter when there were 17 States who 
came up short, and we fought and we fought to try to get that shortage 
fixed. But there was no help until I drafted an amendment, went to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and we attached it to the 
Iraq war supplemental. That is the only way President Bush and the 
administration signed it.
  Now, let me just point out two important points. There are scare 
tactics being used here. Anytime the Republicans and those on the other 
side want to score a point, they bring up the bogeyman of illegal 
immigration; these people are going to be illegal aliens. There's 
nothing in this bill. As a matter of fact, there's express language 
that prohibits in this bill any illegal immigrant or undocumented 
person from being eligible for this children's health program.
  You talk about there are adults on the bill. There are no adults on 
this bill except an adult who happens to be pregnant with child for 
prenatal care. Should they not have that care? That strikes at the 
heart of this bill.
  I urge everyone to not go with this sad argument and let's sustain 
and override this veto coming up on January 23.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I appreciate the gentleman that just spoke, but let's be factually 
accurate. There are over 600,000 adults under current law on SCHIP 
right now. They're not all pregnant women. Now, some of them may be, 
but not all 600,000, and nothing in this bill moves any adult off of 
SCHIP. Nothing.
  Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).
  Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, when I heard that the President vetoed 
this bill today, I asked to speak.
  After about three-and-a-half decades in the U.S. military, I owe both 
Republicans and Democrats a lot. About 2, 2\1/2\ years, little over 2 
years ago, my daughter, 4 years old, was struck with a malignant brain 
tumor. I'd never had a personal challenge in my entire life, having 
only gotten married 9 years ago. I'd had a lot of professional ones, 
but after three brain operations, chemotherapy and radiation, she's 
here today. I thank you all for that because I had the best health care 
plan in America.
  We took a pathology slice at Johns Hopkins, Mass General's Hospital. 
We took it everywhere. We took it to the ends of the Earth, and you 
gave me that health care plan.
  But I will never forget living in Children's Hospital oncology ward 
down the street, and there was a young 2\1/2\-year-old boy the day my 
daughter started chemotherapy after her brain operations, and for 6 
hours my wife and I could not help but overhear, because you all have 
been in those hospital rooms, social workers come and go to talk to the 
parents of the young 2\1/2\-year-old boy from Washington, DC, who had 
been diagnosed with acute leukemia that morning, to see whether that 
young boy could stay and have the same opportunity my daughter had 
because of you.
  So this is the reason I got into the race for Congress a little less 
than 2 years ago. I owed you. I owed this Nation. You gave me an 
opportunity to have my daughter be here today. I didn't get in for 
Iraq. I got in for this bill. While it may not be perfect, neither was 
TRICARE, and I would just ask everyone to truly think about the 
opportunity to give our children, every child, this young boy, the same 
opportunity you gave me and my daughter.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from the 5th District of the Garden State of 
New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, ``I forbid,'' the Speaker, 
Democrat Speaker of the House, came to the floor and gave a translation 
of the Latin ``veto'' and explained to us that it means ``I forbid.''
  Well, I can tell you the only veto that is occurring with regard to 
children's health care and care for the indigent poor is occurring here 
tonight at the hands of the Democrat majority.
  The Democrat majority is vetoing. They are saying I forbid to move 
forward on this legislation. Republicans have expressed the desire to 
move forward and reached out and said in willingness to work together.
  Just a moment ago, a freshman of the Democrat side of the aisle came 
to that podium and cited a figure that 80 percent of the American 
public, as he said, quote, wishes to advance children's health care for 
indigent poor children. The word ``advance'' means to move forward.
  But Speaker Pelosi came to the floor and said, I forbid. I will veto 
moving forward tonight. Instead, put it on abeyance, put it on hold and 
say we have to put it off for another month.
  What are they putting off? Well, they are trying to move forward 
later on on a bill that brings us socialized health care for illegal 
aliens, for adults, for children, for adults. No one has denied that 
it's for adults. It is for childless couples and, by definition, is not 
for the poor. It is for middle class because, as we know, the median 
income in this country is $42,000. This bill will allow people upwards 
to $62,000 or $70,000 to be eligible for this program. By definition, 
therefore, it will provide for a middle-class program for universal 
health care.
  Now, in conclusion, the Democrat conference leader explains why they 
are saying that they are forbidding moving forward and is very clear. 
He said, I enjoy politics, and that's what this bill is all about. It 
is about politics.
  So to those who come to the floor tonight from the other side of the 
aisle and with a heartfelt passion that I believe is in their heart 
that they wish to move forward on moving advanced care for our 
children, I would ask your rank-and-file Members of that side of the 
aisle to talk to your leadership and say, Do not veto this effort. Do 
not say I forbid moving forward, and allow us to move forward on 
providing health care for indigent, poor children in this country 
tonight and vote ``no'' on this motion.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I was not going to participate in this debate, but the gentleman from 
New Jersey doesn't fully understand what we've been about for the last 
2 months. He talked about the rank and file. Mr. Dingell, the senior 
Member of this House, myself, Senator Baucus, Senator Hatch, Senator 
Grassley, Members of the rank and file on your side of the aisle who 
had not voted for this bill and didn't vote to override the veto. Mr. 
Barton was in some of those meetings. Mr. Deal was in some of those 
meetings. We met for almost 100 hours with rank-and-file Members on 
your side because we felt so strongly we wanted to address some of the 
issues of concern.

[[Page 34074]]

  We haven't gotten there yet, but I want to tell the gentleman, first 
of all, he says this bill is not for indigent children.

                              {time}  2000

  Medicaid is for indigent children. This is for children of 
hardworking Americans who are not making enough because either their 
employer doesn't provide insurance or they can't afford the insurance 
to cover their children. We tried very, very hard. I defy you, and you 
haven't been here that long, I understand that, but I defy you to find 
another instance where that many hours has been put in by such senior 
Members, including two of the most senior Republicans in the United 
States Senate who voted for this bill, as did 18 of their colleagues in 
the United States Senate, and 44 of your colleagues here voted for this 
bill, and 45 for the previous bill. This is a very significant 
bipartisan bill.
  And this bill responded to some of the concerns raised by the 
President. You continue to talk about adults. There are parents on here 
at the States' choice, as you know. Your State's choice, my State's 
choice. However, we precluded, as you know, in this bill nonparents, 
and rather than a 2-year phaseout, we did a 1-year phaseout. We 
responded to the President's concern about $83,000. We capped it at 300 
percent. We responded to the question of trying to identify and to make 
sure that we add people who are authorized to be in this country.
  So I think the gentleman's comments about the Democratic Party, or 
Democrat, as he likes to refer to us, is totally inaccurate, I will 
tell my friend. We've worked very hard. Why have we worked very hard? 
Because we think that 4 million children who the President of the 
United States in 2004 got on the Republican National Convention floor 
seeking the votes of all of his fellow citizens to be re-elected as 
President of the United States, said, I want to add millions of 
children currently eligible to this program who are not yet served. I 
tell my friend that's what this bill does. That's why we are so 
surprised and disappointed that the President rejected this bill and 
vetoed it and said, as the Speaker said, I forbid this bill going into 
effect and adding those 4 million children.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman.
  I appreciate that, and as I said in my remarks, I believe that there 
is heartfelt desire on the other side of the aisle to provide for, and 
I may have said indigent, poor children in this country. I do honestly 
believe that, from both sides of the aisle that the goal is the same 
thing, to try to provide care for that particular class of individuals.
  What I disagree with the gentleman with is on a couple points you 
said. One specifically as far as the issue of a good, fair effort of 
negotiations on moving forward in this legislation.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I suggest that the gentleman refer to 
Mrs. Biggert to see whether or not she thought they were good-faith or 
extensive negotiations and discussions.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman.
  I am informed that our side of the aisle, whether through Mrs. 
Biggert or otherwise, has presented to you or through your staff or 
otherwise a proposal back on November 15 of five pages of 
recommendations or suggestions as far as positions that could be done 
in this bill to move us both together. And here we are on December 12 
and we have yet to receive a response from that.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, and I am not going to get into further 
debate on this, I refer the gentleman to Senator Hatch and Senator 
Grassley and ask them whether they thought good-faith negotiations were 
pursued and whether or not they thought that we had gone as far as we 
possibly could in order to accommodate the adding of 4 million 
children.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, what is the order of closing?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It will be the Members in reverse order: Mr. 
Pallone, Mr. Barton, and Mr. Becerra.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am ready to close after Mr. Pallone.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I just want to reiterate and contradict 
some of the things that the President said in his veto message today.
  He said that this is the same bill that we sent him that he 
previously vetoed. And it's simply not true. We made substantial 
changes to it to allay concerns about higher income families enrolling, 
adults being enrolled, or even undocumented immigrants being enrolled. 
I just want to point out some of the flaws with the President's message 
in closing.
  First, the President says that our goal should be to move kids into 
private coverage and not into public programs. That is exactly what the 
CHIP program does, Mr. President. CHIP provides money to States, which 
in turn contract with private insurance companies to provide insurance 
coverage to kids. It's not socialized medicine, it's not government-run 
health care, and the President should know that.
  Second, the President says his proposal to reauthorize CHIP would 
increase funding by 20 percent. What he doesn't tell you is that his 
plan would not help provide coverage to the 6 million kids who are 
uninsured and eligible to enroll in either CHIP or Medicaid. I would 
point out that the Senate Finance Committee in July received a letter 
from the CBO where they said that they estimate between 5 million and 6 
million children who are uninsured are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP. 
So there are a lot of kids out there, almost twice as many that are in 
the program now, that could be insured.
  And then the President said that we allow adult coverage. Well, let 
me say our bill phases out adult coverage faster than the President 
would do by just disapproving his waiver renewals.
  Fourth, the President says we don't focus on the lowest income kids, 
and that's not true. We provide financial resources for States to go 
out and find the lowest income kids first.
  Finally, the President has said he's been willing to work with us to 
reauthorize SCHIP, and the Republicans in the House said the same 
thing. Well, the fact of the matter is that, as our majority leader 
said, we have reached out. We have had hundreds of hours of meetings. 
We have reached out to the President. It's simply not true that we 
haven't reach out, and the fact of the matter is that the President has 
been unwilling to budge even 1 inch from where he wants to go with the 
SCHIP legislation. Instead of working with us to provide health 
insurance to 10 million kids, he's given us two vetoes now.
  All I can say, Mr. President, the holiday season is upon us, but you 
are basically becoming the Grinch who stole Christmas from these 10 
million kids, in this case at least 5 or 6 million, that don't have 
health insurance. It's a shame that we have come to this position 
today, and I would urge my colleagues to cast a vote to override the 
President's veto.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, there's a great movie from the 
sixties or maybe the seventies called ``Cool Hand Luke.'' Paul Newman 
is Cool Hand Luke, and he gets imprisoned for some minor infraction and 
he just doesn't conform with the regulations of the prison. And finally 
in exasperation the prison warden is talking to him in front of the 
chain gang and utters the famous line, ``What we have here is a failure 
to communicate.''
  Well, what we have here tonight apparently is another failure to 
communicate. The Republicans in the House of Representatives want to 
reauthorize SCHIP. Some of the Republicans in the House of 
Representatives even want to expand SCHIP. But what we don't want to do 
is make SCHIP the surrogate for universal health care for children that 
are not in low-income or moderate-income families. We don't want to do

[[Page 34075]]

that. And the bill before us would do that.
  It would cover children up to 300 percent of poverty, explicitly, 
which is above the median income in this country. And it would not have 
any substantial reform on what are called ``income disregards.'' An 
income disregard is, some States have said, well, we're going to 
disregard this amount of income or we're going to disregard that 
particular expense. So for all practical purposes if a State chooses to 
disregard income, then there is no cap, and the bill before us doesn't 
have reforms in that measure.
  The bill before us, in terms of illegal aliens, does have a paragraph 
that says no illegal alien can receive the benefit. It has that. But it 
has no enforcement. It's toothless. It's like saying don't go over 55 
miles an hour or 60 miles an hour but you don't have a radar policeman 
to enforce the speed limit.
  So what we are saying and what the President of the United States is 
saying in his veto message is pretty straightforward. Let's continue 
the SCHIP program. Let's find the children that are below 200 percent 
of poverty, and let's get them enrolled in the program and perhaps even 
go as high as 250 percent or 275 percent. Let's find some way to have a 
real enforcement to make sure that SCHIP is for children and for 
children of citizens. And then let's find a way to get the adults on 
the program off the program.
  There are some States that cover more adults than children. And, 
again, my friends on the majority agree that that's not an appropriate 
thing, but they don't do anything in the bill to reform that.
  So when my friend from New Jersey, the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman, talks about there may be as many as 6 million additional 
children that could be covered, I very carefully listened to what he 
said, and I would agree with what he said because he used the words 
``Medicaid'' and ``SCHIP.'' Well there are 25 million children covered 
under Medicaid right now. There may well be another 5 or 6 million 
children that are eligible for Medicaid that we need to work with on a 
bipartisan basis to get in Medicaid. But according to HHS, there are 
only 800,000 eligible for SCHIP. Even according to the CBO, there are 
only an additional maybe 1.3 million that would be eligible for SCHIP 
under the bill that the majority is putting on the floor.
  So I wish we wouldn't postpone this veto. I wish we would go ahead 
and have the veto override tonight because we will sustain the veto. 
And then I wish my good friend John Dingell from Michigan and Mr. 
Rangel from New York would work with Mr. McCrery and myself and other 
Members to really come together on a bipartisan basis.
  I would like to point out that these negotiations that Mr. Hoyer 
alluded to did, in fact, happen, but those negotiations were not a 
conference. This bill is not the result of a conference committee 
between the House and the Senate. The bill before us is the result of 
some backroom negotiations and then an effort on an ad hoc basis of 
some of the senior Members of the majority in this House and some 
Members of the other body to work with some of our junior Members who 
had really no official standing but did negotiate in good faith to come 
up with a compromise. And as Mr. Garrett pointed out, the written 
proposal the Republicans put forward, I think, to this day has never 
been answered. Now, I could be wrong on that, but I don't think it has 
ever been formally addressed.
  So I sat in on those negotiations for several days, and what we got 
was a lot of good feeling talk. But when it came time to put it on 
paper, the majority wouldn't put it on paper.
  So let's not postpone this override. Let's vote down the motion to 
postpone, and let's have the veto override tonight. And then in the 
next week or so if we are still in session, let's really start a 
bipartisan process that is based on the formal processes of the House 
and the Senate.
  With that, I would yield back my time, Madam Speaker.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, let's remember why we're here. Less than 2 weeks 
before Christmas, and we're talking about whether or not 10 million 
children, the children of hardworking American families, when we know 
that the cost of health care has increased, we're talking about whether 
or not 10 million children, 2 weeks before Christmas, will have access 
to health care.
  Madam Speaker, the bill we're attempting to override is a responsible 
bill. It does not increase the deficit in providing health care access 
to our children. It is completely paid for.
  Madam Speaker, this bill speaks for itself. Regardless of what's been 
said by either side, read the bill, it speaks for itself. This is about 
children's health care. And it's only for children who are citizens, 
who are legally in this country. And it is for modest-income Americans 
who are in this country.
  Madam Speaker, let some numbers speak for themselves: 43, 100, 10 
million. Forty-three, that is the number of our Republican colleagues 
who voted on a bipartisan basis to override President Bush's veto of 
this children's health care bill. One hundred, we have been in the 
process of talking to our Republican colleagues and trying to resolve 
our differences for over 100 days, as the gentlelady from Illinois 
(Mrs. Biggert) herself stated. Ten million, that's the price. Ten 
million children in this country who will not have access to health 
care if we don't do anything. They simply want to have the same access 
to health care, to a doctor, to a clinic or to a hospital the way the 
children of every Member of this Congress has access to health care.
  No Member of Congress stands up and complains that, at taxpayer 
expense, we are making available to each and every one of us a health 
care policy which today and on Christmas Day will ensure that our 
children will be insured if something should happen and they need to go 
to a doctor or to a hospital. Is there any reason why hardworking 
Americans who just don't earn enough money to pay for the full cost of 
that health insurance shouldn't have the same access as each and every 
Member of Congress has for his and her children today?
  Madam Speaker, I hope we all keep our eye on the prize; 10 million 
children, 10 million children who we're trying to make sure have access 
to health care. If Members of Congress can guarantee our children 
health care, then we should be prepared to guarantee that anyone who 
works in this country can provide health care to their children. That's 
what this is about.
  We're going to return to the people of this country the Congress that 
they feel they've lost. We said a while ago that this Congress would 
take a new direction. That's what we mean when we mean to override the 
President's veto.
  I urge my colleagues to vote today, to think about 10 million kids 
right before Christmas and say to the President, We will override your 
veto.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to postpone.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to 
postpone will be followed by a 5-minute vote on suspending the rules on 
H.R. 3985.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211, 
nays 180, not voting 40, as follows:

[[Page 34076]]



                            [Roll No. 1154]

                               YEAS--211

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     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
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     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
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--180

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     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
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     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 (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--40

     Bean
     Berry
     Boehner
     Carson
     Coble
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Tom
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Fossella
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Kirk
     Lantos
     Lewis (CA)
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McDermott
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Neugebauer
     Paul
     Reynolds
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Shadegg
     Skelton
     Space
     Tancredo
     Waxman
     Wynn


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  2039

  Mr. EHLERS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________