Over-the-Road Bus Transportation Accessibility Act of 2007

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), a member of the Health Subcommittee.

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.

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.

I'll yield for 30 seconds, sure.

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.

I would yield for 30 seconds.

We support that.

That doesn't mean that we need to continue those waivers.

With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Let me inquire how much time I have remaining, Madam Speaker.

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.

Madam Speaker, I believe we only have two more speakers, so I'm going to reserve my time at this point.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.

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.

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).

Madam Speaker, what is the order of closing?

I am ready to close after Mr. Pallone.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3985 the ``Over-the-Road Bus Transportation Accessibility Act of 2007'', introduced today by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). I am proud to cosponsor this important legislation, which will ensure that motorcoach accessibility regulations promulgated by the Department of Transportation, DOT, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, are fully implemented, vigorously monitored, and actively enforced.

In 1990, upon signing the landmark ADA into law, President George H. W. Bush stated that the ADA ``promises to open up all aspects of American life to individuals with disabilities--employment opportunities, government services, public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications.'' In many respects, the Act has been implemented to result in expanded and enhanced transportation opportunities for individuals with disabilities. However, as a recent U.S. Court of Appeals case revealed, a troubling void in DOT's oversight of the over-the-road bus accessibility regulations has unnecessarily reduced the protection Congress intended to afford under the ADA.

In 1998, DOT adopted a final rule requiring vehicle modifications to intercity, charter, and tour buses to accommodate individuals with disabilities. These regulations set forth requirements for these transportation providers, referred to as over-the-road bus operators, to acquire or lease accessible vehicles or provide accessible service to passengers with disabilities on a 48-hour advanced notice basis. The requirements are phased in over time, and vary by type of service provided by a company, either fixed route or ``demand responsive'', such as charter and tour service. Alternative compliance requirements were established for small businesses.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (``FMCSA'') is the modal agency responsible for ensuring that over-the-road bus transportation providers comply with DOT regulations, including safety rules. However, according to FMCSA's interpretation, the existing motor carrier statute limits the agency's ability to enforce the over-the- road bus accessibility regulations promulgated by DOT.

On December 19, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc. and Bonanza Acquisition, LLC V. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, rejected FMCSA's assertion that the agency does not have discretion to interpret the law to allow FMCSA to consider compliance with ADA regulations in determining whether a bus company is fit to operate in interstate commerce. The case was remanded to FMCSA in February 2007, and the Court directed the agency to reexamine the statute.

FMCSA did not respond to the Court for more than 8 months, and I have no doubt the pattern of inaction would have continued without pressure from Congress. Earlier this month, Highways and Transit Subcommittee Chairman DeFazio and I sent a letter to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator John Hill, expressing our intent to legislate a solution to this problem if the agency did not respond with its plans to make changes administratively to ensure that ADA requirements were being met by the over-the-road bus operators that FMCSA registers.

Last week, FMCSA issued a decision in response to the Court order. In the decision on remand, the agency defends its original position that the underlying statute does not provide the authority for FMCSA to consider compliance with ADA. The agency further argues that the Department of justice (``DOJ'') has enforcement authority under the ADA to investigate all alleged violations and commence a civil action in court, pursuant to part 36 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations. This includes authority over transportation providers. Therefore, FMCSA concludes the agency has no role in taking action with respect to ADA violations by over-the-road bus companies. In fact, in the October 26, 2007 decision FMCSA states: ``If Congress intended to expand the fitness criteria to include compliance with additional DOT regulations, such as 49 CFR part 37, it presumably would have said so.''

Let there be no doubt--Congress will be saying so with this legislation. This bill removes any statutory ambiguity and gives FMCSA the authority to take action against violators of the ADA.

H.R. 3985 strengthens FMCSA's ability to monitor and enforce compliance with the Department of Transportation's regulations governing the accessibility of over-the-road bus transportation. The bill amends Section 13902(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, to prohibit the agency from granting registration authority to a motor carrier providing over-the-road bus transportation who is not willing and able to comply with the accessibility regulations under subpart H of part 37, title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The bill also clarifies that the Secretary may suspend, amend, or revoke a motor carrier's registration in the event of a willful failure to comply with regulations pursuant to the ADA. H.R. 3985 further requires the Department of Transportation and the Department of Justice to enter into a memorandum of understanding to ensure coordination between the two Departments, to clearly define each Department's roles and responsibilities in enforcing the provisions of the ADA, and to avoid duplication of effort.

Violations of ADA regulations are not a theoretical problem. Several newspaper articles have highlighted problems that individuals with disabilities have encountered in trying to ride curbside buses. Curbside bus companies operate fixed-route, intercity bus service, mainly between cities along the Northeast Corridor, picking up and dropping off passengers on the street rather than in bus terminals. A March 2, 2006 Washington Post investigation revealed that 11 companies that operate in the Northeast Corridor had violated ADA regulations. (See ``Bus Lines Cited in Federal Probe; 11 Firms Accused of Violating ADA''; Washington Post, March 2, 2006; Financial; page D1).

Madam Speaker, the Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted 17 years ago, and nearly a decade has passed since the Department of Transportation issued implementing regulations. This legislation, to ensure that the accessibility regulations promulgated by DOT are adhered to by all over-the-road bus operators, is both necessary and overdue.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3985) to amend title 49, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Transportation to register a person providing transportation by an over-the-road bus as a motor carrier of passengers only if the person is willing and able to comply with certain accessibility requirements in addition to other existing requirements, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3985.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This legislation will ensure that the motor coach accessibility regulations promulgated by Department of Transportation under the Americans with Disabilities Act are vigorously monitored and actively enforced. A leader in this initiative was our committee colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). His leadership on this initiative is of long standing, his commitment to the handicapped community is well known, and he has been a forceful and vigorous advocate, as has Mr. Petri, who is the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, and served previously as Chair of the Surface Subcommittee. He is well familiar with the issues presented to our fellow citizens saddled with disabilities.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the DOT was required to adopt a final rule, which they did in 1998, requiring vehicle modifications for intercity buses, charter buses, tour buses, to accommodate individuals with disabilities.

But regulations have to be enforced to be effective, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has interpreted the motor carrier statute in a way that limits the agency's ability to assess compliance with over-the-road bus accessibility regulations.

That's not acceptable. We have had quite some discussion about that issue. And, in fact, a new version of the American with Disabilities Act was introduced earlier this year by our majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and cosponsored and co-initiated by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) who has long been a strong advocate for legislation supporting the needs of the handicapped community.

Relying simply on Department of Justice enforcement authority, the FMCSA felt it couldn't take action on violations of its own regulations by over-the-road bus companies. In the U.S. Court of Appeals case, Peter Pan Bus Lines and Bonanza Acquisition, the court rejected the claim that the agency does not have discretion to interpret the law to allow consideration of compliance with ADA. The case was sent back to FMCSA for further review in February of this year.

But again the agency dragged its feet. After 8 months of failure to act, the FMCSA responded to the court in October, but only after Chairman DeFazio and I expressed our intent to legislate a solution if the agency did not provide its own plans to comply with ADA requirements.

In the decision, FMCSA defends its position that the agency does not have the authority to enforce the American with Disabilities Act and said, ``If Congress intended to expand the fitness criteria to include compliance with additional DOT regulations such as 49 CFR part 37, it presumably would have said so.''

Well, we are saying so today. If that's what they think they need, then we are going to make sure they have the authority to do it. There is no excuse for any further delay.

Specifically, the pending bill amends section 13902 of title 49 of U.S. Code to prohibit the Federal Motor Carrier Administration from granting registration authority to motor carrier providing over-the- road bus transportation where that carrier is not willing or able to comply with the accessibility requirements under subpart H of part 37 of title 49, CFR.

This bill will allow DOT to put compliance with ADA on a par with compliance with safety requirements, further clarifying in this legislation that the Secretary may suspend, amend or revoke a motor carrier's registration in the event of willful failure to comply with ADA. And bill further requires DOT and the Justice Department to enter into a memorandum of understanding to clearly define each department's roles and responsibilities in enforcing the provisions of ADA. This was not a new initiative. Some years ago when I chaired the Economic Development Subcommittee and the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Klinger, and I required similar memorandum of understanding among three departments who were failing to carry out their responsibility on transportation overlaps.

So what we are doing here in this legislation has precedence of over 20 years ago in a similar issue of transportation.

ADA was enacted 17 years ago. We need to keep our vigilance over its enforcement, make sure that the agency is doing its responsibility to oversight and that the carriers are complying with their responsibility to all members of the traveling public.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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 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.