Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3963) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 774, I call up the bill (H.R. 3963) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3963, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.

Madam Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it is an excellent bipartisan compromise. I would observe that it meets the concerns expressed both in the President's veto message and also in the comments raised by our Republican colleagues as we debated the bill at earlier times.

I will note that the bill protects health insurance coverage for some 6 million children who now depend on CHIP. I will observe that it provides health coverage for 3.9 million children who are eligible, yet remain uninsured. Together, this is a total of better than 10 million young Americans who, without this legislation, would not have health insurance, and it is to be noted that those same young people will be losing their health insurance shortly if we do not act expeditiously on this matter.

As mentioned, the bill makes changes to accommodate the President's stated concerns.

First, it terminates the coverage of childless adults in 1 year.

Second, it targets bonus payments only to States that increase enrollments of the poorest uninsured children, and it prohibits States from covering children in families with incomes above $51,000.

Third, it contains adequate enforcement to ensure that only U.S. citizens are covered.

Fourth, it encourages States to help low-income families to secure health insurance provided through their private employer.

The bill is focused on the private marketplace. The evidence of that is the bill has strong support from the private health insurance industry. It is supported by the medical community, AMA, children's advocates, educators, advocates for people with disabilities, health professionals, hospitals, the AARP and others.

It is solid, bipartisan legislation worked out in careful meetings with Members from both parties, including Senator Hatch and others on the Senate side who have done such important work on this matter in times past, and that includes also our dear friend, Senator Grassley.

It is solid, bipartisan legislation that addresses the concerns expressed by the President and by our colleagues in the House on the Republican side. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 3963.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, it is a privilege for me to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) who has been a great leader in these matters.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I would be happy to oblige my good friend.

The answer to the question is yes.

That would be a matter to be determined by the State in which the transaction and the events occurred.

Well, it's a ``yes'' if the State so decides. It's a ``no'' if they decide not.

Again, the response is that that is up to the State, and there is nothing in the legislation to preclude that.

Again, the answer is if that is so determined by the States, the answer is yes.

Well, I would certainly hope so, but I can't guarantee.

Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record the disregards for children's coverage that have been submitted to us by the Congressional Research Service.

The point here is that the money needs to continue to flow to working families so that we can keep them working rather than staying on welfare.

Within the Medicaid and SCHIP programs, states are

permitted to disregard or not count certain types of amounts

of family income as decided by the State in determining

eligibility for the program.

This bill maintains this long-standing flexibility to allow

States to disregard certain legitimate costs like child care

and child support costs, recognizing that this income is not

available for a family to spend on health coverage.

Allowing States to disregard these costs ensures that

working families have the money they need to pay for work-

related expenses to ensure that low-income families can keep

their jobs. This is important to keep families from having to

go on welfare to get health coverage for their children.

The following are the monthly disregards applied by States

in 2006.

The state of Alabama disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received

for a family in its Medicaid program when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90

of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of

child support received for a family in its SCHIP program when

determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP.

The state of Alaska disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received and

the full amount of child support paid for a family in its

Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an

individual for Medicaid. It does not disregard income when

determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP.

The state of Arizona disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses, and $50 of child support received

for a family in its Medicaid program when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It does not

disregard income when determining eligibility for an

individual in SCHIP.

The state of Arkansas disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received

for a family in its Medicaid program when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $50

of child support received for a family in its ARKids B

Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an

individual for Medicaid. It does not disregard income when

determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP.

The state of California disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received and

the full amount of child support paid for a family in its

Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an

individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90 of earnings, $200

or $175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received

and the full amount of child support paid for a family in its

SCHIP program when determining eligibility for an individual

in SCHIP.

The state of Colorado disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received

for a family in its Medicaid program when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards all

childcare and medical expenses, including health insurance

premiums paid in the last 90 days for a family in its SCHIP

program when determining eligibility for an individual in

SCHIP. Note: Child support received is not counted as income

in SCHIP.

The state of Connecticut disregards $90 of earnings, $200

or $175 of childcare expenses and $100 of child support

received for a family in its Medicaid program when

determining eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It

disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare

expenses and $50 of child support received for a family in

its SCHIP program when determining eligibility for an

individual in SCHIP.

The state of Delaware disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received

for a family in its Medicaid program when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90

of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of

child support

received for a family in its SCHIP program when determining

eligibility for an individual in SCHIP.

The District of Columbia disregards Under poverty-level,

the full amount of child care expenses may be disregarded for

families under the federal poverty level, and disregards $100

in earnings and the full amount of child care expenses for

those under the SCHIP-funded expansion when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It does not

disregard income when determining eligibility for an

individual in SCHIP.

The state of Florida disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received

for a family in its Medicaid program when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards

either Medicaid disregards or gross income (whichever is more

beneficial to the family) when determining eligibility for an

individual in SCHIP.

The state of Georgia disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received

for a family in its Medicaid program when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90

of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of

child support received for a family in its SCHIP program when

determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP.

The state of Hawaii disregards $90 of earnings for a family

in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an

individual for Medicaid. It does not disregard income when

determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP.

The state of Idaho does not disregard income for a family

in its Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an

individual for Medicaid. It does not disregard income when

determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP.

The state of Illinois disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received and

the full amount of child support paid for a family in its

Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an

individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90 of earnings, $200

or $175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received

and the full amount of child support paid for a family in its

SCHIP program when determining eligibility for an individual

in SCHIP.

The state of Indiana disregards $90 of earnings, $200 or

$175 of childcare expenses and $50 of child support received

for a family in its Medicaid program when determining

eligibility for an individual for Medicaid. It disregards $90

of earnings, $200 or $175 of childcare expenses and $50 of

child support received for a family in its SCHIP program when

determining eligibility for an individual in SCHIP.

The state of Iowa disregards 20 percent of earnings, $200

or $175 of childcare expenses, $50 of child support received

and the full amount of child support paid for a family in its

Medicaid program when determining eligibility for an

individual for Medicaid. It disregards 20 percent of earnings

and $50 of child support received for a family in its SCHIP

program when determining eligibility for an individual in

Madam Speaker, I yield to a Member for whom I have great personal affection and respect, Mr. Andrews of New Jersey, for 1 minute.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, it's a privilege for me to yield at this time 1 minute to a very valuable Member of this body, our friend and colleague, Mr. Altmire of Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, at this time I reserve.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Madam Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, my friend (Mr. Pallone).

Madam Speaker, I yield to my distinguished friend, the majority leader, the balance of my time for purposes of closing.

I object. I reserve a point of order.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I begin with an expression of my affection and respect for my good friend from Texas (Mr. Barton). In most matters he is an extraordinarily fine legislator, except on occasions when he offers these motions to recommit.

I begin by pointing out that my good friend's motion to recommit is the same tax about which there have been such prodigious complaints by my Republican colleagues, but that fewer kids are covered, and that there are many impediments inserted into the bill by the motion to recommit to covering the number of kids.

Having said that, my colleagues on the other side say they want to ensure that lowest-income States are covered, but they strike the bonus payments that CBO says will get 1.9 million of the lowest-income children covered who would not otherwise be covered.

Second, they say they are for working families. But it is interesting to note that they are forcing, by this, many of the working families who would receive coverage under the bill before us are forced to go onto welfare in order to get health care because they strike the provisions which would discourage that kind of unfortunate event. My colleagues, I would observe, still have the wrong medicine for the problem.

Now, in addition to this, the recommit would prohibit States looking to expand coverage to a family of three at $52,000 from doing so unless they meet arbitrary enrollment targets. The result of that is, of course, again harder for people who deserve and need this kind of relief to get this kind of benefit.

The last point I want to make here is their proposal does not remedy the current problem that has caused thousands of children to lose health coverage due to Republican bureaucratic requirements. I would point out something else, and that is my good friends have essentially in this, as near as I can figure, reenacted the President's proposal, which would set forth a directive to the States as to how they will administer this, something that has caused a huge outrage amongst the States, amongst persons affected and amongst advocates for the poor and the unfortunate. This is perhaps the worst part of what the proposal to recommit does.

Let's look at what the bill does. The bill increases the number of children who are eligible for coverage, for health insurance, from 6.6 to 10 million young Americans. It must be observed that we are doing this amidst a circumstance where we have seen significant increases in the number of our children joining the ranks of the uninsured.

The bill does more. It sees to it that we take care of the problem. Nearly 70 percent of all uninsured children are from families below $41,300 for a family of four. Of the 9 million uninsured children, nearly two-thirds are either preschool or elementary school age. This is the time when health care becomes singularly precious and important to them.

I would remind my colleagues that a Nation is judged by how it treats and cares for those who are most vulnerable and least able to help themselves. The bill sees to it that we amplify and include greater numbers of those who are most dependent upon others for their survival.

But in addition to that, I would remind my colleagues that this legislation is something which is of great importance because we are talking about the future of the kids. Giving them health care now when they have need of it is something that ensures that Americans in the future will be the kind of productive, valuable citizens who are able to carry forward the competition of this Nation in some of its most difficult, competitive times.

Now, this bill would significantly increase and improve access for needed health care to children. The proposal in the motion to recommit significantly cuts back on that.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, and I thank you for bringing this opportunity to the floor where Congress again will have to make a decision about our priorities. The Congress will, I know, in a very strong bipartisan vote, support the children of America because this has always been, as the gentlewoman indicated, a bipartisan initiative.

I first want to acknowledge the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, for his work over the years. I believe his committee had seven hearings on the legislation regarding SCHIP. And the distinguished Chair of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Pallone, is with us here.

I also want to acknowledge the great work of Charlie Rangel, the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, who has been such a strong advocate for America's children in every way and, in particular, in this. He, too, had his markups on the bill, which improved the bill; and I want to acknowledge him and his distinguished Chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Stark.

But my highest praise goes to Republicans. Without the Republicans we wouldn't even have SCHIP. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah really is the father of this initiative. As he tells us, two families in Provo, Utah, visited him in his office. Both of these families have two wage- earners, both of them making minimum wage, trying to support their families of four each. They pled with him that they could not provide health insurance for their children. Because they were working and they were above the poverty line, they did not qualify for Medicaid, and so their hard work was rewarded, not so, by not having health insurance for their children and that was where this all began.

Ten years ago, under a Democratic President, President Clinton, and a Republican Congress, this initiative, SCHIP, State Children's Health Insurance Program, became the law of the land; and God bless that bipartisan effort for making that possible for the health of our children.

So Senator Hatch was very much a part of putting this legislation together, and the gentlemen are right, this is largely a Senate initiative. Senator Grassley, the former Chair of the Finance Committee from Iowa, also a distinguished Republican Member of the United States Senate, has worked harder than anyone to make this the law of the land again, to reauthorize this SCHIP, this children's health initiative, by his intellect, and helped shaping the bill, by his persuasion in talking to Members, including his persuasion of many of us who had a far different bill in mind but agreed to the compromises that he has put forth for the good of the children.

That bill was vetoed. The original bill was vetoed by the President, as we all know. The veto was not overridden. So here we are again with another SCHIP in the image of the bill that received all of the attention before, but improved upon by suggestions made by our colleagues in the minority, our Republican colleagues.

It wasn't that these issues weren't covered in the bill; but the clarity sought by the Republicans, and agreed to by all of us, I think are a definite improvement on the bill, and these fall into three areas.

First, there was the question of the now-famous unlimited amount of wealth that a person could have in order to be able to avail themselves of SCHIP. I hesitate to even repeat the charge because it was so untrue and was known to be untrue, because none of the waivers for such action were ever given by President Bush.

So that factual statement did not exist, but in any event, the fact is now and I thank our Republican colleagues for insisting upon the clarity that says no one making over 300 percent of poverty, no State can allow people to receive the benefits of SCHIP. So there's a cap, a 300 percent of poverty, as to who may receive the benefit.

Secondly, the question of undocumented, those people who are in our country but have not been here that length of time that would qualify. So the undocumented are one category, and the undocumented are not allowed to receive benefits from this initiative. It was clear in the first bill. It's even clearer in the second bill.

So the cap on who can receive it, stronger language as to undocumented, and, third, the issue of adults. Adults were in the program because people thought as a lure to families they could get children in the program. Republicans objected to that. There was an exaggeration of the number of adults who are in the program; but, nonetheless, in the interests of the children the new legislation contains a provision that adults, under one circumstance, will be phased out in 2 years and, in another circumstance, in 1 year, so that it's a faster, faster removal of adults from the system.

As a mother of five, though, I have to insist that Governors still be allowed to provide health care to pregnant women because we cannot talk about the health of our children, especially getting one out to the earliest, healthiest start, unless we talk about the health of pregnant women.

So, again, three areas: the cap, 300 percent; no illegal aliens, to use your term, I prefer undocumented, are able to get benefits; and adults are phased out of the program. The adults were only in the program because the Bush administration gave the waiver to enable them to be in the program; but, nonetheless, that is now out of the question.

So we have this opportunity, once again, for this Congress to speak and vote in support of children. This is so important. It's a very positive day for me because when people ask me what are the three most important issues facing the Congress, I always say the same thing--our children, our children, our children: their health, the education, the economic security of their families, a safe and healthy environment in which they can thrive, and a world at peace in which they can reach their fulfillment.

And on every one of those scores, this Congress has acted in a strong bipartisan way on behalf of the children. The health, we're talking about today. The education, this Congress in a strong bipartisan way passed the biggest package for college affordability since the GI Bill of Rights was signed by Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, over 60 years ago, and this Congress said we are standing with the children in terms of expanding their opportunity.

The health today, the education and many other educational initiatives. I point that one out because it's a start. The economic security of their families, this Congress voted in a very strong bipartisan way to raise the minimum wage, the first time it was raised in 10 years, and with a strong bipartisan vote.

Also, in a very strong bipartisan vote, we voted for the Innovation Agenda, the COMPETES Act, our commitment to competitiveness to keep America number one, keep good-paying jobs and businesses in the United States, helping the economic security of our families.

And then the environment in which they live, again in a strong bipartisan way, we passed legislation to make the air they breathe, the water they drink cleaner. All of this was done, again strong bipartisan votes, highest ethical standard, no new deficit spending, all of it so that none of the advantages that we were conveying to children would be accompanied with a bill heaping mountains of debt onto them into the future.

Part of that also was to operate in the most honest and open way. In a strong bipartisan way, we passed our ethics reform bill so that we are here for the children's interest and not special interests.

So this Congress this year has had a strong bipartisan record in support of our children, and I thank both the Republicans and the Democrats for supporting those initiatives. Almost all of that except this SCHIP has been signed into law by the President of the United States.

Some mention has been made about the fact that there is a fire in California, and as one who has had the privilege of representing the great Golden State of California for 20 years in the Congress, one who understands we had an earthquake in San Francisco, an earthquake in Los Angeles and now these disastrous fires, we all understand how important it is for Members to be at home with their constituents at a time of a natural disaster, a time of tragedy. But that doesn't mean we don't continue with the work of government.

As Mr. Taylor so eloquently said earlier, he was with his constituents in Mississippi while we passed legislation that affected those people here in the Congress, and that was the appropriate way to go. It was then; it is now.

As a matter of fact, I spoke to Governor Schwarzenegger the other day and acknowledged his leadership and the rapid response of the California emergency services team, which is the gold standard, a model for the country. I wanted to find out from him what needs he had from the Federal Government. At the time we had emergency designation. Now we have a major disaster designation by the President, and I salute the President for making that designation, and I thank him for visiting California today.

According to Governor Schwarzenegger, all of the Federal resources that are available to those affected by the disaster, those resources are accessible to those who can help people with that, but we will be taking a bipartisan delegation of appropriators and others who can help meet their needs and get a better picture of what's on the ground there after the fire subsides.

So this is something that is a very high priority for this Speaker of the House, the first Californian to ever serve as Speaker, with great love for our great State.

The Governor in that conversation then said, How are we doing on SCHIP? He told me of the calls that he had made, and how important it was to pass this legislation. That's why we are here today.

This is important not only to California's children, but children across the country. The Governor knows a million people have been displaced in California in this natural disaster, and 1.2 million in California will benefit from

this SCHIP bill that we are passing in the Congress today. The Governor understands that. He has been a strong supporter of it, and he is helping us to pass this legislation, recognizing that we have to get the job done. Again, I salute him for his leadership, and I thank him for his support on SCHIP.

Earlier this year under the chairmanship of George Miller, Congressman Chaka Fattah and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro we had a summit, a children's summit, where we had hundreds of scientists from all over the country who came and spoke about our children again, their health, their education, housing, really, every aspect of their lives. One of the people who spoke there was Dr. James Heckman, who is a Nobel laureate, received the Nobel Prize for his work on economics. He is the Director of the Center for Social Program Evaluation, Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago.

What he said that day was that the accident of birth is the greatest source of inequality in American society. He said, a good public policy for our children makes good economic sense. That is from an economist.

I know, as a mom and a grandmother that it makes good sense to care for the health of our children. Our Members, I am sure, across the aisle and all of us here know how important the health of our children is. People across America have understood it.

Easter Seals was here last week to advocate for this legislation. The March of Dimes was here on the day of the vote last week to advocate for this SCHIP legislation. Every organization from AARP and the AMA, the American Medical Association, to YWCA and everything in between alphabetically, Catholic Hospitals Association, Families USA, are out there beating the drum for the passage of this legislation.

Imagine Easter Seals and March of Dimes, within 1 week, both sending hundreds of people to Capitol Hill to lobby for this legislation. It was astounding.

I hope today, when our colleagues have to make a decision about this vote, that they will be thinking about the record of bipartisanship on behalf of America's children and families that this Congress already has. Sometimes it is eclipsed by the disagreement that we have on the war, but it is a fine record, and it is stronger because it is bipartisan.

I hope that our colleagues will be thinking about the children. Some of these little children, one of them, Zeke Taylor, he wasn't a beneficiary of SCHIP. March of Dimes helped him through his early years when he needed health care. But he wanted other children to have that, because he, at age 8 years old, as the ambassador for the March of Dimes, knew that it was important to him and, therefore, it was important to other children as well.

As my colleagues, we are pretty blessed, when you think of it. Think of those of us who will be voting today. We all have health insurance for our children. In my case, it's grandchildren. My children are grown, so it's not a question of that. But you who have children who are still, God bless you, I am so jealous, have your children home, you have health insurance for your children.

The people we are trying to reach with this health insurance can't afford it. By the way, nearly, over 90 percent of them make one-fifth of what a Member of Congress makes, one-fifth of what a Member of Congress makes. So we are talking about people who are playing by the rules who are working to lift themselves into the middle class or to sustain their place in the middle class.

We are talking about a country who has not as an issue, not as a piece of legislation, but a deeply held value, an ethic, that to be a great Nation we have to take care of the health of our children. It should almost go without saying, but it doesn't, and we need the public policy, as Dr. Heckman said, good public policy for our children. We say it is necessary for their health and well-being. He also says that it is essential to our economy.

So there is every compassionate, humanitarian, motherly, fatherly, family reason to be for this legislation, but it also makes good economic sense. By the way, it also makes good national security sense.

Again, we have had our moment. We are like a family here. We have had our moments. It's time to put the children first.

I urge all of you to support this legislation that is before us for America's children, for all of America's children, to take our country in a new direction for them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairwoman for her leadership, along with Chairman Dingell and Chairman Rangel.

You know, as I listen on the floor, it is so curious to hear us quarreling over helping children, falling down on incorrect facts, details, while our country is facing tragedy. Our friends in California are suffering because of a natural disaster, and here we are on the floor trying to help our children, many of them who live in a suffering State because they have no health insurance.

Today I will vote in a bipartisan manner with my colleagues to support this bill, and I will again hope the President will sign it. But I will join my bipartisan colleagues, 72 percent of the American public who support it, two-thirds of the Senate, the majority of the House. We will stand for the children.

And in particular, as I come from the State of Texas, this is a bill that we need. This bill will provide and is capped at 300 percent of poverty. This bill is standard law. We will cover legal immigrants, and the law already indicates that those who are undocumented will not be covered.

In my own particular community of Harris County, we started in September of 2006 being able to do 56,000. This is a county of 4 million people, and now in the metroplex we are up to 62,000. Do you think that is enough? Absolutely not. In our own State, the Center for Public Policy Priorities Associate Director says Texas will need additional Federal funds in coming years if the State wants to cover the 300,000 children eligible. We are a State that is 20 million plus, but not enrolled in the program today is a mere 300,000. The State is 20 million plus, but we have 300,000 that can't get health insurance, as well as pregnant women. We need this bill. The Texas version of SCHIP covers children and families with incomes at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level.

Our State representative, Representative Coleman, has said this veto handcuffs Texas' ability to continue to reduce the number of uninsured children in our State.

You can bet your bottom dollar I'm going to stand with the majority of this Congress in a bipartisan way, not quarrelling over serving our children.

Vote for the SCHIP bill. This is the best way to save our children here in America.

Mr. Speaker, as the Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I rise to announce that I will proudly cast my vote in support of

H.R. 3963, the ``Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007.'' I rise in strong support of this legislation because I am listening, and responding to the will of the American people. Last November 2006, Americans went to polls by the millions united in their resolve to vote for change. They voted for a new direction and a change in the Bush Administration's disastrous neglect of the real needs of the American people, particularly children who lack health insurance through no fault of their own. The new Democratic majority heard them and responded by passing H.R. 976, ``State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007.'' The President vetoed the bill, basing his decision on the absurd and laughable claim that the program was thinly-disguised ``socialized medicine'' and that it was too costly to provide health insurance for America's needy children.

The President's senseless veto of the SCHIP bill suggests that this Administration is operating under the misimpression that it is entitled to a continuation of the ancient regime under which the Republican-led Congress look askance and gave the President a blank check to mismanage the affairs of our nation.

Those days are over. No matter how many veto threats the President issues, this Congress is not going to give him a blank check to escalate and continue the war in Iraq or to ignore the pressing domestic needs of the American people. It is long past time for change in Iraq and in the direction of the United States. Just as the people and government of Iraq must responsibility for their own country, the people's representatives in Congress must take the lead in addressing the real problems of real Americans living in the real world.

H.R. 3963 is a necessary step in the right direction because it provides dependable and stable funding for children's health insurance under titles XXI and XIX of the Social Security Act in order to enroll all six million uninsured children who are eligible for coverage today, but not enrolled. That is why I strongly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, next to the Iraq War, there is no more important issue facing the Congress, the President, and the American people than the availability of affordable health care for all Americans, especially children.

By vetoing the bipartisan SCHIP Authorization Act, the President vetoed the will of the American people. By vetoing that legislation, the President turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to the loud message sent by the American people last November.

I voted to override the President's veto because I can think of few goals more important than ensuring that our children have access to health coverage. I voted to override the President's veto because I put the needs of America's children first.

Texas Children

I am extremely pleased to know that the children in the State of Texas stand to benefit tremendously from the SCHIP Reauthorization Act. Texas has the highest rate of uninsured children in the nation, and Harris County the highest in the state. The bill goes a long way to provide coverage for the 585,500 children enrolled in Texas's CHIP program; and to reach the 998,000 children in families with incomes under the 200% Federal Poverty Level (FPL) who remain uninsured.

Mr. Speaker, this important legislation commits $50 billion to reauthorize and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and cover the six million children who meet its eligibility criteria.

Mr. Speaker, SCHIP was created in 1997, with broad bipartisan support, to address the critical issue of the large numbers of children in our country without access to healthcare. It serves the children of working families who earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but who either are not able to afford health insurance or whose parents hold jobs without healthcare benefits.

Children without health insurance often forgo crucial preventative treatment. They cannot go to the doctor for annual checkups or to receive treatment for relatively minor illnesses, allowing easily treatable ailments to become serious medical emergencies. They must instead rely on costly emergency care. This has serious health implications for these children, and it creates additional financial burdens on their families, communities, and the entire nation.

This year alone, 6 million children are receiving healthcare as a result of CHIP. However, stopgap funding for this visionary program expires November 16. Congress must act now to ensure that these millions of children can continue to receive quality, affordable health insurance.

As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I can think of few goals more important than ensuring that our children have access to health coverage. It costs us less than $3.50 a day to cover a child through CHIP. For this small sum, we can ensure that a child from a working family can receive crucial preventative care, allowing them to be more successful in school and in life. Without this program, millions of children will lose health coverage, further straining our already tenuous healthcare safety net.

Additionally, through this legislation, we have an opportunity to make health care even more available to America's children. The majority of uninsured children are currently eligible for coverage, either through CHIP or through Medicaid. We must demonstrate our commitment to identifying and enrolling these children, through both increased funding and a campaign of concerted outreach. This legislation provides States with the tools and incentives they need to reach these unenrolled children without expanding the program to make more children eligible.

In my home state of Texas, as of June 2006, SCHIP was benefiting 293,000 children. This is a decline of over 33,000 children from the previous year. We must continue to work to ensure that all eligible children can participate in this important program. To this end, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed legislation in June which, among other things, creates a community outreach campaign for SCHIP.

In addition to reauthorizing and improving the SCHIP program, this legislation also protects and improves Medicare. Due to a broken payment formula, access to medical services for senior citizens and people with disabilities is currently in jeopardy. Physicians who provide healthcare to Medicare beneficiaries face a 10 percent cut in their reimbursement rates next year, with the prospect of further reductions in years to come looming on the horizon. The budget proposed by the Bush administration does not help these doctors, or the patients that they serve.

This is extremely important legislation providing for the health coverage of six million low-income children, as well as protecting the health services available to senior citizens and persons with disabilities. President Bush was wrong to veto this legislation. I stand strong with the children of America in voting to reauthorize this program. I urge all members to join so that we pass the bill with a veto-proof majority.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

According to Center for Public Policy Priorities Associate Director Anne Dunkelberg, Texas will need additional federal funds in coming years if the state wants to cover the 300,000 children eligible but not enrolled in the program, as well as pregnant women. Texas' version of SCHIP covers children in families with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 774, and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 774 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3963, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you on the floor this afternoon with mixed emotions. I along with a majority of Members of the House are disappointed that we have to reintroduce a bill, passed by enormous bipartisan support, which would have provided millions of children across the Nation with access to health care.

The memory of what took place here on the House floor a week ago today will not soon be forgotten. On that day, we saw a few Members stand in lockstep with the President and with that deny health care coverage for millions of our children.

However, coupled with my disappointment, Mr. Speaker, is the consuming feeling of promise. I have hope for those children, along with a belief that those Members who were unable to break away from the President's mistaken rhetoric will stand for what is right today and vote to overwhelmingly pass this vital legislation.

I feel strongly that what motivated me and so many of my colleagues to come to Washington in the first place was the thought that on any day a vote could be held that would improve the lives of millions of people throughout our country. And that is exactly the chance that we have been given here today.

We are again granted the chance to vote for a bill that will advance medical care in this country, improve the health of our youngest and neediest citizens, and offer new hope for literally millions of children who would otherwise be left without either.

I think everyone listening today recognizes the reality of the situation we face. Should we not act, the health care of millions of children will be yanked away on November 16. Not providing health care to millions of children when given the opportunity to do so is appalling, but to strip away benefits from those who currently have them is simply indefensible.

Mr. Speaker, in our vote to expand SCHIP last month, we made a genuine dent in one of the most shameful inadequacies of our health care system: the lack of coverage for millions of America's children.

Congress created the State Child Health Insurance Program in 1997 with broad bipartisan support, including some of my colleagues who now oppose it. As a result, over 6 million children currently have health care coverage that otherwise would not. In my home State of New York, over 400,000 children are enrolled, the second highest in the Nation.

The SCHIP reauthorization bill would preserve access to health care for 6 million children already enrolled in the program, while bringing desperately needed health care coverage to almost 4 million more children. As a result, in my home State of New York, an additional 268,000 children who need it will have health care coverage. That means they will be able to get their immunizations before starting school, or see the dentist when they have a toothache.

This new bill also makes changes by phasing out childless adults after 1 year, and also puts in a cap on children whose parents' income are over 300 percent above the poverty level. The bill also requires States to develop plans and implement recommended best practices for addressing crowd-out.

Make no mistake, 43 Governors from red States and blue, 69 Members of the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, 273 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in the House, and 81 percent of the American public, including a large majority of Republicans, support our bipartisan expansion of SCHIP.

Yet, presented with this overwhelming support from all sides, the President decided to dust off his veto pen and with it deny millions of children access to health care. In spite of the unquestionable benefits and in spite of the overwhelming popularity and accomplishments of this program, SCHIP is under attack.

We saw reprehensible smear attacks on families who were brought into the public eye to showcase the benefits of the program. In the face of the lifesaving chance that was bestowed on the family due to this program, the harshest rhetoric was not cast against the bill, but against this family, including the children.

We saw persons go to the home of one of the families and harass them in public, talk radio and blogs made wild and audacious accusations, and we even saw staffers on Capitol Hill who clearly intended to assist this fabricated, coldhearted smear campaign.

It is simply beyond comprehension to me that many are willing to score political points by denigrating our Nation's children, particularly those who owe their very lives to this program.

But the American people saw through the attacks. They understood that the health of our Nation's children is simply not worth scoring a few political points.

Mr. Speaker, the President chastises the $35 billion bill, which is fully paid for, as ``too expensive.'' And with the same breath, he seeks an additional $190 billion for the Iraq war, all of which is at the expense of the taxpayer.

This is simply unconscionable when you realize the amount of money it takes to provide the health care for 10 million children for an entire year is what we spend in Iraq in just 41 days. We need to get our priorities straight.

I am enormously proud of the accomplishments we have done this year, from education to health care, but nothing means more to us than SCHIP. The American people expect us to tackle this health challenge before us. Last week we fell short of overturning the veto by just 13 votes. To those Members who know that providing health care to vulnerable children is the right thing to do, I say to you: Join with Democrats and Republicans and with the American people in passing the bill today.

Healthy children make a healthy Nation, Mr. Speaker. I hope every Member takes a long and hard look at the bill that we are presenting today and sees not just the words and the numbers, but the faces of 10 million children whose fate they hold in their very hands.

It is time to put principles before politics. It is time to stand in defiance of misplaced priorities. And it is time to vote with our Nation's children and provide them with the health care they need and deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend this bill and the children of America.

It has been painful for me to hear the mischaracterizations again of this bill. In the first place, adults will have 1 more year on this bill. And let me remind everybody listening that the only reason adults are on there is because the Bush administration gave States the right to do it. They will all be gone within 1 year. Nobody will be moved off of private insurance onto the Federal insurance. The bill even allows States to give money to private insurance companies to keep the children on those rolls.

I've never heard so much obfuscation, even praising tobacco for medical people to try to stop taking care of America's children. A healthy group of children growing up in this country will absolutely redound on every one of us by the benefits that we will get from it.

It is a tragedy to me, it is something that none of us should be able to even tolerate the thought of, that there are children in this country that don't have the vaccinations, that don't have the health care they need, that they are prevented from getting doctors appointments because they have no way to pay for them.

It is an obligation if ever there was one. We have an opportunity to do it. It is paid for. We're not asking to increase the debt or anything else. It is a bill that deserves the vote of every Member of the Congress, and the President's signature, if ever there was one.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 40th completely closed rule to be reported by the Rules Committee in the first session of the 110th Congress, a rule that fails even to provide the minority with a substitute amendment and to the underlying legislation that the minority did not receive until 7:30 p.m. last night.

Might I also add, perhaps the American public is sold on this, but there is not one cosponsor of this bill in this body. And when the bill was presented to the Rules Committee last night, no one even took credit for it. Those that brought the bill forward said, ``Not my bill, this is the Senate bill.'' An interesting twist of fate.

Mr. Speaker, once again, for the third time in as many months, I oppose the way this legislation has been brought to the floor without a single legislative markup. I oppose the fact that despite Speaker Pelosi's promise to run the most honest, open and transparent House in history, today we are being provided with a process and a product that is none of the above.

Mr. Speaker, what we do have is a bill that neither the Republican leadership nor the Republican members on the Energy and Commerce Committee nor the administration had any opportunity to participate in crafting.

What we do have is a process that has been politicized and mischaracterized over and over again by the new Democrat majority in the hopes if the same skewed numbers and faulty facts are repeated enough times, then somehow they must be true.

Last night in the Rules Committee, we learned that when it comes to playing by their own PAYGO rules, the Democrat majority wants to have things both ways. We learned that this majority only agrees with the facts presented by the Congressional Budget Office when it suits their needs. When the CBO estimates that the bill raises taxes enough to pay for the additional $35 billion in spending that it creates, they would be for it. However, when confronted by the fact that CBO estimates that this legislation falls 26 percent short of the often-repeated claim of covering 10 million children, all of a sudden the CBO's calculator is broken and their ability to estimate anything accurately is certainly put at dispute.

The CBO also estimates, as my good friend and colleague from Texas, Dr. Michael Burgess, points out in his testimony late last night in the Rules Committee, this legislation will move 2 million children who are already being covered by private health insurance into a Washington- based system that deliberately undercompensates physicians for their services by approximately 40 percent, creating a net loss for the overall quality of patient care.

What we do have is a process that for the third consecutive time still increases government spending and dislocates the private marketplace, diverting much-needed funds away from helping our Nation's poorest children.

One new bit of information which has been represented about this legislation is that it finally prevents undocumented workers and adults from receiving those funds intended to pay for the medical cost of children of the working poor.

Since we got this 293-page bill just a few hours ago, I will have to take the Democrats at their word. But if this is the case, it means that despite all of their protests to the contrary, and consistent with now-vindicated Republican criticisms, the first two SCHIP bills passed by the House did cover undocumented workers and adults.

I would like to congratulate Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the new Democrat leadership team for finally agreeing with what Republicans have been saying all along, because we all began at the same point, and that is, you can't have a fix if there's no problem to begin with. We knew there was a problem, and they finally admitted it in this new bill.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not here to oppose the idea of SCHIP. It was a Republican-controlled Congress that created SCHIP; and I support its original, true mission statement. But H.R. 3963 is yet another thinly camouflaged attempt at slowly siphoning Americans from insurance plans in the private market into a Washington-based, government-run, single- payer health care system.

Mr. Speaker, today we have failed to address one of the most serious issues facing our Nation, how to make the health insurance system more affordable and accessible for all Americans. So, most of all, I rise to oppose the Democrat leadership playing political games with children's health in order to score electoral points.

It is a well-known and often-cited axiom that ``success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.'' That statement is no more true than in Washington, D.C. today, where everyone clamors to be associated with success but sets new land-speed records in distancing themselves from responsibility.

You see, last night in the Rules Committee, we were told time and time again that the bill being brought forward by this rule is not a House product; it is a Senate compromise that we all just have to support. The chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my good friend Mr. Dingell, reiterated the point over and over again to the committee in his testimony.

In fact, despite asking for one, I'm still unable to find one House Democrat willing to take responsibility for all the shortcomings of this bill. And if we can't find one Member of the House, much less a thousand, willing to take credit for this bill, then I guess if we're simply judging the bill a success or a failure, it's pretty obvious which category this falls into.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to oppose this completely closed rule that breaks every promise made in Speaker Pelosi's ``New Direction for America,'' and this politically motivated and ill- conceived legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party does support SCHIP. We do not support taking 2 million children that today are in private health insurance programs and moving them to the government, Washington-based/run health care program. That is where we offer our differences today on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton).

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

Mr. Speaker, if I could ask how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my wonderful friends on the other side that if they are serious about this bill maybe they would start by trying to negotiate with the administration, or by reaching across just 9 feet, as the gentleman from Texas said, Mr. Barton. Why not try? It's amazing what you would maybe get, maybe some bipartisan help.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Intelligence and Energy and Commerce Committees, the gentleman, Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Speaker, just so that the Members of Congress that are around understand this, that 10 million figure cannot be substantiated. As a matter of fact, the last bill had 7-some million. This new bill, 7.4. So for the Members that want to talk about 10 million, that's not truthful. That is just not true. CBO says it will serve 7.4 million people; about 10 percent will be adults, and 2 million children will go from private insurance into government-run Washington, D.C.-based health care.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Dr. Weldon.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the former member of the Rules Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

(Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to have Speaker Pelosi, in consultation, that's called bipartisanship, with Republican Leader Boehner immediately appoint conferees to H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill for 2008.

The American Legion and the VFW already have, along with multiple requests from Republican Members, including this Member of the House, urged both Speaker Pelosi and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Reid to end their PR campaign and begin conference work on the Veterans appropriations bill. Unfortunately, it appears as though all these commonsense requests have fallen on deaf ears, and our Nation's veterans are being forced to pay the price for continued Democrat partisanship and lack of leadership on this issue.

I ask all of my colleagues to support this motion to defeat the previous question so that we can put the partisanship aside and move this very important legislation forward.

I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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