Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Utah for his remarks today, for his work on this bill, his work many months ago when this work began in the Senate, and for his leadership 10 years ago in 1997, when at that time, as today, we had bipartisan agreement on children's health insurance. I commend him and his colleague, Senator Grassley.

On the Democratic side we have a lot of great leaders: Senator Jay Rockefeller and Senator Max Baucus, working mightily with Senator Kennedy and so many others to get this done. We still have a long way to go. We know we had a resounding 69 votes in the Senate today, but we still have one impediment to getting this done. That impediment is the President of the United States.

I want to talk about some numbers today, but I want to focus initially on the benefits of this program. We are going to continue to have debates within this body and with the President about this issue. I will get to that. But let's step back for a minute and think about what this program means to one single child or what it means to one single family. Here is what it means. I come from Pennsylvania. We have some big cities in Pennsylvania: obviously, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. But what if this child is born in a rural area. I come from a State where a huge percentage of our population is, in statistical categories, considered rural. The breadth of Pennsylvania, right through the middle of the State, out toward western Pennsylvania, we have a lot of people who live in rural areas. We know the benefits of this program help a lot of our children in cities and towns and also in rural areas. In fact, one-third of rural children get their health care from Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program.

We also know a lot of African-American and Latino children have benefited tremendously in the 10 years this has been part of our law. Let's think about those children. No matter where they live, let's think about what this means to them. It means they can get well-child visits to the doctor during a year. The experts tell us you need at least six of those in your first year of life to be healthy. We ought to make sure every child in America can have six well-child visits in a year, but millions don't get that.

What happens to that child? That child would not grow. Their brains and cognitive development would not proceed as it should. They can't learn as fast. They can't read as quickly. They don't do as well in school. Down the road when they become part of the workforce, they have been shortchanged, if we don't do our job. It also means immunizations in the dawn of their lives and all of the preventative care a child should receive.

We should be doing everything we can in this body, not just with children's health insurance but with early learning opportunities and other programs we have to help our children to do a number of things, but principally to make sure children are healthy enough to learn. We know if they learn more in the dawn of their lives, they will earn more down the road. We have to make those investments. I don't see this as just a program, something that we are giving to people.

That is not what it is. The distinguished Senator from Utah said a couple moments ago, this is a capped block grant program and a good investment in that child and his or her future. But it is also an investment in our economic future. We can do a lot with this program to help families. But let's think about a mother. What does every mother want for their child, especially when they are very young? They want to nurture the child. They want to make sure the child has some kind of health care, has nutrition, and they want to shower that child with all the love and care a mother can provide.

One of the benefits to reauthorizing this program and getting the job done is that we can help a mother as she is trying to provide everything she can for her child, whether she lives in a farming community in central Pennsylvania or whether she lives in one of our towns in Pennsylvania or across the country or whether she lives in the inner city. Make no mistake, this comes down to a very simple question--maybe a couple, but one basic question--which is, does the President want to cover 10 million American children? There is only one answer to that question, only one answer we can justify. There is only one answer for which we can go back to our States and say we did the right thing. That answer is, absolutely, the President should want to cover 10 million American children because if he vetoes this and his point of view prevails, 10 million children will not have health insurance. By signing this legislation we are about to send to him, he can make sure 10 million American children have health insurance.

What upsets me about the President--I have been very critical of him, and I will continue to be so when it is warranted--is not just his position on this issue, not just his threat of a veto--that is bad enough. What upsets me and a lot of Americans, frankly, is the President had month after month after month to come to the Congress and say: I think we should have a $5 billion increase over 5 years. That is what he says. There is an overwhelming consensus now in the Congress that it should be a $35 billion increase. When you consider it over 5 years, that is only a billion a year. We spend $7 billion a year on a lot of things. But let's consider what he said. If he was going to take that position all those months ago, why didn't he come to the Congress? If health care for children is such a priority, why didn't he come to the Congress and say: We are far apart. The Congress is at $35 billion, and I am at $5 billion. We will work together.

He didn't do that. He just laid down his number and then he began, frankly, to misrepresent the facts. That has made this argument an unfortunate episode in the debate.

I have another question for the President. The question about 10 million children is very important, but I have a question for the President. What is the choice you are making? You are saying on the one hand, Mr. President, that 10 million American children should not have health insurance at the same time that in 2000 we will give away $100 billion to wealthy Americans. Is that right? I don't think so. That is immoral in my judgment, to give $100 billion to wealthy Americans

and say children who could benefit from this program, 4 million more, that they don't get health insurance.

It is equally immoral when the President of the United States and every Senator and every House Member gets their health insurance paid for. Yet some people say: No, we are going to wait on those children. Those 4 million children will have to wait, even though every Senator gets health care and this President gets health care every day of the week. I think that is immoral. He should recognize that.

This is about numbers and budgets and a program. We will talk about that a lot. That is important. I can justify every one of those numbers. OK. I know a lot about cutting out waste and fraud. I did that for 10 years in State government. I know that subject very well.

But this is a program that works. We have had a 10-year experiment with it, and it works, and everyone here knows that. It works very well to make sure we cover our children. All these other arguments about why we should not do it comes down to politics. The people who are supporting the President on this should answer the questions I posed.

Why shouldn't 10 million children get health care? Why do you get health care in the Senate and those children do not get health care, according to your point of view? They should answer that question when they are supporting this President. Why should every Member of the Senate get health care and these 4 million children--plus the 6.5 million or so we can cover--why shouldn't they get health care? Why should millionaires and multimillionaires and billionaires get tax cuts in 2008 and 2009 and on into the future and these children should not have health insurance?

So when you come to the floor to talk about this program, and when the President goes on television and preaches to us about why we should not do that, I hope you would be honest enough--I hope the President and every Member of this body would have the integrity to stand up and justify why 10 million kids should not have health insurance, why they, as a Member of the Senate, should have their health care paid for, and why all those wealthy Americans should get their tax cut--tens of billions this year--and these kids should not have health insurance.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise for a few moments because I know there are other people in this Chamber who have worked for many years on this bill who wish to speak. Senator Kennedy is here. I wish to take a few moments to rebut what was said about a half an hour ago. Our colleague from Oklahoma was making some arguments, and I want to rebut some of them. I know this has been a long debate, but it is important.

He and others have made the claim about government-run health insurance over and over, and I think that is a White House talking point. I understand where they get the line. This is a program which uses private insurance carriers to provide the services especially to do the administration. So that argument really does not make a lot of sense.

Secondly, he talked about shifting costs and people paying more taxes. It is very clear, just as the argument of our colleague from Kentucky made clear, that the increase in this program, the $35 billion to cover 4 million more children, comes from tobacco tax increases. We can have debates about whether it is right or wrong, but most people in America support an increase in the tobacco tax to pay for this legislation. We are not talking about an income tax or any other kind of tax.

Thirdly, fiscal responsibility. We heard people talk about that issue today. No one on this side of the aisle needs a lecture from that side of the aisle or anywhere else about fiscal responsibility. This administration is the administration that brought us to a $9 trillion debt level and huge deficits. I think that is disingenuous.

I want to read a quotation from a recognized expert from MIT, Professor Jonathan Gruber, on private versus public:

I have undertaken a number of analyses to compare public

sector costs of public sector expansions such as SCHIP to

alternatives such as tax credits. I find that the public

sector provides much more insurance coverage at a much lower

cost under SCHIP than these alternatives. Tax subsidies

mostly operate to ``buy out the base'' of insured without

providing much new coverage.

That quote is from a recognized expert.

We heard discussions about the cost over 5 years. This is a 5-year reauthorization. The cost is not, as it was alleged before, some lie. The cost over 5 years is very simple: $25 billion is in the program now. We want to add $35 billion, so it is a $60 billion cost over 5 years. It makes all the sense in the world to spend $12 billion a year on health insurance when billionaires get $100 million in 1 year, or I should say over $200,000 of income. They get $100 million a year if they make that kind of money.

My last point is, he and others talked about this being a debate about national health insurance. We can have that debate. We agreed on that. That is one thing we all agree on, both sides of the aisle. We should have a debate about health insurance. This is not national health insurance. This is not the debate about health insurance generally. This is a very focused debate about whether the President of the United States is in favor of providing health care for 10 million children and whether he is going to make that commitment. It is very simple. If you are supporting the President, then you are supporting a policy which will lead to the failure of this country to provide health care for 10 million children, and that would be a terrible mistake for those kids, for their communities, but especially, over the long term, for our economic future. We can't compete around the world unless our kids are healthy and they learn more now and earn more in the future.

Madam President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. I want to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley as well as to the chairman and ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, Senators Rockefeller and Hatch, for their vital and resolute spirit of bipartisan cooperation and tireless perseverance in crafting an agreement with House negotiators that will maintain health insurance coverage for 6 million children and reach nearly four million more. Their work demonstrates what we can accomplish when we set aside philosophical differences in order to do the right thing for children and their families. I am pleased that we reached a veto-proof majority with the previous cloture vote, which shows strong support for extending and building upon this landmark legislation.

As we all know, the problem of the uninsured touches communities all across our country. Thankfully, we have made tremendous strides in dramatically lowering the number of uninsured children through SCHIP which, time and again, has proved to be both a successful program and a saving grace for millions of American families who otherwise simply could not afford to pay for their children's health care. The stakes could not be more monumental. The quality of the health care that one receives as a child can have dramatic implications later in life. And there is not a family in America who does not want to provide the most comprehensive health coverage possible for its children.

While some may mistakenly characterize SCHIP coverage as a welfare benefit, what they may not realize is that nearly 90 percent of uninsured children come from families where at least one parent is working. Today, fewer than half of parents in families earning less than $40,000 a year are offered health insurance through their employer--a 9 percent drop since 1997. And for many working families struggling to obtain health care, if benefits are even accessible to them, the costs continue to rise, moving further out of their reach. In my own State of Maine, a family of four can expect to pay $24,000 on the individual market for its coverage. For most families, taking this path is unrealistic and unworkable, especially when factoring the cost of mortgages, heating bills, and myriad other financial pressures.

That is why I am pleased that the compromise provides a significant increase in federal commitment into the SCHIP program. With lives literally hanging in the balance, we ought to be building on what works. As we move to reauthorize the SCHIP program, states not only require sufficient Federal funding to ensure that children currently enrolled in SCHIP do not lose coverage and become uninsured, they also require additional funding to enroll more uninsured children-- particularly the 11,000 children in Maine who are eligible but unenrolled.

I am particularly heartened that the House and Senate negotiators recognized that dental care is not a ``luxury'' benefit--but one that is paramount to the healthy development of children. A guaranteed dental benefit was included in S. 1224, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, legislation I introduced with Senator Rockefeller in April.

In addition, as members of the Finance Committee, Senator Jeff Bingaman and I sought to improve the quality of dental care through the provision of an assured dental benefit for all SCHIP-covered children during the committee process. Chairman Baucus was instrumental in the inclusion of a $200 million dental grant program as a first step towards meeting our goal during the Finance Committee process. And I am pleased that we were ultimately able to see such a strong dental benefit in the package we are considering today.

Most dental disease is preventable with proper care up front, but when a parent cannot access routine care for a child, taking that child to the emergency room is often their only recourse. Yet that option costs at least four times as much as seeing a dentist. Plus, the health care a child receives in the emergency room does not even resolve the underlying problem--they generally provide only pain relief and antibiotics for infection. The bill before us today provides States the choice to either provide a dental benefit as contained in the SCHIP statute or choose among three other coverage options--dental coverage equivalent to the coverage offered by the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, FEHBP, dental option--the largest dental plan in the State--or the State employees dental plan with the largest enrollment of children.

The compromise package also replaces the policy announced by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services last month that would essentially prevent state SCHIP programs from enrolling uninsured children from families with household incomes above 250 percent of the federal poverty level. To put this into better perspective, 250 percent of the federal poverty level for a family of four is $51,625. As I illustrated before, families in Maine faced with purchasing a policy on the individual market could face a cost well in excess of $24,000 a year. If States such as mine were prevented from expanding eligibility over 250 percent of poverty, families with a clear, demonstrable need could be shut out.

Families could potentially spend nearly half their income on health coverage yet still not qualify for assistance. That's why 2 weeks ago, Senators Kennedy, Smith, Rockefeller, and I introduced legislation to nullify these new restrictions. This compromise will rightfully block efforts to impose onerous and unreasonable restrictions on the States' efforts to reach every child requiring assistance--while at the same time making sure States with more generous income-eligibility levels are meeting their commitment to lower income children.

I also want to speak briefly about the offset contained in this bill. Though some may vigorously disagree, I find that an increase in the tobacco tax is an appropriate avenue to help finance health coverage for low-income children. The health complications caused by smoking-- for instance, the increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease as well as the clear relationship between the number of cigarettes smoked during pregnancy and low birth weight babies--could not be more evident. It is clear to me that investing in children's health, while at the same

time discouraging children from starting to smoke in the first place, is the best form of cost-effective, preventative medicine.

Regrettably, this week we will hear a litany of reasons why we shouldn't cover more children through SCHIP. Some will express concerns about the size and cost of the package. I would respond that it should inject a dose of reality on the magnitude of the problem. States have responded to the call of families who are struggling every day with the cost of health insurance and are assuming a tremendous burden in the absence of Federal action.

In addition, we should bear in mind that this bill is $15 billion below the amount we provided for in the budget resolution. Again, this bill is the product of compromise. Some of us wanted to go further. Senator Rockefeller and I introduced legislation to reauthorize the program at the full $50 billion--a bill that garnered 22 bipartisan cosponsors.

Although there were compromises made along the way on various policy positions, one point is not up for discussion--simply maintaining the status quo of current levels of coverage is unacceptable. And while the Congress and the White House argue over philosophical differences, children are either going without coverage, or their parents are financing their care on credit cards, hoping they can stay on top of their debt.

We are the wealthiest Nation on earth, and if we are unable to provide health insurance and medical care to our young people, then what does that say about our values? Some of my colleagues will contend that the SCHIP reauthorization we are considering is the first step toward government-run health care and that we will substitute public coverage for private insurance. The fact is that this SCHIP program came into being ten years ago. We haven't seen that evolve from the SCHIP program. We didn't see it materializing into a government-run health care program, as many have alleged here today. It absolutely hasn't happened. What we did was identify a need and address it in a bipartisan manner.

These claims ignore the fact that today, 73 percent of the children enrolled in Medicaid received most or all of their health care services through a managed care plan. In fact, America's Health Insurance Plans, AHIP, a national association representing nearly 1,300 member companies, has recently endorsed this legislation, stating ``it repairs the safety net and is a major movement toward addressing the problems that States and Governors have been trying to address, which is how to get access for children.'' The bill also helps shore up employer-based coverage by granting states the option to subsidize employer-sponsored group health coverage for families that find the coverage beyond their financial means.

Some have argued that SCHIP should reduce coverage for adults, especially childless adults. While I believe that coverage for adults can have a clear benefit for children, both in terms of enrollment of children as well as the simple fact that health problems for a working parent can lead to economic insecurity for the family, this approach represents an area where we had to compromise. But I find it contradictory that the administration, which has been so vocal in its opposition to the cost and scope of the compromise package, granted the majority of the 14 adult coverage waivers granted over the past ten years and renewed a waiver for adult coverage in May!

Some will argue that reauthorization should be attached to a larger initiative on the uninsured. We must acknowledge forthrightly that working families are having a difficult, if not wrenching, time finding affordable, meaningful coverage--coverage not just in name only. Access to affordable, quality health care is the No. 1 one domestic priority of Americans, and the public will hold us all--Republicans and Democrats alike--accountable on delivering that goal. That is why I have been engaged with my colleagues in an effort to address the critical issues of extending coverage, reducing costs, and revolutionizing care delivery. But while I agree with many of my colleagues that legislative action to solve the problem of the uninsured is long-overdue, children should not be kept waiting. We cannot defer the urgency of providing health insurance for our children while we continue to procrastinate on the issue of the uninsured.

Frankly, I am outraged by the news that the President is considering a veto of this legislation. I believe this seriously misjudges the genuine concern Americans have about access to care, particularly for children. In a March New York Times/CBS News poll, 84 percent of those polled said they supported expanding SCHIP to cover all uninsured children. A similar majority said they thought the lack of health insurance for many children was a ``very serious'' problem for the country.

SCHIP has been the most significant achievement of the Congress over the past decade in legislative efforts to assure access to affordable health coverage to every American. Today, as we consider this reauthorization, we must not undermine the demonstrated success of this program over the past decade. Compromise on both sides of the aisle helped us create this program ten years ago and hopefully a renewed sense bipartisan commitment will help us successfully reauthorize this vital program.

I would strongly encourage the President to reconsider his short- sighted veto threat and work hand-in-hand with Congress to extend health insurance to countless, deserving children. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the leaders of this bill for the time to speak.

I am kind of flabbergasted at the last talk. I am one of the physicians in this country who has cared for kids on Medicaid. I have actually delivered over 2,000 babies on Medicaid. I have actually done well-child exams.

We have the Senate lecturing the President, and we should be lecturing ourselves. The debate on this bill is not about children. There is not anybody in the Senate who does not want to cover and continue the present SCHIP.

What this debate is about is how do we move toward national health care. That is what this debate is. So immoral? Is it immoral to spend $3,000 to buy $1,500 worth of care, like we are going to do in this bill? Is it immoral for the Senate to say it only costs $35 billion and then totally take a program that is costing $12 billion a year 5 years from now and cut it down to $700 million and say we met the budget rules, when in fact we did not? That is immoral. What about the children who are going to pay for the deficit associated with this bill?

I have actually cared for these kids. My practice has been a Medicaid-based practice and a SCHIP-based practice. The holier-than- thou attitude that if you oppose this bill, you do not care about children is completely disrespectful to those of us who happen to disagree, who maybe think a better way to cover children would be the Burr-Corker bill, which gives a tax credit to every kid in this country that covers enough to give them insurance and takes that Medicaid stamp off their head, since only 40 percent of the doctors in this country will cover SCHIP kids and Medicaid kids.

So the debate is not about the President being immoral. It is not about tax cuts. The real immoral fact of this bill is we are winking and nodding again to the American people that we are going to spend $121 billion over the next 10 years--not $60 billion over the next 5 years--$121 billion, and we have no way to pay for that. We had a $444 billion deficit last year. We could have paid for the war and decreased the deficit if this body would have had the courage to eliminate duplicative and fraudulent programs. There is no holier-than-thou attitude to go after those programs because they have an interest. As politicians, we do not want to upset anybody.

So it is easy--the greatest pleasure in the world is to spend somebody else's money and to claim it is in the name of children. I have been on the ground with children. I have taken care of the poorest of the poor. We have a pregnancy component in this bill. Title 19 now is at 300 percent of the poverty level in this country. We have people dropping their insurance to qualify for title 19. We do not need pregnancy covered in the SCHIP bill. It is already covered. But we claim that to rationalize to make the bill better.

I have no disrespect for people in this body who claim they want national health care, government-run national health care. Well, American public--guess what--if you think health care is expensive now, wait till it is free. Wait till it is free. That is exactly what we are doing with this bill.

We can reauthorize SCHIP, and we can make it higher than a $5 billion increase to truly cover those kids who need it. This body rejected an insurance contribution component amendment I offered that would actually expand further the number of kids.

The other point that is not being made is, for every kid you cover who does not have health insurance today, you are going to drop another kid from health insurance that is being paid for by their parents, and they are getting no benefit in terms of a reduction of their health insurance. So what we are doing is shifting taxes to those same parents to pay for a program, twice as much money for the benefit we will get for the kids.

I am not against well-child exams. I am not against immunizations. I give them out of my pocket of my own practice now for free. They cost me an average of $146 a kid.

The claim of superiority that somehow if you do not want to have this bill you do not care for children is gobbledygook. What about the kids in the future who are going to pay for the mistakes we are making? What about the kids who are born today who owe $400,000 on our unfunded liabilities? We have done that. If we care so much about kids, why aren't we fixing that problem? They are never going to get a college education or own a home, and they are never going to have health coverage because we will have bankrupt this country by the way we do not control how we spend money.

So to be lectured and lecturing the President because, finally, he is exhibiting some fiscal responsibility into the future, and us to play games on the true cost of this program, that is what is immoral. It is not the President being immoral. The fact is it is not our money, it is the money of the people of this country, and we are going to decide we are going to spend money and not tell them what it is really going to cost because that is what this bill does in the outyears, the 6th through the 11th year of this bill if we cut this program to $700 million a year.

Now, nobody in their right mind will honestly say we are going to let that happen. So if we are not going to let that happen, how about being honest with the American people about the true cost of what we are doing? It is $121 billion. It is not $60 billion. Even the staff admits that. Both the Democratic and Republican staff admit that.

For us to sit up here and claim it is only a $35 billion increase-- well, only a $35 billion increase is a 120-percent increase in the program, just a 120-percent increase in the program.

We ought to have a debate about national health care and how we solve the problems of health care in this country. There is a way to solve it. It is to make sure everybody in this country has access and give them the freedom and the power to choose what is best for them rather than us tell them what they have to have. That is the debate we ought to have.

This is a farce. This debate is a farce. It is a farce about saying we want to

cover more children, when we are really taking children who are already covered and putting them under a government program and then charging those children's kids for the cost of the program. That is what we are doing. It is not about caring for kids. It is about lying to the American public about what this program does.

So I do not have any hard feelings about the fact that people want to have national health care and a government-run program, but let's have the debate about what it really is and not have a debate demeaning the President when he finally stands up and says we have an obligation, for the next few generations, to start doing it right, and finally he is starting to do it right. And now we are saying he is immoral. Of the 10 million kids, 5 million already have coverage. We are going to ask the American taxpayer--in spite of what we are doing, in spite of the fact we borrowed $434 billion--we are going to load that on them.

They already have coverage. They already have immunization. They already have well-child care, and we are going to add that cost to the American taxpayer. Do you know who that taxpayer is? That is that child's child because we are not going to pay for it. We are going to refuse to be responsible. We played the game of pay-go on this, the great pay-go rule, where we now bastardize our own ethics to say we paid for something, knowing we did not. Because nobody in this body believes this is going to go to $700 million 5 years from now. Nobody believes that. Everybody knows that. So everybody knows we are telling an untruth to the American people about the true cost of this program.

I care a ton about my patients. But I also care enough about this country to be able to speak the truth about what we are doing. And what we are doing is absolutely untruthful in how we characterize the spending on this program. You can debate that. I will debate that all day with anybody up here. This body knows I know our numbers, and the numbers on this bill are untruthful.

So what we ought to say is, we think we ought to expand the SCHIP program, and it costs $121 billion. Let's have a debate about what it really costs. That is why the President says we should not do it. And we should not go to 300 percent, and we should not have adults on a program where in many States it consumes 75 percent of the dollars.

I will readily grant you, we have a big problem with health care in this country. One of the major reasons we have a big problem with health care in this country is government-run health care programs that drive the cost and the overutilization in many areas where we cannot function properly.

What is happening today in our country with quality of care is because we have so much government run. We have physicians trying to see too many patients. The one thing we are taught in medical school is, if you will listen to your patients, they will tell you what is wrong. Right now, 8 percent of the cost of health care in this country is associated with tests we order that no patient needs. It is because this body will not look at the malpractice situation we have in this country and the liability situation and fix it to where it truly represents a system where people who are injured are taken care of. What we have is a system that games it. So consequently we are all paying 8 percent more for health care because providers have to order tests to cover their backside.

The other thing we know is another 3 percent of the cost of health care is associated with tests that doctors are ordering because they are not listening well--$50 billion worth of tests that people do not need because we will not take the time to listen to them.

I will summarize and finish my point with this: Washington has an 11- percent approval rating for a very good reason. Because we do not deserve to be trusted, because we do exactly what we are doing on this bill. We are lying to the American people about what it costs, who it will cover, and how it will be delivered.

Now, some other details of the bill are debatable, but those facts are not debatable, and the American people, hopefully soon, are going to wake up to the dishonesty and the farce that we perpetrate on them as we debate those issues.

Let's have a debate about national health care. Let's really debate it. Let's look at the options. Our bill, in several other places--the Burr-Corker bill, the Universal Health Care Choice and Access Act-- gives everybody in this country an equal tax credit. Everybody gets treated the same. You want to punish the millionaires? Take away some of their tremendous excess tax benefits from health care. But we would not do that. We do not have one person who will come forward and say: Let's equalize the Tax Code on the other side. Let's equalize the Tax Code so everybody has the same shot. Let's let a market help us access that. Let's make sure it is 100 percent access. If you do not have access, you cannot have care.

This bill is not going to provide that much access. Fifty percent of what it does has to do with people who already have access. Those are not my numbers. Those are Congressional Budget Office numbers.

So let's be honest about what we are doing. Let's talk about health care. If we want to go to national health care, if we have the votes to do it, then let's do it. But let's do not, under the guise of helping children, expand national health care. This Senator will vote to reauthorize a higher level of funding for SCHIP to cover kids who are truly poor--those who don't have access. I will help anytime, any way to do that. That has been my practice. That has been my heritage. That has been my history in caring for poor folks in Oklahoma. But I am not about to go along with a lie, that what we are doing is something different than what we say we are doing.

With that, I yield the floor.

I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee. I am very happy that the chairman of the Finance Committee made the comments he just did because I was absolutely bowled over by the comments

which preceded him from the other side of the aisle. It is sort of basic when you say the word ``universal.'' It means everybody, but it does not necessarily mean it has to be run by the Federal Government, and anybody who makes that kind of an error is either really playing politics or really needs to go to grad school.

In any event, this program is totally optional. And there is nothing about it which--in fact, several of the previous speakers said that States could do this and States could do that, but on the other hand it was all Government run, so therefore how could the States do it on their own? It is sort of a sad argument.

Several months ago, four Senators--two Republicans and two Democrats--stood in a room, shook hands, and made a promise to each other. It was a wonderful moment. It was a wonderful moment. We vowed not only to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program for millions of kids who rely on it for basic medical care but also to reach out to millions more children. Today, these many months later, we are one step closer to making the promise into a reality for nearly 10 million children. I am very proud to be working with those Senators, grandfathers and fathers themselves, Senators Baucus, Grassley, Hatch, and others, and what they have accomplished in the Senate on the CHIP bill.

The legislation before us today is the result of months of some of the most bipartisan working by both the Senators and the staff of the Senators that I have ever seen. It went on for months, night and day. Every day, the four Senators involved in this met for 2 hours so that we could work out differences and make sure it was bipartisan, and I am so happy to say that it is.

Many Members of the House and Senate had hoped for something different in this bill. Obviously, some wanted more, some wanted less. Some wanted to simply reauthorize the status quo, some wanted to even decrease the children's health insurance funding, and others wanted to add benefits. That is not necessarily evil. Because you did something 10 years ago does not mean it has to stand written in stone forever, such as eye exams. Some wanted to restore coverage to the children of legal immigrants. Some wanted to increase funding to $50 billion.

Individually, we all believed what we proposed was the right thing to do, but ultimately we did not do those things because we compromised because we were determined to be bipartisan and we wanted this bill to pass for the sake of 10 million children. So the promise of the handshake brought us back to the table each and every time and to the common ground we walk today.

Each of us knows the statistics in our own State. I am proud that nearly 40,000 West Virginians were enrolled in our Children's Health Insurance Program last year. These kids can see a doctor when they get sick, they can receive necessary immunizations, and they can get preventive screenings. In fact, at the very beginning, it was very hard to get preventive screenings. Now they can. They will be able to, so they can get a healthy start in life because of this important program. The passage of this bill means thousands more of West Virginia's children will have affordable and stable health insurance, including access to basic care.

A personal comment. This is all incredibly important to me. Four decades ago, or more, I came to West Virginia as a VISTA volunteer. I did not plan to stay; went to a community where nobody had any health insurance, any job, any water, any sewer, any schoolbus. That was an experience which turned me around, gave meaning to my life. It was a small mining community in southern West Virginia where I learned just exactly how important health care can be in the lives of people who work hard every day to raise a family and to do right by their children and how painful it is when they don't have it. That experience has had a profound influence on me, has influenced me every day of my public service career since.

Providing children, especially those who are in the grips of poverty, with health care is moral. It is a moral obligation. It speaks to our deepest humanity and to the better angels of our Nation's character. It was a promise that got started, in fact, with the recommendations of the National Commission on Children, which I was proud to chair and have since worked to implement its recommendations, many of which, including the earned-income tax credit and others, are in effect.

It was, as some remember, a very different time in 1997 when this CHIP program was begun. A decade ago when the debates on CHIP took place, there was a genuine frustration that we could not solve broader problems plaguing America's health care system. We were, in fact, the wisdom was, at the breaking point. That is when a bipartisan group of equally committed Senators at that time were in the finance executive room with no staff and worked long into the morning to develop a CHIP program. It was one of the most glorious moments I can remember. People who had never spoken about children suddenly rose, because we were all by ourselves around a table, and spoke about the importance of doing health insurance for children. It was moving. Some people actually stood as they spoke. We were all around a table and there was no need to stand, but their feelings were so deep and they poured forth because there we were, by ourselves, with our consciences, with the future of children in our hands. We knew we could not solve the entire problem, but we committed to trying to do our best by putting children first. The time has come for Congress once again to put our children first, and the bill before us today does exactly that.

So having said what it exactly does, I want to say what it exactly does not do, this bill.

To start with, we keep our promise that all those currently enrolled will keep their health insurance by investing $35 billion over the next 5 years.

We give States the resources to reach out and enroll millions more kids, which, in fact, sounds very easy, but in rural areas--and I think, of course, of Appalachia--it is a very hard thing to do where, in fact, many parents of children, and therefore the children themselves, are scared of health care, scared of doctors, scared of clinics, scared of hospitals, and want to stay as far away from health care as possible. So it is a very difficult thing to get them to join, but we are determined to do that.

We have included, yes, expanded access to dentists and mental health counselors. All of the history of health care shows those things are incredibly important for children. In fact, even as baby teeth come in, they determine what mature teeth will be, and if you do not tend to them early, the children are in for terrible problems. I have seen so much of that.

We have made it easier for States to identify those children who are eligible but not enrolled in CHIP by reviewing food stamp records, school lunch programs, WIC programs, and all kinds of things that States will decide to do, every State being different, parts of States being different. So there are people--the Governors and those running these programs as they do, not the Federal Government, but the Governors of the States will decide how to do this.

We have maintained the unique public-private partnership that has been the hallmark of the CHIP program which has been universally recognized as the most cost-effective and efficient way of reaching all those children who desperately need access to something sacred called basic medical care.

Most importantly, we have preserved the State flexibility, so the program fits the needs in every State--different in one State as opposed to another.

Now, let me be equally clear about what the bill does not do. It does not raise eligibility limits to families making $83,000 dollars a year. It simply does not do that. I challenge anybody to come on the floor and say otherwise. Our bill does not encourage people to give up private insurance to enroll in CHIP. It does not do that. It does not unfairly raise taxes on the poor and middle class to pay for CHIP. In fact, throughout, both looking backward and looking forward to the passage of this bill and hopefully the signing of this bill, 91 percent of all the children who are covered by the Children's Health Insurance Program will be at 200 percent of poverty or below. That is not wealth. They go out in the private market, and in some places it can be $12,000 dollars, and in others, $9,000. Families cannot afford that. This bill is incredibly important to them.

This bill does not cover illegal immigrants. It does not expand coverage to adults. In fact, it cuts adults off the program over the next several years. It does not turn CHIP into some massive Government- run health care program. The President knows this. He should know this. He is a former Governor. And he has spoken about this favorably. So he should understand this.

So what is the President's plan for children's health care? For starters, provide a bare minimum of Federal funding to keep CHIP on life support and at the same time throw 1.6 million kids currently in the program out of the program. And what is his answer to those kids and the 721,000 who joined the ranks of the uninsured last year? Go to the emergency room. That is the worst increase of health care known in this country. So sit for hours to see a doctor, only to be prescribed medicine that your parents cannot afford. It is not American. That is not American.

Adding to the Nation's growing health care crisis is not a solution. If anything, it would lead to the one thing the President is accusing us of: shifting the burden of paying for health care to taxpayers. We do not do that.

Threatening to veto our bill is a mistake. The majority of Americans believe we need to live up to our obligations to provide children with health care.

How many people wandering around the streets of Washington or any other place in this country would ask: Don't you agree with me that children shouldn't have health care, children who can't afford it, that only the rich should have it? You wouldn't get any takers on that. People care about children. They know they are the future. They want them to have health care. So it is a moral obligation for our children, and the President is squarely on the wrong side of the issue.

All of us here, I know, will do the right thing by our Nation's children. I sincerely hope the President will look deep into his heart and do the same.

I yield the floor and thank the Chair.

Mr. President, today we are voting on the reauthorization of a program that has wide support in our country and that has reduced the number of uninsured children nationwide by over 6 million. In fact, CHIP has helped lower the rate of noninsurance among low-income children by one-third since its enactment in 1997. That is a huge accomplishment, and has helped address a problem in our country that is unacceptable--the millions of uninsured families.

In my home State of Wisconsin, CHIP, known as BadgerCare, provides health insurance for over 67,000 families. Wisconsin has done an incredible job of covering uninsured children as well as their parents, and the positive effects of this program are felt at schools, in the workforce, and at home. This bill helps support Wisconsin's efforts and provides low-income families in my State with better access to preventive care, primary care, and affordable care. The end result is healthier families. BadgerCare is vital to the well-being of many families in Wisconsin and I am very pleased that this bill supports the program in my State, including Wisconsin's choice to cover parents of CHIP and Medicaid children.

We know from numerous reports that when we cover parents, we bring more uninsured children into the program as well. States like Wisconsin have proven time and again that covering parents means covering more kids. I worked hard with my colleagues and the Senate Finance Committee to make sure that Wisconsin could keep families in the CHIP program, and I am very pleased that those efforts have paid off.

This legislation is not perfect. I would like to be voting on a more expansive package today that would offer health care access to more children and families. I am very disappointed that this legislation does not include language that would allow access to the program for legal immigrants. Unfortunately, it appears that, because of Republican opposition to this policy, legal immigrant children will continue to have to wait five years before they become eligible for CHIP and Medicaid. I will do my best to help change the discriminatory policy in the future.

Despite the flaws in this legislation, the CHIP reauthorization bill marks an important step forward in getting coverage to those who need it. I will support this bill's final passage, and I hope the President will reconsider his ill-advised decision to veto it. I look forward to the day that everyone in our country has access to the basic right of health care.

Mr. Dodd. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 976, the Small Business Tax Relief Act. This is a bipartisan agreement to do what is right for our nation's children. There are few more important issues facing the senate than the health and well-being of our Nation's youth. The vote to pass this legislation is a vote for children.

As the father of two young daughters, I keenly understand how important it is to know that if one of them gets sick they have the health insurance coverage that will provide for them. For millions of parents, every slight sniffle or aching tooth could mean the difference between paying the rent and paying for medical care. Today we have an opportunity to help give those parents peace of mind about their children's health.

It is our national shame that 9 million children wake up every day lacking any form of health insurance. Every day, this means millions of regular checkups are sidelined, dental exams go unscheduled, and early diagnoses of chronic conditions such as asthma or diabetes are postponed. For families, such delays set the stage for children to grow up underperforming in school, developing preventable or treatable conditions, or worse, permanent disability or even premature death.

The lack of health insurance causes more than poor health outcomes. Access to affordable health care is essential to alleviating child poverty. Low-income families without insurance often get stuck in an endless cycle of medical debt, a primary cause of bankruptcy filings in this country. Parents already struggling to make ends meet

should not have to choose between providing their children needed medications and putting a roof over their heads or food on their table.

I commend the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for working so hard with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to put together a bill that will benefit the lives of millions of children and their families. Their leadership over the years, and that of Senators Hatch, Rockefeller, Kennedy and many others, helped create the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, and reduce the number of uninsured children by one-third. Their persistence now to expand this bill in the face of considerable opposition shows their commitment to children's health. This bill is a tremendous investment in the health and future of our children.

Specifically, the bill continues providing coverage for 6.6 million children currently enrolled in CHIP and provides coverage for 3.1 million children who are currently uninsured today. It gives States the resources they need to keep up with the growing numbers of uninsured children. It provides tools and incentives to cover children who have fallen through the cracks of current programs. And it will prevent the President from unfairly and shortsightedly limiting States' efforts to expand their CHIP programs to cover even more children. All together these efforts will reduce the number of uninsured children by one third over the next 5 years.

In my own State of Connecticut, our CHIP program, commonly known as HUSKY B, has brought affordable health insurance to more than 130,000 children in working families since its inception in 1998. H.R. 976 is essential to States like Connecticut so that they may continue to operate programs like HUSKY B and build on their proven success to insure even more children.

I am additionally very pleased that my Support for Injured Servicemembers Act amendment was included in the final SCHIP bill. This amendment provides up to 6 months of Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, leave for family members of military personnel who suffer from a combat-related injury or illness. FMLA currently allows three months of unpaid leave. Fourteen years ago, FMLA declared the principle that workers should never be forced to choose between the jobs they need and the families they love.

If ordinary Americans deserve those rights, how much more do they apply to those who risk their lives in the service of our country? Soldiers who have been wounded in our service deserve everything America can give to speed their recoveries but most of all, they deserve the care of their closest loved ones. That is exactly what is offered in the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act.

Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala have been instrumental in this effort through the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. It's not surprising that the Commission found that family members play a critical role in the recovery of our wounded servicemembers. The commitment shown by the families and friends of our troops is truly inspiring. According to the Commission's report, 33 percent of active duty servicemembers report that a family member or close friend relocated for extended periods of time to help their recoveries. It also points out that 21 percent of active duty servicemembers say that their friends or family members gave up jobs to find the time. Last week in a hearing of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, we heard from one of those families and there are thousands more to be heard. The House is moving forward with companion legislation and I am grateful to my colleagues Congresswoman Woolsey and Chairman Miller and their cosponsors.

I am pleased that Senator Clinton is the lead cosponsor of my amendment. In addition, I am pleased that Senators Dole, Graham, Kennedy, Chambliss, Reed, Mikulski, Murray, Salazar, Lieberman, Menendez, Brown, Nelson of Nebraska, and Cardin are cosponsoring this amendment. I thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for accepting this important amendment and appreciate the support of all of my colleagues in this effort.

I am troubled by the comments by President Bush and members of his administration about this bill. This legislation is vital to the health and well being of our children. The CHIP program is a model of success and this bill provides sustainable and predictable health care coverage for low income children regardless of their health status. It represents the hard work and agreement of an overwhelming majority of Members on both sides of the aisle. It is a testament to how important issues like children's health care can be addressed in a bipartisan manner by a united Congress. The President's policy of block and delay would mean Connecticut and other States would have to take away existing health coverage for hundreds of thousands of children when they should be covering more kids.

But despite the bipartisan agreement of this Congress, the President threatens to veto this legislation. If he does, all Americans will know whether the President stands for children or would rather stand in the way of children's access to critically needed health care.

I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation and I urge President Bush to do what is right and sign it into law.

Reserving the right to object, and I am not going to object, I wish further to lock in the time to each Senator on my side within the Republican time designated in the consent agreement the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee has just propounded, as follows: Senator DeMint, 10 minutes; Senator Bunning, 15 minutes; Senator Lott, 10 minutes; Senator Grassley, 45 minutes--it is my understanding the Roberts time under the consent agreement would already be counted. I will leave that out--Senator Hatch, 30 minutes; Senator Vitter, 10 minutes; Senator Coburn, 15 minutes; Senator Corker, 10 minutes; Senator Smith, 10 minutes; Senator Snowe, 15 minutes; Senator Murkowski, 15 minutes; Senator Burr, 10 minutes; Senator Thune, 10; and Senator Cornyn, 10.

I confidently assure my friend that is my desire and I think I expressed that to the Chair.

Madam President, I am going to proceed in my leader time to speak on the SCHIP bill.

Madam President, 10 years ago a Republican Congress created a program that had a worthy and straightforward goal: health insurance for kids whose parents made too little to afford private coverage but too much to qualify for Government help. Millions of children were caught between rich and poor, we wanted to help, and thanks to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, we did.

The program has been a success. Since SCHIP's creation, the uninsured rate for children in families earning between about $20,000 and $40,000 a year has dropped by 25 percent. Last year it covered more than 6 \1/ 2\ million kids. Today the number of uninsured children within the income group we originally targeted is down to about one million nationwide.

Republicans were ready to finish the good work we started with SCHIP, and we approached its reauthorization this year as an opportunity to do just that, to reach out to the kids in our original target area who should be covered by SCHIP but weren't.

Meanwhile, our friends on the other side had another idea: following the lead of a number of State Governors, they decided to expand SCHIP beyond its original mandate and bring us down the path of Government- run healthcare for everyone.

These Governors started with adults and children from middle and upper middle-income families. Taking SCHIP funds that were originally meant for children from poor families, they spent it on these other populations instead. Then they turned around and said they didn't have enough money to cover the poor children in their States. Which is absurd. This is a capped entitlement. The dollar amount is fixed. If you are spending it on adults, you have already decided not to spend it on the children who need it most. And that is wrong.

New Jersey, under the leadership of one of our former Senate colleagues, helped lead the way. Rejecting a rule that limits SCHIP funds to the poor children, New Jersey now uses SCHIP for adults, and for children in families that earn as much as $72,275 a year.

For millions of hard-working Americans who have to pay for their insurance, it doesn't seem right that they should have to subsidize the families in New Jersey who can and should be paying for their own. And a lot of poor

families in New Jersey are also right to wonder why Trenton is suddenly enrolling middle-class families for SCHIP when their kids still lack coverage--about 120,000 of them by one count.

This is the kind of SCHIP expansion that Democrats want in all 50 States. They want to continue to expand it, pulling more and more middle-income children and adults off the private market and onto public coverage, driving private insurance costs up, driving the overall quality of health care down.

Not every State is abusing the rules. Kentucky runs its version of SCHIP, KCHIP, in a financially responsible way. We even have money left over from years past. But under the Democrats' reauthorization plan, Washington would take those extra funds and send them to States like New York and New Jersey that spend more than they get. As a result, even the expanded SCHIP program would leave Kentuckians with less SCHIP funding in the coming fiscal year.

Kentuckians don't want the money they have targeted for poor children going to adults and middle-class families in other states that can afford insurance on its own. KCHIP's money goes where it should be going: to low-income kids who need it most.

Right now, KCHIP serves about 50,000 kids in Kentucky, but there are a lot more who could be covered and aren't. We need to focus on them before expanding SCHIP program to new populations. And the Republican proposal I cosponsored with the other Republican leaders would do just that.

Until this year, SCHIP had been a bipartisan program and a bipartisan success. But in yet another sign that no good deed goes unpoliticized by Democrats in the 110th Congress, our Democratic friends accuse Republicans who want to reauthorize SCHIP of shortchanging it, of shortchanging children. Which is also absurd. We want to improve the program we have got, not expand it into areas it was never meant to go.

Of course some of the news organizations are running with the story. They seem to have forgotten that basic rule of politics that anytime somebody accuses you of opposing children they've either run out of arguments or they are trying to distract you from what they are really up to. And what our friends on the others side are up to is clear: they have taken SCHIP hostage, and what they want in exchange is Republican support for Government-run healthcare courtesy of Washington.

They tried that about 15 years ago, the American people loudly rejected it when they realized it would nationalize about a seventh of the economy, and they don't like Government health care any better now.

The first priority for Senate Republicans is reauthorizing SCHIP for the kids who need it. And we have demonstrated that commitment. Early last month, the Republican leadership proposed the Kids First Act, which allocates new funds for outreach and enrollment so SCHIP can reach 1.3 million more children than it already does. Our bill also pays for this outreach, without gimmicks and without raising taxes.

When Democrats rejected Kids First, Republicans introduced a bill to extend the current program to cover kids at risk of losing coverage until the debate over its future is resolved. While our friends on the other side were issuing press releases and playing politics, Republicans were looking for ways to make sure SCHIP funds didn't run out.

When this bill is vetoed, no one should feign surprise. They have known since July the President would veto any proposal that shifted SCHIP's original purpose of targeting health care dollars to low-income children who need them most.

Our Democratic colleagues have no excuse for bringing us to this point. But then again, this is the game they have played all year: neglect the real business of Government in favor of the political shot. Dozens of votes on Iraq that everyone knows won't lead to a change in policy. Three hundred investigations into the executive branch. And what is the result? We have less than 100 hours left in the current fiscal year, and Democrats haven't sent a single appropriations bill to the President's desk. This ought to put the 110th Congress into the Do- Nothing Hall of Fame.

Less than 100 hours before a health insurance program for poor children expires, and Democrats are counting down the hours so they can tee up the election ads saying Republicans don't like kids. Meanwhile, they are using SCHIP as a Trojan horse to sneak Government-run health care into the States.

This isn't just a Republican hunch. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, families that have private insurance are switching over to SCHIP in States that allow it. The junior Senator from New York has proposed a plan that would raise the eligibility rate to families of four that earn $82,600 a year--this, despite the fact that roughly nine out of ten children in these families have private health insurance already.

But of course that is not the point. The point is pursuit of a nationalized Government-run health care controlled by a Washington bureaucracy. Some Democrats have admitted what this is all about. The chairman of the Finance Committee recently put it this way: ``We're the only country in the industrialized world that does not have universal coverage,'' he said. ``I think the Children's Health Insurance Program is another step to move toward universal coverage.''

While Democrats are busy looking for ways to shift this program away from its original target, the deadline for reauthorization looms. Republicans have made this reauthorization a top priority. If Democrats want to expand Government-run health care, they should do it in the light of day, without seeking cover under a bill that was meant for poor children, and without the politics. Republicans can take the shots. But the poor kids who we were originally trying to help shouldn't be caught in the middle.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, with 3 days to go before the start of the new fiscal year, there is much inside-the-beltway chatter about continuing resolutions, omnibuses, minibuses, budget showdowns, and Government shutdowns.

Nowhere is that chatter louder than that which is coming from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. The President has threatened almost daily that he will veto any appropriations bill that exceeds his budget request. These veto threats include all of the spending bills that provide funding for our domestic programs--programs that, in one way or another, benefit each American and every American. These bills help to educate our children, help to secure our homeland, help to support rural America, and help to promote a competitive economy. These domestic spending bills provide the essential building blocks for the foundation of our great country.

On the one hand, the President is seeking over $190 billion in emergency appropriations to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is $190 billion for the cost of the wars for 1 year--1 year--1 year. At the same time, the President wants to veto critical domestic spending bills because they total $22 billion above his, the President's, budget request--less than 1 percent of our entire budget, and about what we spend in 2 months' time fighting an unpopular war in Iraq. All the chatter from the White House even asserts that the $22 billion for programs here in America means increasing taxes and putting America's economic growth at risk.

This, of course, begs the question of the economic impact of the almost $450 billion we have spent on the war in Iraq, a war which I oppose.

The President characterizes the $22 billion above his request as ``increased'' spending. In fact, $19 billion of the $22 billion ``increase'' simply represents restorations of the President's--the President's--the President's relentless attempts to savage important domestic initiatives.

This week, the FBI announced that violent crime is on the rise for the second straight year. Yet the President proposes to cut State and local law enforcement funding by $1.5 billion.

Hurricane Katrina proved that the Government is not prepared to handle major disasters, be they natural disasters or terrorist attacks. Yet the President--our President--has proposed to cut first responder grants by $1.2 billion. Those grants equip and train our police, our fire and emergency medical personnel to respond to a disaster.

The President--our President--proposes over $3 billion in cuts for education programs, including special education, safe and drug-free schools, and improving teacher quality.

Despite an aging population in this country, the President proposes a cut of $279 million for studying cancer, diabetes, and heart disease at the National Institutes of Health. Under the President's budget, the National Institutes of Health would have to eliminate 700 research grants that could lead to cures for treatments for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and other diseases.

The President also proposes to cut $2.7 billion for elderly and disabled housing and community development grants.

When the Interstate 35 bridge collapsed into the Mississippi River, it focused the Nation on the need to invest in our crumbling infrastructure. Yet the President proposes to cut over $3 billion from infrastructure programs, such as highway and transit funding, bridge repairs, rural wastewater grants, levees and dams, clean water grants, and airport safety and improvements. The President--our President--even proposes to reduce funding for the highway and transit levels that are guaranteed in the highway law that he, the President--our President-- signed in 2005.

The President proposed cuts of $1 billion from health programs such as rural health, preventive health, and mental health grants, as well as over $300 million from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

Between 1998 and 2004, disease outbreaks in food produce have almost doubled. In 2003, there were 870 food inspectors at the FDA. In 2006, there were 640. The FDA lost 230 inspectors in less than 4 years. So it is no surprise food inspection dropped by nearly half during that time. Yet the President--our President--does not propose to restore those reductions in the number of inspectors.

All of these foolish cuts have been restored in the bipartisan bills that were approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee by nearly unanimous votes and, regrettably, that the President--our President-- has said he will veto. In the 12 bills that have been reported from the committee, we have significantly reduced funding used for congressionally directed spending, and we have added unprecedented transparency and accountability.

As one can clearly see, this White House standoff is not over some irresponsible plan for an expansion of Government or pork-barrel projects. Rather, it is the President's--our President's--effort to prevent cancellation of his ill-conceived and poorly justified proposed budget cuts. Congress wants to support vital core missions of Government, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Customs and Border Protection Agency. Congress wants to make reasonable choices and set important priorities for our Nation.

There are consequences--yes, consequences--for failing to invest in America's safety and in America's future. Hurricane Katrina proved that. The collapse of the I-35 bridge proved that. Increases in violent crime prove that. Increases in food-borne illnesses prove that. Every headline about unsafe products being imported into this country proves that.

Americans rightly expect their Government to work.

Regrettably, rather than recognizing the consequences of his budget, the President--our President--is spoiling for a political fight. He refuses to recognize the facts, even as those facts evolve in a changing world.

According to the administration's latest National Intelligence Estimate:

We judge the U.S. homeland will face a persistent and

evolving terrorist threat over the next three years. The main

threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells,

especially al-Qaida, driven by their undiminished intent to

attack the United States.

Yet the President threatens to veto the Homeland Security bill that passed the Senate 89 to 4 because it is $2.2 billion above his request, with increases for first responder grants, for border security, and for enforcing our immigration laws.

The President--our President--is determined to veto 8 of our 12 appropriations bills over $22 billion. Some have argued that $22 billion is not a lot of money. I don't share that view; $22 billion is a lot of money. That is why we are fighting for the additional funding above the President's inadequate request. This fight is about priorities.

This Congress passed a budget resolution that balances the budget by 2012 and provides for the increase above the President's request for domestic programs.

Consistent with the budget resolution, the Appropriations Committee has reported all 12 bills. Four have passed the Senate, and with passage of the continuing resolution, we will continue to press for passage of the remaining bills. The President's veto threats inevitably--yes, the President's veto threats inevitably slow this process.

In the 12 bills that have been reported by the Appropriations Committee, we invest the $22 billion in America's future. By comparison:

In fiscal year 2008, the total cost of President Bush's tax cuts is $252 billion--11 times the amount of spending in question.

In fiscal year 2008, the cost of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers is almost $70 billion--three times the amount of spending in question.

In fiscal year 2008, special interest tax expenditures will cost $1 trillion--45 times the amount of spending in question. Corporate tax expenditures will cost $91 billion--over four times the amount of spending in question.

So $22 billion is, in fact, a lot of money; money that, if well spent, can help to make America be a safer, healthier, more prosperous country. We are committed to making those careful choices. We will root out waste. We will cut or eliminate ineffective programs. We will make careful choices.

When President Bush came to town almost 7 years ago, he vowed to reach across the aisle for the common good of our Nation. Now is his chance. This is the President's chance to make good on that pledge. He can continue his purely partisan fight over $22 billion in needed spending, or the President can work with the Congress to confront problems that face Americans here at home.

It is my fervent hope the President will put away his veto pen so we can get on with the business of adequately funding programs that contribute to a safe and prosperous United States of America.

God bless America always.

Mr. President, I would like to follow on the comments of my colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson, in support of the Children's Health Insurance Program bill.

This week, the House of Representatives passed the bill overwhelmingly, 265 to 159. Of my 18 Ohio House colleagues, about two- thirds of them voted for this bill. It is clearly something we know works in my State.

The Children's Health Insurance Program was passed 10 years ago in the House of Representatives and the Senate. It was established. President Clinton, a Democrat, with a Republican House and a Republican Senate, supported that issue, and it has clearly worked.

We have some 6 million children in this country now who benefit from the Children's Health Insurance Program. In my State, it is around 200,000 children. We also know this legislation will mean about 4 million more children in the United States will benefit from this health care program.

These are sons and daughters of working families. These are not people living in the lap of luxury. They are families making $20,000, $30,000, and $40,000 a year. They are families where they are working hard, playing by the rules, but they are not making enough money to buy insurance. Their employers do not offer insurance. So this is what we need to do.

Now, the President says he plans to veto this bill for two reasons that I can understand. One of them, he said, is the cost. This is $35 billion over 5 years; $7 billion a year. But just make the contrast: We are spending $2.5 billion a week--$2.5 billion a week--on the war in Iraq. Yet the President does not want to spend $7 billion a year to insure 4 million children. That is his first reason--the cost.

The second reason, the President says: I want private insurance to take care of these children. Well, so do I. So does Senator Grassley, who has been a major leader on this issue in the Senate on the other side of the aisle. We all do. But the fact is, private insurance is not taking care of these children. Again, they are sons and daughters of people with jobs paying $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year, people without insurance and without the financial wherewithal to be able to take care of these children.

The President came to Cleveland a few months ago and said everybody has health care in this country. They can get it at the emergency room. I want children in this country to get preventive care in their family doctor's office, not acute care in the emergency room.

Before the President makes his decision, I would like him to meet three families in Ohio, people who really speak to this whole issue.

I want him to know about Dawn and Glenn Snyder and their son Cody, living in Bloomingdale, near Steubenville, near the Ohio River in eastern Ohio. Dawn works in a doctor's office, and Glenn works temporary jobs. Cody is 3 years old and has cerebral palsy. Until he was a year old, Cody had bleeding in his brain and seizures. Sometimes Glenn has insurance and sometimes he doesn't. It depends on where he is working. Dawn is going to lose the coverage for her family that she has gotten because they can no longer afford to buy it.

So even though Cody needs regular medical care from a neurologist and an eye doctor, as well as routine preventive care that all children need, he is in danger of having no access to health insurance. However, the Snyders will have coverage if this bill is signed into law.

If this bill passes, Cody will likely qualify for care under Ohio's new Children's Health Insurance Program. I would add also, on a bipartisan note, Governor Strickland, the new Governor of Ohio, with a resounding bipartisan vote out of the legislature, moved the eligibility to 300 percent of poverty so families making up to about $50,000 or $55,000 a year will have coverage.

If this bill passes, it means the Snyders will have a safety net for Cody's coverage and will be able to live with the security of knowing their son will receive the care he needs.

Then there is the story of Evan Brannon. Evan is a 1-year-old from Dayton in southwest Ohio. His dad Kenneth is currently not working, after losing his job as a repairman for a telephone company. Angela, Evan's mother, stays at home with him and has a baby on the way.

Evan was diagnosed with a congenital hernia of his diaphragm and is on a feeding tube, and he also receives medicine through a tube. He receives physical, occupational, and speech therapy. His parents looked into private coverage and learned they would never qualify for it because of Evan's preexisting condition. The family is faced with $5,000 to $6,000 a month in medical expenses. Angela can't go back to work. Kenneth is looking for a job but can't get a position over a certain income level or Evan will lose medical coverage. How is this family ever supposed to get ahead if they have to make sure not to make too much money out of fear of losing health insurance for their children? What kind of incentive is that to build into the system?

Passing this bill will fix that. This is just one way in which America's families' opportunities are limited by our

country's inability to provide the insurance the children's health insurance will provide.

One more story. David Kelley is a 13-year-old living in Erie County, right next door to where I live. He lives with his mother Heather and his stepfather Timothy. David has been diagnosed as bipolar, mildly autistic, and suffers from Asperger's syndrome. He also has a rare form of asthma. David was born 2 months premature. His doctors believe that a lack of oxygen and other complications may have caused the conditions he has coped with daily for 13 years, although the causes are not completely known.

David's health conditions require him to regularly visit a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and a primary care physician. His medications cost $2,000 each month, and Medicaid covers it. His mother Heather has said her greatest fear in life is of David losing his medical coverage. She herself has multiple sclerosis and is unable to work. No private insurance plan will ever cover David because of those preexisting conditions. Heather has made navigating the Medicaid and social service systems a nearly full-time job just to maintain David's benefits. Here is another family in need of help from the Senate.

I hope our President will not leave the Kelleys, the Brannons, or the Snyders behind, without the health coverage their children so desperately need. I hope he can have compassion for those families struggling so hard to make ends meet and whose greatest wish is to provide the most basic of needs for their children: housing, food, and health care. I hope the President can see what a sound investment this is. This isn't spending $7 billion a year; this is investing $7 billion a year in the future of our families, the future of our children, and the future of our country. Four million American children will receive health insurance if the President signs this bill. He must sign it into law. Too many people are counting on it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.