Public Safety Officer Family Health Benefits Act

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this completely closed rule and to the ill-conceived underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado, who has extended me the time, well understands, as a freshman, that we have a good number of new Members to this body and who will be making a decision and voting for very important public policy decisions. It's my hope today that I will be able to gather together an argument, not to rebut the gentleman, but to show him and many of his other new colleagues, my new colleagues, why the statement ``cost effective and common sense'' does not apply to the SCHIP bill that the gentleman brings forth today.

Madam Speaker, 2 weeks ago I questioned my Democrat colleagues about their claim to be the most honest, open and transparent House in history when they tout that that is what the leadership of this body is attempting to accomplish. Once again, I will question that claim, because we're provided with a product and a process that is none of the above.

I know that the gentleman on the Rules Committee had a chance, just last night, to hear a debate in the Rules Committee about this SCHIP bill. And I believe that that hearing would produce enough evidence to suggest that this bill is neither cost effective nor common sense. Since the beginning of the 111th Congress, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have had no regard--no regard--for regular order and continue to cram legislation through this body without Republican input.

When I came to the floor last month to oppose the previous version of this legislation, I explained my opposition on the way that it had been brought to the floor without a single legislative markup. So unfortunately, the new Members of this body, unless they serve on the Rules Committee, have not heard the real facts of the case.

The real facts of the case, unfortunately, have not changed. In fact, neither Republican leadership nor Republican members on the Energy and Commerce Committee have had any opportunity to participate in crafting this 280-plus pages piece of legislation. I will repeat that. Republican members or Republican leadership have had no chance to craft any part of this 280-page legislative bill.

On January 12 of this year, my Republican colleagues and myself sent to President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, which I would like included in the Record, a letter outlining what Republicans would like to see the majority party, the Democrats, consider before expanding the current SCHIP program. We still, as of this morning, have received no answer, no answer, to a forthright and open letter. In responding to this, we are simply asking today on the floor of the House of Representatives for the opportunity not only to be heard but also to make sure that the newest Members of this body have a chance to know the facts of the case. And in reauthorizing this program, the first priority should be, should be, to make sure that our Nation's poorest uninsured children are covered. The intent of the program is that. And we must first fulfill that goal.

Currently, at least two-thirds of the children who do not have health insurance are already eligible for Federal help through either SCHIP or Medicaid. The second priority is to ensure that SCHIP does not replace or significantly impact those who already have private health insurance and replace it with a government-run program. Speaking of common sense, why would you take someone who has private health insurance and move them to a government-run program?

Madam Speaker, if this legislation passes, we know that there are 2.4 million children who will be moved from private insurance to SCHIP, a program that reimburses physicians 30 to 50 percent less than private health insurance. As a matter of fact, last night in the Rules Committee, there was in the debate that took place an acknowledgment from the Democrat side lead who said, yes, he did understand. They're even having problems getting physicians who will accept the patients because of the reduction in the reimbursement. Common sense would tell you that alone is not cost effective nor common sense.

More to my point about the newest Members of this body understanding the facts of the case because regular order did not take place, how would we expect them to know what they were going to vote on? Congress should be encouraging superior health care for our Nation's children, not undermining it. That is common sense.

Furthermore, a citizenship verification standard is critical to ensuring that only U.S. citizens and certain legal immigrants are allowed to access taxpayer-funded benefits, not illegal immigrants. The underlying legislation takes out from the law and offers no safeguards to ensure a check that it will be for American children before illegal immigrants. Once again, cost effective, and once again, common sense for the new Members of this body.

The Democrats' proposed $32.8 billion expansion of a program that has yet to accomplish its original intent is typical of my friends on the other side. My friends, the Democrats, continue to push their government-run health care agenda, ``universal coverage'' as they call it, even though this legislation moves 2.4 million children currently on private health coverage to an inferior public program with less access. Common sense says you should not be doing that.

So, then, with physicians scaling back on Medicaid and SCHIP due to the extremely low government reimbursement rate, why would we want to subject 4 million more children to this type of care? Once again, the standard of common sense. I don't know that this bill passes that hurdle. Madam Speaker, it seems likely that my Democratic colleagues are putting their agenda first, not our children's health care.

In the days where Congress is faced with a second $350 billion financial services bailout and a proposed $1.2 trillion stimulus package, is the Federal Government in any financial shape to be financing health care costs for children who are already receiving priority health insurance? Once again, the test of common sense and cost effectiveness would fail this legislation.

The current legislation before us recklessly increases entitlement spending by at least $73.3 billion over the next 10 years. That is increasing it due to the new entitlements. That is neither cost effective nor common sense. This expansion will allow SCHIP to grow at an annual rate of 23.7 percent over the next 5 years. Once again, not cost effective and not common sense. Based on the Treasury Department's financial report, the government has $56 trillion in unfunded liabilities, the majority of which are in the Federal Government's health care program. Why not do something that would be for the Nation's poorest children rather than

trying to push 2.4 million more children, unless you have a political agenda rather than a public policy agenda?

Each year that Congress fails to act on a solution, the long-term problem grows by $2 to $3 trillion. Do my friends on the other side of the aisle not see the writing on the wall? Where is common sense?

Madam Speaker, last week, a bipartisan group of Members voted against the Democratic Party's $1.2 trillion stimulus package. Not only was the Democrat plan full of wasteful government spending that would not stimulate the economy, but my friends on the other side of the aisle shut out Republicans from the process much as they are doing today.

The American people are hurting. And the economy is struggling. Americans know that we cannot borrow and spend our way back to a growing economy. Republicans have a plan for fast-acting tax relief that will release the resources and creativity of the American people to create 6.2 million new jobs. Madam Speaker, I ask my Democrat colleagues, if the American people had the choice between fast-acting tax relief and slow, wasteful government spending, which would they choose? Trust me. A number of Democrats and every single Republican knew the answer on this floor. It is common sense to vote ``no.''

This so-called ``stimulus bill'' includes $524 billion in spending provisions, $3 billion in prevention and wellness, including $400 million for STD prevention, sexually transmitted disease prevention, and $600 million to buy new cars for government workers. That will make sure we don't have to ask for reform out of the Big Three auto makers. We will just buy them at the current rate. The bill includes $150 million for building repairs for the Smithsonian, $1 billion for follow-up on the 2010 Census that does not even begin until April 1, 2010, $1 billion for Amtrak which has not turned a profit in 40 years, $400 million for global-warming research, and another $2.2 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. The list goes on and on and on.

The American people deserve to know how their hard-earned tax dollars will stimulate the economy, not government spending where Washington gets fatter, but those with good explanations so that the American people have confidence, not only in Congress, but in their own individual Member of Congress who casts that vote.

If expanding SCHIP to families making $80,000 a year isn't enough, as this bill does, last week my Democrat colleagues voted in favor of making Wall Street millionaires and billionaires, like the former Lehman Brothers CEO, who was reported to have earned nearly half a billion dollars in compensation, eligible for public health subsidies. Approximately $100 billion of our friends', the Democrats', $1.2 trillion stimulus is the bailout for the failing Medicaid program. One such bailout provision is section 3003, which expands Medicaid eligibility to all individuals currently receiving unemployment benefits, regardless of their personal income or financial assets.

Boy, once again that standard of common sense and cost effectiveness that my good friend from Colorado talked about is simply not there.

Madam Speaker, why are our friends, the Democrats, trying to force American taxpayers to pay for free health coverage for the very same executives who helped create the financial crisis in the stimulus package able to get this help?

Adding another trillion dollars to the Federal deficit and swelling the number of persons dependent on subsidized, government-run health care is hazardous to the health of the American economy and an unfair burden to place on our grandchildren.

The American people want more than just welfare. They want freedom. They want jobs. They want a real stimulus package and a real SCHIP bill. That's what this Congress is failing to provide. The American people want more innovation, more efficiency, more accountability, and they want cost effectiveness and common sense. Evidently, this body is in short supply of each of those items under this leadership.

The American people hate waste in government, but our friends, the Democrats, who are the majority party, are spending like never before, delaying even the thought of addressing the underlying programs of the already burdensome Medicaid and SCHIP programs. My friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be playing with money that does not even exist. We are printing it at this time. The printing presses are alive and working 24 hours a day, just simply first to meet the $700 billion bailout, and then to prepare for the $1.3 trillion stimulus package that is prepared for the President's signature soon.

So what's next? A $32.8 billion expansion of SCHIP, and finally, the massive omnibus which is expected this week or next.

We should be demanding more accountability. We should be demanding cost effectiveness, and we should be demanding common sense. That's what the American people want, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, we need a fast-acting tax relief bill that will stimulate the economy and create jobs. We cannot borrow and spend our way out of this crisis. We need to secure the original intent of the current government programs before expanding additional programs.

I came to Congress to protect the American taxpayer, which is why I encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

Washington, DC,

January 12, 2009.

President-elect Barack Obama,

Presidential Transition Office,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear President-elect Obama and Speaker Pelosi: Thank you

for expressing your desire to work with us to address the

needs of the American people. We recognize that reauthorizing

the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is an

early legislative priority, and we hope that you will

consider this legislation to be one of the first

opportunities for bipartisan cooperation.

During the last Congress, significant efforts were made in

an attempt to address concerns raised by House Republicans

about how the underlying bills would impact uninsured

children. Despite the progress that was made, there are still

a few outstanding issues that we hope you agree should be

addressed when we work to reauthorize the program this year:

Serving Eligible Low-income Children First

SCHIP is intended to serve those that are neediest first.

As low-income families continue to face more economic

insecurity, providing access to affordable health care

coverage, regardless of any job change or displacement,

should be our first priority. The legislation should demand

success from the states in enrolling poor and low-income

children below 200 percent of the federal poverty level,

especially those who are currently eligible for Medicaid and/

or SCHIP, but are not yet enrolled. Demanding success from

the states could be as simple as requiring that states meet a

threshold of enrollment before further expansions. Nearly all

the states have demonstrated over the past year to the

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that meeting this

standard is indeed possible.

Furthermore, in the current economic environment, several

states have indicated that they will be experiencing

shortfalls that could impact their ability to provide

Medicaid benefits and services. Asking states to expand their

SCHIP program before they are able to finance their existing

Medicaid program would be a mistake. Expanding SCHIP to

higher income families will only exacerbate the real access

to care problem in the Medicaid program.

Citizenship Status

We believe that only U.S. citizens and certain legal

residents should be permitted to benefit from a program like

SCHIP. We also think it is fair to say that both parties

believe that our immigration system is broken. That is why it

is so important that the legislation include stronger

provisions to prevent fraud by including citizenship

verification standards to ensure that only eligible U.S.

citizens and certain legal residents are enrolled in the

program.

Protecting Private Insurance Options

We agree that those with private coverage should not be

forced into a government-run plan. SCHIP legislation should

focus expansion efforts on children who are currently

uninsured instead of moving children who have private health

insurance options into government-run health insurance.

Moving a child from private health insurance to government-

run health insurance should not be part of your stated goal

of providing SCHIP for 10 million children, a number we

assume to be targeted towards low-income uninsured children.

Stable Funding Source

In order to guarantee access to the program and long term

stability, SCHIP should

be funded through a stable funding source, not budget

gimmicks. Further, the legislation should not include

extraneous provisions unrelated to SCHIP that limit patient

choice or prohibit access to quality medical care. Our

nation's Governors need a stable SCHIP program so they may

properly budget. Every American faces the crushing burden of

a declining economy. This should not be a time Congress

raises taxes, especially on the poorest Americans, to finance

program expansions as part of the SCHIP reauthorization bill.

We believe these to be critical elements to improve this

vital program that if fully incorporated would dramatically

increase bipartisan support for the legislation. Thank you

for the consideration of this request. We look forward

hearing from you and working with you towards a bipartisan

agreement.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Aderholt, Steve Austria, Michele Bachmann,

Spencer Bachus, J. Gresham Barrett, Roscoe G. Bartlett,

Joe Barton, Judy Biggert, Gus M. Bilirakis, Rob Bishop,

Marsha Blackburn, Roy Blunt, John A. Boehner, Mary Bono

Mack, John Boozman, Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Kevin

Brady, Paul C. Broun, Henry E. Brown, Jr., Ginny Brown-

Waite, Michael C. Burgess, Dan Burton, Steve Buyer, Ken

Calvert, Dave Camp, Eric Cantor, John R. Carter, Bill

Cassidy, Jason Chaffetz, Howard Coble,

Mike Coffman, Tom Cole, K. Michael Conaway, Ander

Crenshaw, John Abney Culberson, Geoff Davis, Nathan

Deal, David Dreier, Mary Fallin, Jeff Flake, John

Fleming, J. Randy Forbes, Jeff Fortenberry, Virginia

Foxx, Trent Franks, Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, Phil

Gingrey, Louie Gohmert, Bob Goodlatte, Kay Granger, Sam

Graves, Ralph M. Hall, Doc Hastings, Dean Heller, Jeb

Hensarling, Wally Herger, Peter Hoekstra, Duncan

Hunter, Bob Inglis, Darrell E. Issa,

Lynn Jenkins, Sam Johnson, Walter B. Jones, Jim Jordan,

Steve King, Jack Kingston, Mark Steven Kirk, John

Kline, Doug Lamborn, Christopher John Lee, Jerry Lewis,

Blaine Luetkemeyer, Cynthia M. Lummis, Daniel E.

Lungren, Donald A. Manzullo, Kevin McCarthy, Thaddeus

G. McCotter, Patrick T. McHenry, John M. McHugh, Cathy

McMorris Rodgers, Jeff Miller, Sue Wilkins Myrick,

Devin Nunes, Pete Olson, Erik Paulsen, Mike Pence,

Joseph R. Pitts, Todd Russell Platts, Ted Poe, Bill

Posey.

Tom Price, Adam H. Putnam, George Radanovich, Harold

Rogers, Mike Rogers (MI), Thomas J. Rooney, Peter J.

Roskam, Paul Ryan, Steve Scalise, Jean Schmidt, Aaron

Schock, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Pete Sessions,

John B. Shadegg, John Shimkus, Bill Shuster, Michael K.

Simpson, Adrian Smith, Lamar Smith, Cliff Stearns, John

Sullivan, Lee Terry, Glenn Thompson, Patrick J. Tiberi,

Fred Upton, Greg Walden, Zach Wamp, Lynn A.

Westmoreland, Ed Whitfield, Joe Wilson, Robert J.

Wittman.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas, Dr. Burgess.

I give the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from San Dimas, California, the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Dreier.

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

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Lafayette, Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, because there were no hearings held on this subject, many, many Republicans are coming down to the floor today to give their feedback and thoughts on this issue. Our next speaker is one of the most thoughtful and caring Members of Congress.

I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Fort Worth, Texas (Ms. Granger).

Madam Speaker, if I could please inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

Madam Speaker, due to the time inequity at this point, I would like to reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, we have had a series of Members who have come to the floor--Republican Members--who have talked, I believe, very adequately about the frailties of this bill. The frailties of this bill are obvious. The gentleman representing the Democratic majority has indicated that there were two tests laid forth--cost-effectiveness and common sense. I believe that the feedback from the Members of Congress on the Republican side have enunciated and have talked about several things that are important.

First of all, no hearings were held. Second of all, no Republican or bipartisan feedback was allowed in this bill. Thirdly, it is a huge expansion that will place this great Nation in terrible financial circumstances for the future. It expands a program that was working well for poor children. Lastly, it will move 2.4 million children from a private-run insurance program to a government-run insurance program. We think that is a failure. We believe the two tests have not passed.

In closing, I want to say that I oppose this closed rule. With the current program not expiring until March 31 of this year, we have seen enough Members question the underlying legislation, and it deserves to be debated, I believe, openly and, I believe, in the committees of jurisdiction before we take a vote to pass on such a large expansion of a government program.

This legislation spends billions of dollars to substitute superior, private health care coverage with an inferior government-run program. It enables illegal aliens to fraudulently enroll in Medicaid and SCHIP. The majority party knows that, and so does every Member of this body. The legislation increases the number of adults on SCHIP, allowing even more resources to be taken away from low-income, uninsured children who need it the most and what this legislation should be about.

Madam Speaker, this legislation moves us closer and closer and closer to not only financial insanity but also to a government-run health care program and further away from access to quality health care, which is what this should be about. It should be about quality health care for poor children. That is not what we are doing here today.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying piece of legislation because, today, unlike before today, each of my colleagues has had a chance to hear the facts of the case. The facts of the case are compelling. The test that was established by our Democrat majority colleagues about cost- effectiveness and commonsense simply does not hold water. For these reasons on these issues, I believe that the Republicans have stated the case of why we should not only vote ``no'' but why this is a bad deal not just for the taxpayers but for the children it was intended to help.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 107 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas and my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 107 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009.

I rise in support of House Resolution 107, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. I again wish to thank Speaker Pelosi who has been an unrelenting champion on this important issue. I also want to thank Chairman Rangel and Chairman Dingell for sponsoring bills that were vetoed in the 110th Congress, and Chairman Waxman and all of my colleagues for their leadership on this issue in this Congress, and I want to recognize everyone's efforts to bring this bill to where it is today.

Although I began my House service only a few weeks ago, I have received hundreds of letters from constituents who have serious concerns about health care cost and coverage. Too common is the story of hardworking, low-income moms and dads forced to choose between buying groceries and visiting their family doctor. I have heard from those who have either lost their health care coverage or feared that they will lose it because they simply can't afford it.

I have heard from parents who are denied necessary health care by their insurers, and as a result, their children are suffering too. I have heard from caregivers who have been laid off losing not only their health coverage, but that of their children's as well. This is a serious problem that we can no longer afford to ignore.

No longer can we lay the blame at the front door of the White House. With the change in administration, we can ensure that this legislation passes the House today and reaches the President's desk as soon as possible. With our approval, President Obama has indicated he will sign this bill into law today and change the lives of millions of children and families. Delay is simply not an option.

A large majority of Americans of all political persuasions support this important bill. It's a fiscally responsible way to not only extend the number of children in our Nation who will receive health care, but to improve the quality of that care. This bill relieves the burden of taxpayers who currently subsidize millions of costly and inefficient uninsured emergency room visits. By encouraging preventative care for children who lack insurance today, we can actually reduce costs from the system and provide healthier outcomes for young people.

This bill is just common sense, given the Nation's skyrocketing health care costs, coupled with our current economic challenges. It is an investment where the return is a generation of healthy, happy and productive Americans. This legislation will provide health care coverage for more than 11 million children nationally.

Tomorrow morning, 170,000 children in my home State of Colorado wake up without health insurance. That is 170,000 too many. This bill will change that terrible statistic for the better by

giving States the vital tools needed to reach out to uninsured children who are eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid, but not yet enrolled. This is not only critical to Colorado, but to all our States and territories.

Madam Speaker, the epidemic of the uninsured is not just a consequence of our struggling economy, it is a component of it. Under a new administration, with the political will of this new Congress, we have the power to set this particular wrong right. A healthy economy is supported by healthy people. Providing health care insurance for millions of uninsured Americans is an important beginning to keeping our people and our economy healthy. But it is just a beginning.

Protecting the health of our Nation's young children is of paramount importance to society and the security of our Nation. A recent military study reveals that one-third of American teenagers are incapable of passing a basic physical test. This legislation will help give every child a chance at a healthy start.

With rising unemployment, a battered economy and more layoffs coming every day, the plight of the uninsured is likely to only get worse. Next month, Madam Speaker, SCHIP will expire. Our failure today would add millions of children to the rolls of the uninsured. To me, my constituents, and hopefully to my colleagues, as well, this is unacceptable. Today we have an opportunity to protect millions of children across the Nation who don't have a voice and to safeguard their future.

I urge you to vote for this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as you know, children do not control what family they are born into. And an important part of the meritocracy that makes our country great is that every child should have the opportunity to succeed. Establishing healthy habits and a healthy life early in life, regardless of the parent's station, is an important part of making sure that a child has the opportunity to climb to whatever station they are capable of.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, a brief history on the SCHIP legislation and why this is so critical for us to pass here today. This rule before the House would permit the House to concur in the Senate amendment because this legislation has been considered repeatedly and thoroughly in the House in this Congress and the last.

In July of 2007 the House considered H.R. 3162 to reauthorize and amend

SCHIP and the bill passed. In September 2007 the House considered H.R. 976 to reauthorize and amend SCHIP. The bill passed. The Senate also passed the bill and it was presented to President Bush and received a veto. In October of 2007 the House again tried to reauthorize SCHIP. 3963 was the House bill. Passed the House, passed the Senate. The President again vetoed the bill and the House was unable to override the veto.

Ultimately, legislation to merely extend SCHIP as it was enacted into law will expire next month. Children's lives are at stake. That's what's so critical about passing this bill today.

When people lack health care insurance they often don't seek preventative care and are forced to use emergency rooms as their primary care provider. Not only does this cost more, this also provides for worse health outcomes, and conditions that could have been dealt with less expensively and more successfully in the onset are instead deferred, and incur more expense and worse health outcomes.

By passing this bill today, we can ensure that hundreds of thousands of poor children across our country receive adequate health care and are able to succeed and grow in school and be able to succeed in their lives.

Madam Speaker, I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to back a plan to help improve the health and chance for success of 11 million children. It also reduces the more costly nature of emergency room use, and moves us closer to providing every child in our Nation with affordable, high quality health care.

This bill also extends health care coverage to 4.1 million additional low-income children who are currently uninsured.

A healthy child is better prepared for learning and success. Studies show that early childhood health is indicative and can, in fact, impact the learning processes, the special education needs of the child and indeed, even the IQ of the child as the child matriculates through education. By making sure that children have health care coverage, we can, in fact, prevent a lot of gaps within our education system from arising before they arise, and ensure that children, regardless of their background, have the opportunity to succeed in our country. This is the change that America needs.

Providing health care coverage for children and indeed, all Americans, is one of the reasons that I ran for Congress. Providing health care to 4 million more children will be a clear demonstration that change has come to Washington.

This is legislation that President Bush vetoed twice in the 110th Congress. Today we have the opportunity to send this bill to a new President who has committed to sign it this very afternoon and begin implementing it immediately to help cover 4.1 million additional children in our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, with regard to the delivery of the services, most SCHIP and Medicaid beneficiaries receive service delivery through private doctors and through private management care plans, not through government doctors. So, when we are talking about how the service is delivered, we are talking about an important aspect of what insurance and what coverage allows. Yes, separately, we certainly hope that we will be able to address universal coverage, in rural areas in particular, as an important component of health care in this country.

With regard to income limits, this bill does provide that if a State covers children in families of three with income over $52,800, which is 300 percent of the poverty rate, then the States get the regular Medicaid match rate. There are, in fact, income provisions in here as well. There is also section 605 of the bill, which prevents payments to individuals not lawfully residing in the United States. So I believe that the issues that have been raised by my colleagues are addressed in the bill.

It does, of course, matter what the bill says. The bill says very clearly that individuals not lawfully residing in the United States will not receive payments, and it also is very clear with regard to the income level. So I think that this bill has been clear.

As I have mentioned, this bill has been voted on a number of times in Congress. The main difference now is we are sending it to a President who has indicated that he is, in fact, willing to sign it and, indeed, is willing to do so on this very afternoon.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to discuss that SCHIP provides quality dental care, alleviating the most common childhood disease--tooth decay.

I cannot help but remember a story that was told to me when I was visiting a free dental clinic in Boulder, Colorado that provides services to those who are uninsured. This story is about a young girl who was in the third grade. Due to the lack of dental care and poor dental hygiene practices at home, her teeth had actually rotted out. This is when she was a young girl. She had received no care for that as well. As a result, she was very, very shy, and was constantly in pain. Her diet suffered. She suffered malnutrition because of the condition of her teeth. Fortunately, the community there was able to help her, but there are hundreds of thousands of young people across the country who suffer from no or from poor quality dental care, which has vast ramifications as well.

In addition, this bill gives the option of providing pregnant women critical prenatal care. When we talk about the impact on reducing the need for special education and for increasing one's IQ, these things start in the prenatal stage, and they continue through early childhood. I think that that is a very important aspect in terms of giving States that option as well as covering 4.1 million additional low-income children who currently lack insurance.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, another story from Colorado is about someone who I know firsthand, a student at one of the schools that I was involved in running.

Like many of the students I worked with, this student lacked health care insurance. She was diagnosed with diabetes, and she was not diagnosed early. She had severe symptoms, weakness, et cetera, but because of economic barriers to seeking health care and because of her lack of insurance, she did not seek any form of preventative treatment. When she then went in, she went into the emergency room, and she needed emergency dialysis immediately. So a condition that could have been dealt with through a combination of diet and insulin instead became an acute condition which had to be dealt with at a much greater cost and with a much worse health outcome for the individual.

These are the stories that are taking place across our great Nation. By passing this bill today, we can make a dent in making sure that people have access to preventative care and to health care throughout their childhoods.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am the last speaker for this

side. I would like to reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his side and has yielded back his time.

Madam Speaker, SCHIP currently provides for coverage of 7 million children. This bill before us today would also allow for extending the coverage to 4.1 million uninsured children, every single one of them who is currently eligible for but not enrolled in SCHIP and Medicaid.

Polls have shown that more than 8 percent of the American people support this bipartisan legislation, including large majorities of both major political parties. This is not only popular, Madam Speaker; this is the right thing to do for American families.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 168, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1) making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the

unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

If the gentleman would yield, I would simply note the House has already voted on how it intends to proceed, and I see no reason to depart from that.

If the gentleman is asking, would the gentleman yield for a response?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report accompanying H.R. 1, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

As Senator Cochran said, the time for talk is over. It is time to vote. The country needs this package. I urge support. I think we ought to get on with it.

Economic Analysis of the Conference Report on H.R. 1, the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Economists generally agree that the Nation is facing one of

the most dire economic crises in our history. Over the past

three months 1.8 million jobs have been lost after falling

the same amount in the prior ten months. Other economic data

also point to an ever-faster sinking U.S. economy:

Unemployment has soared by 4.1 million, an increase of more

than 50 percent from 7.5 million to 11.6 million since

December 2007 when the recession began.

Full time employment dropped 3.5 million over the last

three months, much faster than at any time since the data

began in 1967.

Consumer demand for goods fell at an 11 percent rate in the

second half of 2008, faster than at any time in the 62 years

of data.

Only five months in six decades of data saw lower use of

our manufacturing capacity than the 70.2 percent recorded in

December.

Exports fell at a 19.7 percent annual rate in the most

recent quarter.

Nothing indicates that these trends will not continue

unless the federal government acts. While forecasters differ

on specifics, many believe that without quick and decisive

action the Nation could suffer another 5 million job losses

over the coming year.

The U.S. economy is caught in a vicious downward spiral

with self-reinforcing declines in spending, sales, jobs,

income, profits, government revenues, state and local

services, investment, and global trade. The federal

government is the only major actor in the U.S. economy with

the capacity to stop the downward spiral.

The current downturn looks a lot more like the early stages

of the Great Depression than any episode since the 1930s:

Rapid shrinkage in private credit, with crisis in every

major financial sector;

The favorite tool of the Federal Reserve (the short term

rate to banks) already lowered to virtually zero;

Evaporating household wealth with plunging values of homes

and financial assets;

Record high supplies of vacant homes and declines in home

values with no end in sight;

The fewest cars sold relative to the population since the

1940s; and

Inflation is verging on negative territory or deflation, a

condition that discourages consumption, as people wait to buy

at lower prices, and investment, as sales become more

problematic and effective borrowing costs rise. Deflation

also undermines monetary policy because interest rates cannot

go negative.

Opponents of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

often argue that ``spending is not stimulus'' because

spending by government just reduces spending by others. That

argument effectively assumes that total spending in the

economy cannot be raised. That would make sense if either (1)

we were at full employment or (2) increased government

borrowing came from lenders who would otherwise spend the

money on U.S. goods and services. Neither condition

applies today. We have high rates of unemployed labor and

capital equipment. We also find lenders eager to fund

federal borrowing rather than to spend, as evidenced by

exceptionally low interest rates on U.S. Treasury Bills.

These are textbook conditions justifying federal

government borrowing to boost the economy.

Some critics of this legislation have misinterpreted

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the effects of

this legislation on jobs and Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

over the next ten years. CBO found that bills like those

passed in the House and Senate would increase job-years by

3.1 million to 9.0 million over the next six years and would

not lower jobs thereafter. CBO also found that GDP would be

raised over the next ten years. GDP would be boosted 3 to 10

percent over the next several years. If only this bill is

enacted and nothing is done to raise saving, the bill would

have a zero to 0.2 percent annual reduction of GDP in the

long run.

Other opponents of this legislation have proposed as an

alternative measures intended to boost housing production or

prices. With 2.9 percent of homes still vacant, half again as

much as at any time prior to 2005, we could fritter away

hundreds of billions of dollars of additional deficit with a

negligible boost to the economy or jobs.

The Congressional Budget Office and private economic

forecasters have evaluated various options for boosting

national spending from an additional dollar of federal

deficit. They have consistently found that the highest ``bang

for the buck'' occurs with either direct federal spending or

transferring funds to those with tight budget constraints

such as cash-strapped households and state and local

governments with falling revenues and balanced budget

requirements. In contrast, they find that much less

additional spending would result from making more money

available to those with high incomes or to companies with

excess capacity. In recent testimony, CBO Director Elmendorf

stated, ``In CBO's judgment, H.R. 1 would provide a

substantial boost to economic activity over the next several

years relative to what would occur without any legislation.''

The bill's $789 billion price tag sounds large, but it is

more likely to be too little than too much. The CBO director

has testified that, if nothing is done, our economic output

will fall below its potential by close to a trillion dollars

this year and next and by another $600 billion in 2011. He

noted that this would be the largest gap relative to the size

of potential output since the Great Depression. It would

represent a loss in Americans' income and output of $2.5

trillion, or about $8,000 per person, that will be lost

forever.

The forecasters at the Congressional Budget Office, Moody's

Economy.com, Macroeconomic Advisors, and the Obama

Administration have all estimated that enactment of this

legislation could create or save 3 to 4 million jobs. If we

can gainfully employ

those millions of people, as opposed to having them be

unemployed, they can create a stronger economy for the future

by building infrastructure, creating technologies, and

improving their education and skills.

The following table summarizes the funding levels in

division A of the conference report:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE09.014

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel.

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

I yield the gentleman 1 minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I yield myself 10 seconds.

I wish the other side would make up their mind whether it's mice or rats, neither of which are in this bill if they will read it. Got it right here. Find it and show it to me. Show it to me. Show it to me.

I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

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

Let me thank the chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman. Let me thank the manager, Dr. McDermott, and the chairman of the Full Committee on Ways and Means.

This is a miraculous accomplishment. The children of America are shouting today. It's important to know that there are 8.9 million uninsured children in America. Overall, 11.3 percent of children in the United States are uninsured. That is unacceptable, and it is not befitting of this great Nation.

In Texas we have close to 1.5 million children that are uninsured. Today we say to them that they are a priority, and that their health care and their preventative health care is crucial; that it is not a waste of money. When 74 percent of uninsured children eligible for CHIP, for Medicaid are not enrolled, this is not a waste of money.

I am gratified that pregnant women will have access. I am gratified that they will also have access for certain adults that meet certain criteria; and I am delighted that we still have an opportunity to protect certain hospitals owned by physicians that will continue to serve children that are uninsured as well.

This is a great bill. We should vote on it enthusiastically and continue to work again to enroll more children for this great medical service.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support for the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2--``The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act''. We stand today, closer to helping 4 million children without health insurance. No longer will these children be forced to live with fear of getting sick. Today is a great day. Today we are able to bring 4 million children in to the fold. Finally, we can tell those 4 million children that are begging for help that Yes We Can!

nationally and in texas

There are an estimated 8.9 million uninsured children in America. Overall, about 11.3 percent of children in the United States are uninsured, but the percentage of uninsured children in each state varies widely. Based on a 3-year average, there were an estimated 20.9% of uninsured children (under 19 years of age) in the State of Texas representing 1,454,000 of the State's children.

According to the Institute of Medicine, uninsured people are less likely to use preventive services and receive regular care. They are also more likely to delay care resulting in poorer health and outcomes. Texas has the highest uninsured rates of all 50 States and the District of Columbia (2005-2007). Almost one-quarter (24.4%) of Texans are uninsured compared to 15.3% of the general U.S. population.

Recent studies estimate that for every 1 percent increase in U.S. unemployment, 1.1 million Americans lose health insurance and more than a million enroll in Medicaid and CHIP. While Texas' 6 percent December unemployment rate remains better than the national average of 7.2 percent, the State rate is up from just 4.2 percent in December 2007. Widespread job losses continue, and leading economists predict that absent dramatic government action, the national unemployment rate could reach 10 percent by 2010. Many states, including Texas, already experience much higher Medicaid enrollment than projected due to job loss and lower incomes, and will be unable to support the higher demand without this relief.

how does chip help texas families?

According to 2004 U.S. Census data, Texas has the highest rate of uninsured children in the country with 21.6% of children in Texas lacking health insurance coverage.

Nearly 90% of uninsured children in Texas have at least one working parent. The high cost of health insurance means that it is unaffordable for many Texas families. According to the Milliman Medical Index, the annual cost of health insurance for a family of four is $13,382.

Although many Texans have employer sponsored health care insurance, many cannot get affordable coverage for dependents through an employer.

National data shows that virtually all the net reduction in SCHIP enrollment has been among children in families with incomes below 150% FPL. I want to share with you just some of the scary health statistics that are affecting children:

74% of uninsured children eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid but not enrolled.

11% of uninsured children in families not eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP with incomes below.

15% of uninsured children in families with incomes over 300 percent of the federal poverty-level who are ineligible for Medicaid and SCHIP.

90% of uninsured children that come from families where at least one parent works.

50% of two-parent families of uninsured children in which both parents work.

3.4 million uninsured children who are white, non-Hispanic.

1.6 million uninsured children who are African American.

3.3 million uninsured children who are Hispanic.

670,000 uninsured children of other racial and ethnic backgrounds.

physician-owned hospitals

I am very pleased to see that this new version does not include the restrictions on physician owned hospitals. Along with many of my colleagues, I have been very concerned that we had with the prohibition on physician-owned hospitals. Which is why I worked with my colleagues to ensure that this language was not included.

In my district of Houston, Texas the population has grown close to 4.5 million people and there are only approximately 16,000 beds available in the city. Physician-owned hospitals like St. Joseph Medical Center in my district provide essential emergency, maternity, and psychiatric care for their patients. They delivered over 6,000 babies in 2008, of which 3,700 were insured by Medicaid. Currently they provide $14M in uninsured care in the Houston Market. A Houston Institution for 120 years, St. Joseph Medical Center is also a major provider of psychiatric beds as it currently operates 102 of the 800 licensed beds in Houston.

In 2006, St. Joseph Medical Center, downtown Houston's first and only teaching hospital was on the verge of closing its doors. When I learned that they were going to shut down this hospital and turn it into high- end condominiums, I personally worked with the hospital board, community leaders, and local government to ensure this did not take place.

Eventually, after I was assured that it would be responsibly managed and it's doors would remain open, I was able to help a hospital corporation, which, in partnership with physicians, purchased the hospital and has made it the premier hospital in the region to keep open St. Joseph's doors including its qualified emergency room responsive to a heavily populated downtown Houston. This formerly troubled medical center is now in the process of reopening Houston Heights Hospital, the fourth oldest acute care hospital in Houston.

robin from texas--her story

Her daughter has a developmental disorder, known as autism. She was not certain of the extent or the prognosis diagnosis of her disorder due to her lack of funds being a single mother, and lack of quality health insurance. She is one of the many uninsured in Texas.

She scraped together money to take her daughter to the doctor when she gets sick and does not pay her electricity bill so she can pay for 30 minutes of private speech therapy a week to complement what the school system provides.

She cannot qualify for SSI or Medicaid, they say she makes just over the maximum allowable income. She had trouble qualifying for CHIP in the past as well. Sadly once this mother has paid for daycare, speech therapy, clothing, car insurance, food, shelter , transportation, the rising cost of gasoline etc., she can barely afford to pay her monthly bills let alone quality insurance on her salary.

Robin wants the American dream for her and her daughter, but she is unable to obtain it. She is stuck in an old apartment building, with an even older car, and inadequate health coverage for her sweet 7 year old daughter. God help us, Robin and the many like her and her daughter deserve better.

the economic affect on healthcare

The economy has now lost 1.2 million jobs since the beginning of the year, with nearly half of those losses occurring in the last three months alone, pointing to acceleration in the pace of erosion in labor markets. It is more important than ever in this economy that children's healthcare is not sacrificed.

Madam Speaker, my faith is renewed in the process that is so often maligned in the media. Thoughtful and deliberate negotiations were taken to advance this legislation--and through your leadership we have succeeding in bringing this to the floor for passage.

I look forward to a day when every child is covered and can play on football fields and jungle gyms without their parents fearing a bankrupting injury to their child. This legislation is piece of mind to 4 million families and I will joyfully cast my vote for passage of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the rule has allowed for 90 minutes of debate on this $800 billion package; is that correct?

It is my understanding that many Members who wish to debate this matter, thereby, will not be allowed time because of the limited time. I further understand that I am not allowed to ask for an extension of time under the rule; is that correct?

Then let me further say it is my understanding that an extension of time, which would be the request, can only be made by the gentleman from Wisconsin; is that correct?

You are forcing me to do that which we really should not have to do.

I hope the gentleman from Wisconsin will respond, but I would ask unanimous consent that we extend debate time by 1 hour.

Then let me ask the gentleman from Wisconsin: Would you consider such a request?

I believe the gentleman could initiate it by unanimous consent, and he has the authority for that. I urge the gentleman to do so. All of our people want more time.

I very much appreciate the Speaker for his time.

Mr. Speaker, in just a short while, the House will be voting on the President's $790 billion economic stimulus package. It is by far the most expensive piece of legislation ever considered by this legislative body in its more than 200 years. I will be voting ``no'' on this legislation. Over the next few minutes, I would like to share my concerns about this bill as it is currently written.

The President, whom I respect a great deal, is a fine salesman. But as I have said on more than one occasion, facts are stubborn things. The fact is that this stimulus package does more to promote the growth of the Federal Government than it does to create jobs or to stimulate our economy. The fact is there are 104 government programs in this legislation that are being permanently expanded.

This includes 31 new government programs and permanent expansions to 73 existing programs. Taxpayers will pay for these programs well into the future. Of the total funding in this package, $190 billion--or 61 percent--is devoted to increasing the size of government. Only $122 billion--or 39 percent--is for a temporary one-time infusion of money into 98 Federal programs to stimulate the economy.

Again, these are the facts.

The interest on this new spending alone will cost no less than $350 billion. And, if all of the new spending in this bill is carried forward in the future years, Federal nondefense budgets will have to increase by at least 42 percent each year. One more time, these are the facts.

My colleagues, is there anyone in Congress who really believes that this spending can be sustained?

Let's not kid ourselves. When it comes to Washington spending taxpayers' money, a trillion has become the new million.

So how did we get to this point today?

Two nights ago, the President's chief of staff came to Capitol Hill under the cover of darkness and presented the framework of a final deal to Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi. The only negotiation that took place occurred in the middle of the night in several back rooms of the U.S. Capitol between the White House and these two leaders.

There are hundreds of billions of dollars of spending in this legislation, and yet not one member of the House Appropriations Committee--not even Chairman Obey--was in sight when the final deal was cut.

There are hundreds of billions of dollars of tax provisions in this legislation, and yet not one member of the House Ways and Means committee--not even Chairman Rangel--was in sight when the final deal was cut.

The purpose of a conference committee is to negotiate differences between competing versions of the House and Senate bills. Amendments are usually offered, debated, and considered. But there were no negotiations between Republicans and Democrats at Wednesday's conference. The negotiations had taken place the night before.

Outside of the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader Reid, no one in the Congress has any idea what is really in this legislation. It was filed in the House as it was negotiated--in the darkness of night. And it became available to Members and the public on a Web site at 12:30 a.m. this morning, less than 12 hours ago.

This is precisely why every single Member present on Tuesday, more than 400 Members of the House, voted to have the conference report available 48 hours before House consideration. But the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader are clearly afraid that the more Members and taxpayers learn about this bill, the more Members will walk away from it.

The House should not vote on the largest spending bill in the history of the United States when no one on either side of the aisle has any real idea of what's in it. There is no doubt that urgent action is needed to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Had the President and congressional leaders focused and put their attention on the real need for job creation, with an emphasis on infrastructure jobs, this package would be sailing through the House and Senate with broad bipartisan support. There are Members on both sides of the aisle who would support reasonable transportation and infrastructure projects as well as reasonable tax reform, but that is not what is before us today.

In the end, funding for roads, highways, flood control measures, and other job creating infrastructure projects were downsized in order to increase the size and scope of government programs.

Mr. Speaker, that's not stimulus. That's not job creation, and it certainly isn't what the country needs or deserves.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Hal Rogers, the gentleman from Kentucky, and the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee.

(Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Appropriations that gets the vast percentage of increase in spending in this bill, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield $8.8 billion to the gentleman from Tennessee for 1 minute. That's the cost of the minute I'm yielding him on this bill, to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).