Criminal Investigative Training Restoration Act

Madam President, let me say to the Acting President pro tempore that it is a shame she has to be in the chair every time I give a speech, hearing the same things twice.

I shouldn't have put the new Senator in that position, but I thought a little bit of humor around here doesn't hurt anything, does it?

I thank the Senator from Montana, the chairman of the committee, for his remarks. Obviously, from what I stated yesterday, I have a difference of opinion on that issue. I am not going to speak about that because I spoke about it yesterday.

Madam President, I would like to speak generally about the SCHIP bill, not about a specific amendment at this point, although I might mention some differences we have with the original bill.

I have been a Member of the Senate now for quite a few years. I have worked across the aisle on many initiatives in my time in the Senate. We have worked together--we meaning Democrats and Republicans, and in my case as an individual, the Senator from Iowa--and I am speaking about a close working relationship I have with the Senator from Montana, the chairman of the committee now. We have worked together on major tax, trade, and health care legislation over the last few years where we were able to set aside partisanship and work together to make good policy. I know what it means to make a compromise. I know what it means to keep that compromise.

In 2007, I worked with my friend Senator Baucus, as well as Senator Hatch, a Republican, and Senator Rockefeller, a Democrat, to pass the reauthorization to the Children's Health Insurance Program. We twice passed a bill in the Senate with wide bipartisan margins. Was it a bill Senator Hatch and I as Republicans would have written? No. Was it a bill Senator Baucus and Senator Rockefeller would have written if they were writing the bill all by themselves? No. The bill was a compromise, so everybody gives a little bit. We compromised to get a bipartisan vote, and we were successful in getting that bipartisan vote. We won a veto-proof majority in the Senate. We came just a few votes close of a veto-proof majority in the House. In fact, Senator Baucus and I worked with House Republicans to try to get a few more House Republicans to come around so we could have a bill on the books in 2007 or early 2008. Unfortunately, that didn't work out. Unfortunately, at the time, President Bush refused to sign the bill. I thought he was wrong to veto the bill. I still think he was wrong to veto it. I said so loudly and clearly.

I would like to refer to some comments I made 2 years ago to the Senate at that particular time. I don't have the exact date, but it was during the debate on the SCHIP bill at that particular time, and I would quote from that debate. This is the Senator from Iowa saying this 2 years ago:

First, the President himself made a commitment to covering

more children. I wish to refer to the Republican National

Committee in New York City in 2004, and President Bush was

very firm in making a point on covering children. Let me tell

you what he said.

This is the quote I read from President Bush at that time, and he refers to a new term, meaning the term that would start in 2005.

American children must also have a healthy start in life.

In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll

millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up

for the government's health insurance programs. We will also

not allow a lack of attention or information to stand between

these children and health care that they need.

Now, that is the end of the quote from President Bush in 2004. And, Madam President, when I referred to the Republican National Committee in that quote, I think I made a mistake 2 years ago. I was referring to the convention and I said committee.

At that time during the debate in 2007, I went on to say:

That was back in New York City, early September 2004. Three

months later the President is reelected, with a mandate. It

seems to me the President was very clear in his convictions

then. Let me repeat his words because I think they are

important. He said he would lead an aggressive effort to

enroll millions of poor children in government health

insurance programs.

Then I go on to speak for myself:

President Bush, this is your friend Chuck Grassley helping

you to keep the promise you made in New York City, and

helping you keep your mandate that you had as a result of the

last election. But somewhere the priorities of this

administration seem to have shifted. The Congressional Budget

Office reports that the proposal for SCHIP included in the

President's fiscal year 2008 budget would result in the loss

of coverage, not an increase of coverage as the

administration had been advocating for in the year 2004; and

that the loss of coverage would add up to 1.4 million

children and pregnant women.

That is the end of my speech for that day to the Senate. But I want to say that later in the debate, I referred to this again. So I was trying to make very clear that I was speaking to the President of the United States. This is quoting me:

I quoted the President making a promise at the Republican

Convention in New York. I did that yesterday. I want to state

again what the President said. You can't say it too many

times. I hope at some time the President remembers what he

said.

And this is the President from the Republican Convention:

We will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of

poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the

government's health insurance program.

That is the end of the President's quote, but continuing to quote from myself.

An extension of law, which is what is going to happen if

the President vetoes this bill, will not carry out what the

President said at the Republican Convention in New York in

2004. Faced with that, your answer today on this bill, Mr.

President of the United States, should be yes. This bill gets

the job done that you said in New York City you wanted to do.

I hope the President's answer will be yes because if he

doesn't veto this bill, then we will do those things he said

he wanted to do. It will help more than 3 million low-income,

uninsured children. About half of the new money is just to

keep the program running. The rest of the new money goes to

cover more low-income children.

Before I go on with my remarks, I want to say that I think I and a lot of other Republicans who voted for that SCHIP bill in 2007 were vindicated when we made the point that, at $5 billion the President didn't have enough money in his budget to cover kids currently enrolled in SCHIP because the next year, the President's budget for SCHIP was $20 billion. We kept saying to President Bush in 2007, you know, $5 billion isn't going to do it. But I think that by putting $20 billion in for FY 2008, the President was admitting that $5 billion wasn't enough.

Now, why do I go to the trouble of explaining to the Senators who are listening what I said 2 years ago? Because we had a Republican President.

I don't like the way this bill has worked out because the bill we have before us today departs so much from that bipartisan compromise on which so many of us worked so hard. So maybe people listening are saying: Well, Chuck Grassley, a Republican, we have a Democratic President, he is my President, but I am going to just be partisan. So I want the public to know that I am approaching this issue in a way where when I disagree with the policy--whether it is the policy of the Bush administration at that time, or the policy of the partisan bill we have before us now that I will speak out.

We have a President today who is going to sign this bill. Unfortunately, we are here with a bill that goes back on those compromises we worked so hard on 2 years ago. For reasons I still don't fully understand, the majority is bound and determined to set aside that hard work that led to that bipartisan agreement 2 years ago. They have decided that going back on critical compromises is more important than achieving the same bipartisan votes as we did in 2007. The Senate should now be considering our second bill, our final compromise of 2007.

I am disappointed because the State Children's Health Insurance Program is the product of a Republican-led Congress in 1997, signed into law by a Democratic President. This has been a very bipartisan issue for 11 years down the road. It is a targeted program designed to provide affordable health coverage for low-income children of working families. These families make too much to qualify for Medicaid but struggle to afford private insurance.

In 2007, Senator Rockefeller made the point that, ``CHIP,'' the Children's Health Insurance Program, ``legislation has a history of bipartisanship. I am quite proud of it.'' That is what Senator Rockefeller said. In 2009, however, the Democratic leadership, having increased their majority, has decided to abandon a number of good-faith agreements made between Members during the last Congress. In doing

so, the Democratic majority has embarked on a reckless course of action designed to alienate the very Republicans who stood up to President Bush when he vetoed the SCHIP bills and who still carry the scars from those fights. It is very disappointing, then, that the first health bill the new Democratic Congress sends to the new Democratic President, my President, is legislation that breaks from that bipartisan tradition.

I want my colleagues to understand that I am very reluctantly in a position of having to fight against this bill. After the bruising battles over SCHIP in 2007, and with the emergence of health reform as a priority for the 111th Congress, I wanted to avoid another fight over the Children's Health Insurance Program and direct all efforts to enacting a broadly bipartisan health reform bill, which I still think is a possibility. At least the meetings we are having lead me to say that at this point. Maybe 6 months from now I will be disappointed, but I hope not.

However, the Democratic majority was determined on this bill that they wanted a short-term ``win'' over a broader, larger effort, and therefore I was told SCHIP was going to be one of the first bills considered by the new Congress.

I was informed that rather than move forward with the second vetoed bill--a bill with changes that Speaker Pelosi called, and this quote is about that compromise of 2 years ago, which she said was ``a definite improvement on the [first] bill''--the Democratic leadership had decided to move ahead with the first vetoed bill instead of this compromise that Speaker Pelosi said was better than the first bill.

Even though I could have insisted on negotiating off the second bill which represented a number of improvements, as Speaker Pelosi said, and I believed it strengthened the bill, I agreed to try to work out a compromise somewhere between that first vetoed bill and the second vetoed bill of 2007. Unbelievably, under pressure from Democratic leadership, my willingness to work out a compromise that could have set us on a bipartisan pathway was met with a resounding: Thanks, but no thanks. No negotiations, no give and take, no compromises, no bipartisanship: Take it or leave it.

The Senate has abandoned moving forward with a bill that generated a great deal of Democratic praise just 2 years ago. The hard work and bipartisan cooperation that went into the children's health insurance bills in 2007 produced legislation that President Obama's new Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who was a Member of the House of Representatives at that time, said ``should have strong support from both Democrats and Republicans.'' That is from 2 years ago.

However, on a number of key issues, the other side does not even want to support the first children's health insurance bill of 2007.

The bill before the Senate now completely eliminates policies on crowdout of private insurance that were in both vetoed bills, which brings me to a question: What exactly was wrong with the crowdout policy of both of those vetoed bills? The Congressional Budget Office, in a 2007 report on crowdout, estimated that the Children's Health Insurance Program has a crowdout rate of ``between a quarter and a half of the increase in public coverage resulting from the Children's Health Insurance Program.''

The Congressional Budget Office goes on to elaborate that ``for every 100 children who enroll as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children.''

I would be very interested in learning the reasons those on that side of the aisle completely eliminated the crowdout provisions from both of the 2007 SCHIP bills. Certainly, it is not because Democrats have put forward a policy that addressed crowdout in a better or more efficient manner in the bill before the Senate now. Certainly, it is not because Democrats have a new analysis that crowdout is no longer occurring, as CBO says, especially in the expansion of public programs.

I hope Members of this body who supported the crowdout policy of 2007 and now are supporting its elimination will come to the floor and explain to me and other Members of this body why the Democratic majority is not concerned about the problem of replacing private coverage with public coverage.

In other words, if people have insurance today, and you are setting up a program that, even though it increases the number of people covered will not cover all the children eligible for public programs, why would you want to drive people out of private coverage into public coverage? That is what happens, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office is a nonpartisan group of people who are experts in this area.

As I said yesterday, I believe it was, in a comment directed to something Senator Durbin of Illinois said--and I am not denigrating what he said, I am supplementing what he said--he led us to believe the reason you want to have this policy is because there might be some people who have poor private coverage who would be better off in the public program. I am not saying that might not be true. But the Congressional Budget Office tells us you get most crowding out in upper middle-income people, more than you do in lower income people. In other words, maybe people who can afford it better and have higher incomes decide: Why should I pay out of my pocket when I can go on the public program?

I think it is wrong to throw aside something that we had in 2007 that was going to keep people in private coverage and encourage them to go where we do not have enough money to cover children who do not have anything.

Neither bill vetoed by President Bush in 2007 included a provision to allow States to be reimbursed at the Medicaid and SCHIP levels for legal immigrant children and pregnant women. I am not going to go into this issue in depth because I did that yesterday. But this issue does open a difficult and contentious immigration issue that does need to be brought up.

One of the reasons I was able to support the compromise of 2007 on the Children's Health Insurance Program was it did not contain the controversial provisions to direct Federal resources to the coverage of legal immigrants. I said yesterday how in some instances it could end up covering people who have come here illegally.

In the 1996 welfare reform bill, we required the sponsors of legal immigrants to sign an affidavit that they would provide for those immigrants for the first 5 years they were in the country. With this bill we are allowing sponsors to go back on that commitment. If you have a contractual relationship, it seems to me to be only morally right that the Federal Government would want to have that moral contract--not encourage ditching it. But this bill would allow that to happen. We are allowing sponsors to go back on that commitment they made to the taxpayers of this country.

Additionally, the $1.3 billion the bill provides for these immigrants who were promised they would be taken care of is money that could be far better spent on poor, uninsured American children. It is a little bit the same argument I just gave about crowdout.

If you have people on private insurance, then save the public money for people who are currently eligible for public programs, but who are not insured. Use the $1.3 billion for those people.

In 2007, during the debate, the majority leader, Mr. Reid, said this about the Children's Health Insurance Program. It was ``a very difficult but rewarding process for me. It indicates to me that there is an ability of this Congress to work on a bipartisan, bicameral basis.''

You have an election in between, but it seems to me, kind of, comity would dictate if that was a good statement to make in 2007, it would hold true for 2009 as well. This should have been an easy and quick bill to pick up and pass this year. Our bipartisan coalition fought side by side to get the Children's Health Insurance Program done in 2007. Picking up that baton and carrying it across the finish line should have been a straightforward exercise. For somebody like me in the Republican Party who went against his own caucus to get a bipartisan agreement, to stand against my own President and work hard in the House of Representatives to get a few more Republican votes, it kind of leaves us dangling out there. Without a show of appreciation, how can you work in a bipartisan way?

Instead, what are we headed toward? A process that will end up with a bill

that many Republicans, like this Senator, who have been strong supporters of the Children's Health Insurance Program are no longer comfortable supporting.

In 2007, the Children's Health Insurance Program received high praise from the other side. I would like to give a quote, ``a very difficult but rewarding process,'' and one that indicated--showed the ability of Congress, quoting again ``to work on a bipartisan, bicameral basis.''

If the Senator from Montana--I am going to smile at you. That is your quote from 2 years ago.

I have three sentences, if I can have unanimous consent for those?

This is a very unfortunate beginning for the 111th Congress. I regret the Democratic leadership has so quickly abandoned a bipartisan process. It does not bode well for cooperative work in the coming months.

I yield the floor.

I have yielded the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, the amendment before us is the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell. It is a substitute amendment to the bill before us. The bill before us is an expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program. It is very similar to the two bills that were taken up by Congress in 2007. Both were vetoed by President Bush. Both bodies had more than a majority. Both bodies passed the program. But the House did not get enough votes to override the President's veto.

The point is this is a very popular expansion of children's health insurance. The fact is we would add approximately 4 million more low- income, uninsured children who currently do not have health insurance.

Today about 6.7 million low-income kids have health insurance. Clearly, in this very difficult time of recession, parents are losing their jobs, their incomes are not what they once were. They have a hard time getting health insurance for their kids.

We took the same bill--actually, there were two bills last year, but they are very close--and mixed and matched a little bit, essentially the same bills that passed in 2007 which President Bush vetoed, and we are bringing up that same bill today, with one exception, and that is including perfectly legal alien citizens. They are not citizens but perfectly legal kids in America. Not illegals but legals.

The other side is opposing this bill because they do not want to include perfectly legal kids in the program. I think that is a big mistake because these children are here legally. Their parents pay taxes. If you are an 18-year-old, you could be drafted if we had a draft. These parents are in line to be full citizens after several years. They have green cards, but they will be full citizens. The perfectly legal folks in America receive food stamps. They are eligible for lots of things. They are in public school. It seems to me, therefore, they should be entitled to get health insurance, just like every other kid.

What this comes down to is either you are for low-income, uninsured kids getting health insurance or you are not. It is pretty simple. It is pretty basic. I believe, and I think most people on this side of the aisle believe, therefore, the bill should pass and the substitute offered by the Senator from Kentucky, which does not include these children, should not be adopted.

The other difference is the bill before us will add about 4 million more children who are currently uninsured to the Children's Health Insurance Program. The amendment before us does not add that many. It adds about 2 million. Again, the point is, you are for kids or you are not for kids. I think the answer to that is pretty clear. We do want to add 4 million more low-income, uninsured kids to the Children's Health Insurance Program.

We are going to hear from the other side: Gee, the underlying bill crowds out private coverage; that is, some parents will say: Gee, if the addition passes, I can no longer insure my child with a private health insurance plan but, rather, go off private health insurance and go into the public program.

The point is, that is a national phenomenon that occurs in a lot of ways and in a lot of places. It occurs in Medicaid. For example, some person might be on private health insurance but Medicaid might be better. And if you compare the two bills; that is, the underlying bill and the substitute being offered, essentially they are the same in that about two-thirds of the additional children covered under the underlying bill will go on the public program and about one-third will come out from private coverage in the same proportion that occurs in the substitute amendment--lower numbers but the same proportion.

It just seems to me that the main underlying point is we want low- income, uninsured kids to have health insurance. That is what we want here. In the next several months and in the next year, probably, we will be doing health insurance reform, and then we can make sure private health insurance is bolstered so people who are not insured--46 million, 47 million people in America uninsured--will be able to get insurance either through the public program or private coverage.

It is a bit difficult to explain here, but the main point is if every American has to have health insurance and the low-income people have to have subsidies to get health insurance, that is something the Congress should do. But at this point here today, let's reject the substitute amendment. Why? Because, as I said, a lot of kids who are here, perfectly legally, won't get health insurance, and that is not right. It also doesn't go nearly as far as it should because there are so many kids who don't have health insurance here today but who should get it.

I ask unanimous consent that at 10:55 a.m. the Senate resume consideration of the Grassley amendment, No. 41, and proceed to a vote on the amendment with no intervening action or debate; further, that no amendment be in order to the Grassley amendment prior to the vote; that upon disposition of the Grassley amendment, the Senate resume consideration of the McConnell amendment under the previous order.

Madam President, I also want to inform my colleagues that vote at 10:55 is expected to be a voice vote.

How long does the Senator wish to speak?

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Madam President, the real question is, do we want more low-income uninsured children to have health insurance? That is the basic question. I am sure the answer to that question is yes. Most Americans, certainly parents of low-income kids and low-income parents, wish to have their children covered.

Next question: How do we do it? The Children's Health Insurance Program is immensely popular. It was enacted, I think, in 1997. It was set up as a block grant program. States had the option whether they wanted to participate. And immediately, in a very short period of time, all States decided, yes, they wanted to participate in the Children's Health Insurance Program, because it so helps their kids get health insurance.

Now, many people have private health insurance. That is good. The question is, what about lower income people, not Medicaid levels, but working poor who have private health insurance. What should they do? And this legislation gives people the option, gives States the option that a person can continue his private health insurance. If he or she wants to, a person currently on private health insurance who has a couple three kids and who qualifies for the Children's Health Insurance Program, because the parents are working poor, has the option to keep the private health insurance or to put the children in the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Now, this question always arises, that is, when there is a public program, a health program, there is always going to be a question for those who have private coverage, should they stay in their private plan or should they move to the public plan?

About one-third of the new children who have health insurance under the underlying bill will come from the private sector; two-thirds have no insurance whatsoever. The real answer to the dilemma is to make sure that the people in our country have good private health insurance at premiums they can afford, benefits that make sense. The Children's Health Insurance Program has good benefits. So, clearly, a mother whose income is quite low, not quite as low as Medicaid levels, but quite low, will probably want her child to enroll in the Children's Health Insurance Program.

We have to bolster private health insurance in this country. There are 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance. That is unconscionable. About 25 million Americans are underinsured; they have got health insurance, but it is not very good.

So the answer to this question is, how do we insure more kids but in a

way that private health insurance is also a viable option for low- income families. How do you do that?

We are going to take up health care reform this year in this Congress. It is so important. It should be a result where all Americans have health insurance. It also means we have to figure out ways to get the cost down, because health insurance is so costly, and health care is so costly.

Unfortunately, today, insurance in the individual markets is very expensive. The benefits are not that great and the copays are pretty high. It is not a good choice for low-income people. That is the individual market, even small group markets in many cases. So the goal here of national health insurance reform, through all kinds of mechanisms, of health care delivery, and pay for performance, et cetera, is to make sure that private health insurance is a viable option for all Americans, more of an option than it is today.

That means insurance reform, eliminating preexisting conditions as a means to deny coverage. The fancy term ``guarantee issues'' means that when someone applies for health insurance, that health insurance provides there is no discrimination on the basis of health care or age or whatnot.

That is the goal we are all striving for. And, fortunately, it is a goal that almost all of our colleagues agree with. I very much hope--it is imperative that this year, this Congress move aggressively for national health insurance reform, because that will then tend to eliminate this question of crowdout.

But, more importantly, as we worry about crowdout, I do not think it is that much of a worry, frankly. We should keep our eye on the ball which is how do we get more low-income kids insured. That is what the underlying bill does.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time of the quorum be charged to both sides.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, while we are waiting for the vote, which occurs in a few minutes, I will make a couple of points here.

I will yield.

Madam President, very briefly in response to the Senator from Kentucky, the underlying legislation adds 4 million more children to the Children's Health Insurance Program for a total of about 10 million. I think that is a good goal. On the other hand, the substitute amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky does not go near that far. It is about 2 million fewer children. I think we want to add more kids to the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Second, he claims his substitute focuses more on low-income kids first. I might say that the underlying bill, the bill offered by myself and others, focuses on low-income first. How does it do so? There is a bonus to States to seek out low-incomes first.

Second, the bill phases out coverage of childless adults. That has been an issue; that is, should adults, who are not children, be covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program? That is an issue because this is a block grant program, and States have the option to cover whom they want to. Some States have covered adults. Actually only one or two have. And we are saying, no, no more of that. So we are phasing out the ability of any State to cover an adult who does not have children.

Parents or pregnant women and kids are another issue. But childless adults are being phased out. So we are focusing more on low-income kids first. I might say too that there is a lower match rate for those States at their own option that want to go to a higher level. Some States want to go to a higher level. That is their choice under the Children's Health Insurance Program, because it is a State option. That is a choice those States can take.

But if they do so, the match is a lower rate than it otherwise might be.

Again, I am trying to make sure that low-income kids are helped first.

And, finally, under the underlying legislation, 91 percent of children covered are at a level of 200 percent of poverty or lower; 91 percent, 200 percent or lower. So this legislation clearly is focused on the working poor.

Madam Speaker, as we debate this new SCHIP bill, I think it is important to figure out what we know about the bill and the undemocratic methods that produced it.

First, we know that few, if any, Members of Congress actually have read the bill. Despite the promises made by Majority Leader Hoyer on Friday that we would get at least 48 hours to review the bill, the new, 285 page SCHIP bill only turned up yesterday at 11:20. The 48 hours that Majority Leader Hoyer promised somehow shrank to less than 24 hours. The Rules Committee met without an official score from the Congressional Budget Office. I will stipulate that Members may not always read the legislation they vote on, but most of us at least read the summaries and analyses that our staff members prepare. And every one of us has a right to the time required to know what these bills contain.

That's what the regular legislative process is all about--listening, thinking, proposing, thinking some more, amending and debating. Implicit in normal process is the notion that all useful ideas may not reside exclusively in the minds of the Speaker's assistants.

And all this careful listening and critical thinking by House Members is supposed to happen before we vote. Democrats seem to think that's got it backwards. They want to vote first and think later. It's all about bills written in private, delivered at night, and ramrodded through here with the blink of an eye. Now, I recognize that a strong majority can do things that way, and Republicans aren't without sin. But when secrecy and arrogance are combined with perfect efficiency, the country always seems to pay a heavy price.

On this bill especially, I've been treated better by used car salesmen. They didn't want me looking too closely at their products, but they didn't dump a wreck on my front lawn after sundown and tell me I had to buy it or else. The Democrats don't want anyone to inspect their product, either, and maybe that's because it has the qualities of a used Edsel.

There has been no process, much less any fair process. Evidently changes have been made to the bill from 2 years ago, but what are they? There have still been no committee markups on any SCHIP legislation and no legislative hearings. And I can't find evidence that a single one of the numerous suggested improvements to past SCHIP bills has been incorporated into this one. The majority is interested in what it wants and nothing else.

We also know, Madam Speaker, that today is largely a political exercise. The Senate is actually going to have a real markup in the Senate Finance Committee. I'll say that again to make sure my friends on the other side of the aisle heard what I said: The Senate is actually going to put their SCHIP bill through the full committee process, including considering ideas from people not on the Democrat leadership staff.

It's possible to legislate the right way, and it's pitiful that the people's House is reduced to taking lessons in democracy from our friends in the Senate.

Over here, the tricks don't stop with tactics. Every Member of this body understands that they will be vilified if they don't fall in line and support this bill. If you don't vote for the Democrats' SCHIP bill, your constituents will be told that you hate kids. Your people will be told that the only way to ensure that kids get health care is by supporting the bill produced by the Democrat leadership without a whisper of a complaint. They want the people to believe that there are no other ideas and no other options.

Well, Madam Speaker, I want to make clear to the American people that my Republican colleagues and I do want to reauthorize the SCHIP program. We have repeatedly reached out to the Democrats and have asked for a chance to sit down with them and work on a compromise that can become law. Last year, we heard many impassioned speeches about how important it was to override the President's veto of the Democrats' bills, but after these votes those same people were literally applauding when the veto was not overridden. That's right, Madam Speaker, there were Democrats applauding on the floor of the House when the bill they supported was rejected. That's more than partisan politics, that is cynicism and deception at their ugliest.

Madam Speaker, when the Democrats stop making this about political advantage at the expense of low-income children, and decide to actually produce a serious, passable SCHIP program, I am still ready to work with them.

As it stands now, I urge all Members to reject this cynical ploy and vote ``no'' on this deeply flawed and highly partisan bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss an unrelated issue that has been neatly tucked into this bill. The issue is timely access to quality hospital care in our Nation's communities.

The Majority says we don't need any regular legislative process with this bill because everyone knows what's in it. Well, my staff received this 285-page bill at 11:20 a.m. yesterday. Even with full knowledge of what went into previous versions of this legislation, it isn't reasonable to expect that people will be able to gain a good understanding of the new bill with that sort of time constraint. I would also note that since the last time the House voted on an SCHIP bill, we've added more than 60 new Members.

This is politics as usual, and it should give every new Member great pause before voting for this bill, or any bill. I don't believe that any of our new Members comes from a background where they were expected to approve a major policy on the basis of the idea that, well, it's been here before, so we don't need to read it or understand it. In fact, didn't most of us run against that sort of deceptive politics in Washington?

I want to point out to the new Members that your vote today could also cause hospitals in your district to close. Hospitals that are under construction now and intended to serve your constituents soon may never see a patient. And why will that happen? Because a few Members of your conference with clout believe physicians in your communities shouldn't own hospitals. They say that the people who care for and about their communities, who have a personal stake in the care that is delivered, those people should not be trusted.

We have had no hearings on the issue of physician ownership of hospitals in the last two Congresses. The Health Subcommittee did have one hearing last year to discuss health disparities and we heard from a physician from Louisiana. His story illustrates what can happen when physicians are able to help their communities. After Katrina, hospitals were closing and residents couldn't get care. The doctors in these communities made a difference by coming together to make sure people could continue to receive health care. Why on earth would we want to eliminate people's ability to serve their community?

Why are the opponents of physician-owned hospitals so antagonistic? I'm not sure, because these hospitals provide higher quality care at lower costs than other hospitals. They have higher patient satisfaction rates and don't experience workforce shortages like other hospitals do.

I offered an amendment along with Congressman Johnson and Dr. Burgess to strike the section that was written to eliminate physician-owned hospitals. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee rejected that idea. Congressman Boren and Congresswoman Jackson-Lee proposed a very fair amendment that would have delayed the implementation of Section 623 to July 1, 2010, so hospitals that are currently under construction could finish being completed and serve patients. That amendment also was rejected.

Last week, the House changed the rules on motions to recommit stating we could continue to have the committee and amendment process to voice our concerns. Madam Speaker, this has had neither, and it is a shame because the provision of quality hospital care is too important to be eliminated due to some philosophical bent of a couple of your senior Members.

New Members, this is an early to important test: do you vote your district or do you vote your leadership? Do you vote your hospitals or do you vote for a policy that was concocted in private in Washington.

Madam Speaker, in 1997, the Republican Congress enacted the State Children's Health Insurance Program to help children's families near poverty. But now, true to their big government agenda, the Democrat Congress wants to send the President-elect a massive increase in the SCHIP Program that will usher in a new era of socialized medicine in America.

This bill will take a program designed to help children near the poverty level and expand it to include families with incomes of up to $84,000 a year.

And Democrats will pay for this middle class entitlement with a 61 cent--$1 per pack tax increase on cigarettes.

Let's provide health insurance for children of the poor, but let's reject a liberal Democratic Congress attempt to create middle class entitlements on the backs of American smokers.

Since Congress has already reauthorized and fully funded SCHIP through March 31, 2009, we should work in a bipartisan manner to thoughtfully develop a longer-term reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

While I have been pleased to support SCHIP in the past, and continue to support its original intention to cover needy children who do not qualify for Medicaid, the bill being considered today hardly resembles the bipartisan compromise reached in 1997.

My Republican colleagues and I are eager to work with Democrats--as we did more than 10 years ago--to ensure that needy children receive health care coverage. As the program expands, health care for needy children is jeopardized. Republicans will work tirelessly to see that every currently eligible child is covered first and that taxes are not raised on the poorest among us.

The Democrats' SCHIP bill spends billions of dollars to substitute private health insurance coverage with government-run healthcare coverage. The Democrats' SCHIP bill taxes the poor to benefit the middle class. The bill uses the funding gained from taxing the poor to pay for expanding SCHIP eligibility to higher-income families. The Democrats' SCHIP bill focuses on enrolling higher-income kids instead of low-income, uninsured kids. The Democrats' SCHIP bill enables illegal aliens to fraudulently enroll in Medicaid and SCHIP.

Short of finding at least 22.4 million new smokers (the number required to adequately fund SCHIP) Democrats will be forced to either kick millions of children off of health insurance or raise taxes on all of us by tens of billions of dollars.

It is irresponsible to fund a children's health program, particularly one targeted at vulnerable children, with a declining revenue stream.

The revenue to fund this expansion will soon disappear, causing all of us to pay more in taxes.

The percentage of Americans who smoke has been dropping for decades. And research and logic both show that raising the prices of cigarettes will lead to less smoking, and therefore less revenue.

The Democrat expansion of SCHIP takes money from taxpayers in States like Indiana to pay for middle class children in wealthier States.

I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 52, I call up the bill (H.R. 2) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that every Member have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the legislation now before us.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, we have been working to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program for the past 2 years. In the last Congress, we passed legislation that enjoyed bipartisan support in both the House and Senate as well as the support of the American people. Unfortunately, it did not enjoy the support of the President, who vetoed our bill not once, but twice, and went on to proclaim that uninsured children can simply go to the emergency room to have their medical needs met.

But this is a new day in Washington. Soon we will have a new President who has committed himself to reforming our Nation's health care system so every American can access affordable and quality health care. The bill we are considering today makes a down payment on that promise by putting the health and well-being of our children first.

Madam Speaker, this bill will make critical improvements to CHIP. There will be more resources for States to enroll eligible children. There will be better benefits. As a result, there will be 11 million children who will have access to the quality health coverage they need and deserve.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself another 15 seconds.

After 2 years of trying to get this bill enacted, we are now nearing the finish line and with not a moment to spare. As the Nation moves deeper into a recession and unemployment rates continue to rise, millions of Americans are joining the ranks of the uninsured, many of whom are children. We can't delay. We must enact this legislation now.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee (Mr. Waxman).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee (Mr. Dingell).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado, the vice chair of our committee, Ms. DeGette.

(Ms. DeGETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Madam Speaker, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Madam Speaker, I would yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Madam Speaker, we inquire of the time that is remaining.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Massa).

Madam Speaker, I have some additional speakers, though.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Madam Speaker, I would yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

I do not, but I was going to ask how much time remains.

Madam Speaker, I would yield myself a minute and a half.

I just want to stress how important this bill is and also that it is, essentially, the same bill that we passed in the last Congress. It was bipartisan. It was passed in both houses with a fairly large margin. The only thing that stood in the way was President Bush's veto.

Now we do have a new President. We know that he has supported the legislation. It is so crucial for the children of this country, for the 4 million or so now who are eligible but for whom there is no funding, who will be covered by this legislation. It is fully paid for.

Particularly now, when we have a recession and when we know that so many people are losing their jobs and, as a consequence, their health insurance for themselves and for their families, what could be more important than making sure that those families' children are covered by this legislation?

I must say I'm very proud of the fact that we are here in the first week, essentially, of this new Congress passing this bill. I know the other body is about to pass it as well and that we will be able to send it to the President and have it be one of the first accomplishments of his Presidency and of this Congress.

I know Mr. Stark already thanked the various staff members, so I won't thank them again. But I do want to pay particular attention to Bridgett Taylor because I know that she worked on this legislation for 2 years or more and was even there when we first passed the SCHIP bill 10 years before that. And it has always been one of the things that she cares so much about. But I want to thank all of the staff people and all of my colleagues for all of the work that they've done on this legislation.

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

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

Madam Speaker, it wasn't enough that President Bush vetoed two children's health bills that would have made great advances in children's health. Now my Republican colleagues are trying to undermine the coverage gains that would be made in this bill.

This proposal being put forward by my Republican colleagues isn't a way to put poor kids first. It's a way to stop States from moving forward to help additional uninsured children.

The CHIP bill already puts poor kids first by targeting enrollment bonuses only to the poorest kids, those in Medicaid. Eight in ten newly insured children under CHIP have incomes below current eligibility levels. The Republican proposal is simply a way to stop States from moving forward.

Unfortunately, the reality of today is that these moderate income families who would be excluded under this motion are struggling to make ends meet, too. Health costs have been rising much faster than income over the past decade. A family at 300 percent of poverty, for example, earning $52,800 a year--these so-called rich folks, according to Republicans--now spend an average of 19 percent of their income on premiums for employer-sponsored coverage if they even have access to it. Ten years ago, that same family was only spending 11 percent of income on premiums for their employer plan.

The CHIP bill moves us forward. It's the largest investment in children's health since the original CHIP law was passed in '97. And this Congress will do more for children, and it's an excellent step forward.

Now I want to mention that research shows that no means tested program reaches 90 percent of the individuals or families eligible for it. Moreover, there is not reliable State-by-State data to even measure participation rates accurately among the States.

While the Bush administration initially attempted to establish measures like Mr. Deal is talking about, leading independent academic and research institutions discredited the Bush administration's target rate, such as CBO and the Urban Institute, and the Bush administration has moved away from its initial administrative directive of enforcing such limits on States the way this motion would do.

So again, the point is we need to move forward. This is simply a rouse essentially to gut the bill for those moderate-income families that would benefit for it.

I would urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit. Let's move the bill as originally proposed. It will do great things for America's children.

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

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Madam Speaker, very few bills come to the floor of this House with so much rhetoric disassociated from facts as we have heard in this bill.

Now, let's talk about a few of the real facts.

First of all, the program was designed, at its outset, to insure children that were above the Medicaid level of poverty but below 200 percent of poverty. All of the stories that we have heard today--from both sides of the aisle, quite frankly--as to examples of children who are uninsured, in almost every one of those instances are children that should have been insured under the current law under either SCHIP or Medicaid but are unenrolled.

One of the amendments that I offered that was not allowed was an amendment that said before you can go up the poverty scale, you should have a 90-percent saturation of those children that are below 200 percent of poverty. Many States that are well above the 300 percent of poverty still have not covered a quarter of their children that are below the 200 percent of poverty level.

So ``poor children first'' is not in this bill.

Secondly, with regard to the issue of illegal immigration. Now, you can say that illegal immigrants will not be allowed, but you are removing the requirements of certification of eligibility. And by the way, pregnant women, regardless of their immigration status, are considered ``children'' under the SCHIP bill in everybody's version of the law.

Now, if you're not acknowledging that illegals are going to be enrolled in this program by virtue of the change you're making in this bill, then you ought to talk to CBO because CBO says in the next 10 years that the Federal Government will spend $5.1 billion and States will spend $3.85 billion on people who are illegally in this country.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

I am in its current form.

Madam Speaker, the Republican motion to recommit replaces what I consider to be a deeply flawed bill that has been offered and also has improvements to the SCHIP proposal that we are considering.

Unlike H.R. 2, the Republican motion to recommit fully funds SCHIP program for the next 7 years, not 4\1/2\ years as the underlying bill would do, and thereby ensures that needy families and those with low incomes will be covered and eligible under SCHIP through fiscal year 2015. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the motion to recommit will not cause a single SCHIP enrolled child to lose his or her health care coverage.

Unlike the bill that is under consideration, H.R. 2, the motion to recommit puts poor children first by holding States accountable for not finding and enrolling their low-income, uninsured children. Each year, States would be required to report to the Secretary of HHS how they intend to ensure that at least 90 percent of their children with family incomes under $40,000 per year have quality health care coverage in either a public or private health care plan. States would also be required to demonstrate that they have met this 90 percent coverage target before they are able to shift their enrollment activities to higher income families.

Unlike H.R. 2, the motion to recommit maintains the requirement in current law that States verify the identity and citizenship status of Medicaid and SCHIP applicants and prevents illegal aliens and other unqualified individuals from fraudulently gaining access to these taxpayer-funded programs.

Unlike H.R. 2, the Republican motion to recommit preserves limited SCHIP dollars for low-income, uninsured children by preventing States from abusing the income-disregard loophole that is in the current law and would be continued under the underlying bill.

Unlike H.R. 2, the Republican motion to recommit Federal funds will be reserved for families with incomes under 300 percent of the Federal poverty level, which is currently $63,600 for a family of four.

This motion to recommit is compliant with the majority's PAYGO rules by asking corporations with assets in excess of $1 billion to shift some estimated tax payments due in fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2018.

The majority has repeatedly used this short-term shifting of funding to meet the 5-year PAYGO requirements, and we're using it today to comply with the majority's PAYGO requirements without raising taxes.

Fully paid for without increasing taxes on the American people is what this motion to recommit would provide. And unlike the underlying bill, H.R. 2, the Republican recommit motion will actually allow President-elect Obama to keep his promise to the American people of not increasing their taxes.

We believe that these fundamental changes from the underlying bill not only improve it, but extend the life of it for a full 7-year period and is altogether appropriate, and does not include increasing taxes on the American people.

We believe in the SCHIP program. We think that it should be properly applied in States and applied primarily to those who are low-income, poor families first rather than going up the economic scale of eligibility.

For these reasons, I would urge this body to adopt the motion to recommit and to pass a bill for a 7-year period that fully funds and assures States and families that their children will be covered.

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

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.