To amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to permit States to ensure coverage without a 5-year delay of certain children and pregnant women under the Medicaid program and SCHIP.

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, 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.