Floor Statements

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

Let me thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, in August the Congress passed the Protect America Act. Before that bill passed, our intelligence officials did not have the tools they needed to protect our troops and to detect and prevent terrorist plots. This was made clear in a story we read about just last month about our, how our FISA laws failed our soldiers who were kidnapped in Iraq, and I think these outdated laws actually hampered their rescue. That is because our FISA laws in place before the Protect America Act entrusted government lawyers, not our intelligence professionals, to protect our troops and our security.

Yet the bill we are considering today only makes this problem worse. It reopens the terrorist loophole and doesn't ensure that we can act quickly on vital intelligence to protect our troops and the American people. I think it would be a boon to trial lawyers who could take actions against third parties who assisted our government at our request after 9/11. It is yet another example of a troubling pattern of behavior on the part the majority, a pattern of behavior that is undermining our national security. Let me just give you a few examples.

The majority want to extend habeas corpus rights to terrorists. The majority has had over 40 votes in the Congress trying to force retreat in Iraq. The majority wants to close down our Guantanamo detention facility and move those terrorists into American communities. The majority, in their intelligence authorization bill and appropriation bill, are diverting key intelligence resources away from terrorist surveillance to study global warming.

In August, all the Members of this House succeeded in modernizing FISA and closing the terrorist loophole. We did so because terrorists were plotting to kill Americans and our allies, and there is no nice way of saying that. So why on Earth would we tie the hands of our intelligence officials again and open up this loophole that allows terrorists to jeopardize the safety of our troops and jeopardize the safety and security of the American people?

Our country is safer today because of our efforts, and Republicans want to work with Democrats to make the Protect America Act permanent. We were very close to a bipartisan agreement on this bill just about 5 weeks ago, very close. As a matter of fact, there was an agreement in principle until the ACLU got ahold of it and blew the entire bipartisan process up. I think the American people want us to do everything we can to make sure that they are safe and secure. The bill that we have before us will once again tie the hands of our intelligence officials and make America less safe. This is not the bill that I want to vote for.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, let me thank Mr. McKeon for yielding time and take a moment to congratulate Mr. Miller and Mr. Kildee, Mr. McKeon and Mr. Castle, the two Republican rankers on the committee, for a job well done.

We have been at this reauthorization for a number of years, and I think that the work that is represented in this reauthorization of Head Start is very important for our Nation's children.

Those of us who have worked in the area of education for a long time know that for low-income children, having some type of early childhood development is critically important to their success. Head Start is among a number of programs, both public and private, that are out there that supply this type of early childhood development for these children. The reforms that are included in this bill I think are critically important so that Head Start can really be all that many of us want it to be.

There are some tremendous Head Start programs around the country, I have visited a number of them, but there are also some programs that don't fulfill the promise that we're making to parents and to their children of what this program could be.

We all know that if we're serious about educating all of America's kids, we will never get there unless we find a way to help low-income children get the development they need that many of us take for granted, things that happen in our homes, for those who have means, things that happen in our communities that these children are not exposed to. And so to make sure that they do have an equal chance to get a good education, that early childhood development for these 3- and 4-year-olds is very, very important.

I do want to congratulate my colleagues for the bipartisan way this bill has come together. This is a great example of what Congress can do in a bipartisan way when it chooses to.

I have been on the floor a lot this year, being critical of the fact that there was some partisan bill on the floor of the House that was going nowhere. But here is an example of Members on both sides of the aisle working together for the interests of America's low-income kids, and I just wanted to come to the floor and say, job well done.

I appreciate my colleague for yielding. This is exactly what the American people are disgusted with. We can't balance the budget. We can't send the President appropriation bills that are within the budget. This bill is some $3.5 billion over the President's request. But having said that, we have all of these projects that didn't go through the House, didn't go through the Senate, that got air-dropped into a conference. And we wonder why the American people look at us like our heads have been cut off.

There is nobody in my district who would ever vote for any of these projects that got air-dropped into this bill. And we have this process, this point of consideration on these earmarks, on consideration of this bill, in exactly the time when we are supposed to have a better look at what these earmarks are.

All we have are these brief descriptions, if you can find them in the bill, because this bill should not be up on this floor until tonight. It is one thing to waive the 3-day rule, but the 24-hour rule, most Members believe, is almost sacrosanct. And yet, not even 24 hours after the bill was filed, it is on the floor of the House. Members don't know what is in it. That is why this point of order that we fought for this summer was put into effect.

I would urge my colleagues to vote for the gentleman's point of order to stop consideration of this bill so we have a chance to look and see what else is in here that we haven't seen, because this place is out of control.

Let me thank my colleague from Florida for yielding.

Let me just say that the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the committee, is a Member that I know well and have great respect for, and along with the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, they have spent over 30 years doing everything they could to support our troops. But if you think that the debate that we are having tonight is something that we have heard before, it is. Over 40 times this year, we have had votes and debates in this house on the issue of Iraq.

Let me just say that my colleague from Wisconsin is known for his famous statement about Members coming to the floor of the House posing for ``holy pictures.'' Now, if there has ever been a case over my 17 years here in Congress of people posing for holy pictures, it is over this issue of Iraq.

When I came to the Congress in 1991 as a brand new Member, my first vote in this Chamber was on whether to go to war with the Iraqis in Kuwait. I remember coming here as a brand new Member, Members in the well of this House who had been here 30 and 40 years, tears in their eyes, talking about this being the most difficult vote they had ever cast. It was a very difficult moment for me and all of my colleagues. But we went through that, and we went through it successfully.

So when we have the issue of war debated here on the floor of the Congress, there is no issue, no issue that is more personal, no issue that is of greater significance to our country, than all of us casting our vote on sending our young men and women into battle anywhere overseas. So I understand the passion that we have on both sides of the aisle over this issue.

But I think we all have to understand that we are in Iraq for a very important reason. We went there to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I think everybody understands that. We went there to make sure that the weapons of mass destruction were gone. They are gone. Where they went, I don't think we will ever know. We went there to set up a democratically elected government, and, frankly, we have succeeded.

It was al Qaeda 3 years ago that made Iraq the central front in their war with us. We didn't start this war with al Qaeda. They did. And as the gentleman from Florida pointed out earlier, it didn't start on 9/ 11, it started back in the early eighties. And it persisted through the eighties and the nineties, and America and the rest of the world looked up, looked away, and just hoped the problem would go away.

Well, it didn't go away. After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died on 9/11, what was America to do? Look up, look away and just hope the problem would go away one more time? No. So we went to Iraq. But it was al Qaeda and it was Iran who have made this the central front in their war with us.

America has no choice but to succeed in our efforts in Iraq. We all know what failure in Iraq will bring. Failure in Iraq brings a destabilization of Iraq itself, a safe haven for the terrorists to operate from, a destabilization of the entire Middle East, the end of Israel as we know it, and who doesn't believe that if we leave Iraq and we leave in failure, that the terrorists don't follow us home and that we have to deal with the problem here on the streets of America?

This is not what America wants. America wants us to succeed, and it is success that we are having in Iraq. You all know the statistics. You have all seen the headlines over the last several weeks and the last several months. Our troops in Iraq are doing a marvelous job on our behalf. They are succeeding. They are training the Iraqi Army to take our place. The Iraqi Army is more

out in front than ever before. The amount of violence in Iraq is down significantly. Our troops, our troops, are dying in less numbers each and every day. Why? Because we are having success there.

So we ought to thank our troops, thank our troops for the great job they are doing, because General Petraeus put forward a plan that is working.

Now, I understand that a lot of my colleagues on the other side have invested all their political capital over the course of this year in failure in Iraq. It hasn't happened, thankfully, because for the good of our Nation, not today, not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but for my kids and their kids, success in Iraq is critically important. And I think all the Members in this Chamber understand just how important success is there. We are taking on an enemy that is growing in all parts of the world, and if we are not willing to take them on in Iraq, if we are not willing to draw the line and defeat them, where will we draw the line? Where will we stand up for America, and where will we stand up for American values? Iraq is the place to do it.

The bill that we have before us goes back to the same old tired plan, the plan for failure, if you will. That is what the bill that we have before us does. It ties the hands of the administration, it ties the hands of our generals, it ties the hands of our people on the ground, and it will lead to nothing other than failure.

We have been down this path. We have been down this path all year long. And I will admit to my colleagues, we have had plenty of mistakes that have been made in Iraq. There has never been a war when there haven't been a lot of mistakes made. You can go back to the Civil War and look at all the mistakes that were made. The First World War, the Second World War, Vietnam, there were a lot of mistakes that got made in wars, and mistakes have been made in this war.

But, ladies and gentlemen, you all know that we have no choice, no choice, but to succeed, and the plan that we have before us, to fund our troops for the next 4 months, will lead to nothing other than failure.

So I am going to ask my colleagues, let's stop the political games. We all know what is going on here. It is another political stunt, another political stunt trying to trap the President, trying to trap the generals and putting handcuffs on them. Let's stop it.

I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle want us to succeed. Instead of playing these political games, what we ought to be doing is passing this bill cleanly. And we ought to be passing the Military Quality of Life Veterans bill, because our troops are coming home. We have got 3,000 troops that have been sent out of Diyala on their way home. We are going to have troops coming home all year. And if we don't pass the Military Quality of Life Veterans bill, the benefits they are entitled to, the services we ought to be providing to those veterans coming home will not be there.

So let's vote ``no'' on this bill. Let's find a way this week to make sure that the veterans bill is up on this floor and passed and in the President's hands.

Let me thank my colleague from Louisiana for yielding.

Let me say with all the gratitude I have, I love the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He knows I do. I think he and the gentleman from Louisiana, the ranking Republican on the committee, do a marvelous job together. But as much as I love our chairman, there is one thing about his chairmanship that we have a big disagreement over, and that is the issue of raising taxes.

So far this year we have had $100 billion of new tax increases that have been passed by this House. Thankfully, none of them have become law. And, hopefully, none of them will become law. This is $81 billion in another tax increase. This is a warmup for the $3.5 trillion tax increase that is coming that was introduced this last week. And so, Mr. Rangel, as much as I love you and think the world of you, when it comes to the issue of taxes, I am opposed.

I came to Washington because I thought government was too big, it spent too much, and took too much out of the pockets of the American people. So I don't vote for tax increases. I think it is wrong. If you look at what has happened in our economy over the last 4 years, think about this: we cut tax rates in 2001, we cut tax rates in 2003. And what has happened in the last 4 years, Federal revenues, total revenues to the Federal Government have increased at over 10 percent per year in each of the last 4 years. As a matter of fact, it is over 11 percent in each of the last 4 years. This year we expect Federal revenues to rise another 7 or 8 percent.

So anybody who believes that we have a revenue problem I think is mistaken. We have a spending problem, and we will not stand up and take on the spending challenges that we have. We all know we have to step up and do it, we just can't quite find the courage to get it done.

What is even more irritating about the bill that is on the floor today is that it is a temporary tax patch to prevent a tax increase from going into effect for 1 year, paid for by a permanent tax increase. I am sure that the chairman of the committee would rather not do it this way, but that's what this bill does. All we are doing again is putting a permanent tax increase into law.

Now this law and this bill that we are debating is never going to become law. It is never going to become law because the Senate has made it pretty clear they are not going to do this bill this way. They are not going to have this tax increase in this bill. The White House has made it clear that they are not going to sign a bill that raises taxes.

So here we are playing political games once again and running out the clock. Running out the clock on whom? Running out the clock on the IRS and running out the clock on those 50 million Americans who are going to get a refund next year because, as we all know, this bill will probably not be done until Christmas. And the confusion that is going to reign next January, February, and March as people are trying to fill out their taxes, not knowing whether the alternative minimum tax is going to apply to them, is going to be confusion enough.

And it gets worse because what is going to happen is that the refunds that Americans, 50 million of them, are going to expect, are going to show up 2 or 3 months later than what they expect. And at a time when our economy is slowing and people are trying to hold onto their homes, a delay in their refund is going to put a real crimp on American families.

Now why are we having this big disagreement? This whole issue of PAYGO, how is it that we are going to extend the current tax rates, the current tax system for another year, and yet we have to have an $81 billion tax increase to pay for it?

The tax system we have today is going to be the same tax system we have next year, and yet we have to find some way under these crazy rules to pay for it.

Now, this is nothing more than a tax increase. For those who believe bigger government and higher taxes and believe government is the answer to virtually everything, I can understand why you want to raise taxes. But I don't believe the American people want their taxes increased.

At the end of the day what I am really confused about is if the Senate is not going to have this tax increase, and the White House is not going to sign it and it is not going to become law, why do you want to take your Members and walk them out on this plank only so it can be sawed off behind them? I wouldn't do that to my Members; I would hope you wouldn't do it to your Members.

American middle-class families are already under the gun. They are paying higher energy costs and higher health care costs, higher gasoline prices at a time when their incomes are not rising. The last thing they need is another tax increase from Washington, DC.

I would hope my colleagues would join me in voting ``no'' on this bill, making it clear to the American people that we understand the pain that they are dealing with and we should be here to help them, not to hurt them with higher taxes.

Let me thank my colleague for yielding and thank him and the chairman of the committee and the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee for their work on this Peru trade bill and the other trade bills that I hope that we will see on the floor soon.

When you look at America's economy today, I think we have to recognize that 95 percent of the consumers in the world live outside of the United States.

And as the U.S. economy, and certainly in certain sectors, is softening, the one area where our economy is doing very well are on our exports around the world.

And if you look at what's happened in some recent trade agreements, let's point out the facts. In Jordan, since 2001, our exports have risen some 92 percent. If you look at Chile, a trade agreement that was passed, but since 2004, we've had a 151 percent increase in our exports to Chile. Australia, since 2005, we've had a 25 percent increase in our exports.

If I look at my home State of Ohio, Ohio's export shipments in 2006 were $37.8 billion, up 36 percent, up 36 percent since 2002, thanks in part to many of the trade agreements that have been signed. And what this means, in terms of these increased exports, to consumers around the world are more jobs here in the United States.

In my own part of Ohio, Proctor and Gamble is a major employer. Right near my home are a number of their research and development facilities which have continued to expand employment, doing basic research, doing product research, doing marketing and doing sales efforts that support their sales and their development of new products all around the world, which means new jobs for people who live in my part of Ohio.

I understand that there's displacement in our economy; and we ought to be doing everything we can to retrain and train workers for the new economy. But that's going to happen regardless of whether we pass this.

When you look at this Peru Trade Agreement, in particular, we have, or they have open access to our market today. What this trade agreement does is allow us freer access to their economy, increasing our exports to Peru and to the rest of South America.

I'm a big believer that trade has benefited our country in a very significant way. And when you look at the fact that two out of five jobs in America, two out of five jobs are dependent on our ability to export products and services elsewhere in the world, you can begin to understand why opening markets for our companies around the world is so critically important to America's future.

So I want to congratulate my colleagues for their work on this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Mr. Richard W. Heine, arranger for The Ohio State University Marching Band, and to express my appreciation for the lifetime he spent creating the unmistakable sound of The Ohio State University Marching Band. For more than 60 years, Mr. Heine contributed his talents to the students of Ohio State, and for this, I offer him my utmost congratulations and thanks for his efforts.

After graduating from Greenville High School in 1934, Mr. Heine began his association with The Ohio State University as a student and member of the marching band. More than any other person, he was responsible for the unique sound of this brass marching band. In addition to many original compositions, Mr. Heine arranged most of the Ohio State school songs including Buckeye Battle Cry, I Want To Go Back To Ohio State, Chimes & Carmen Ohio and Beautiful Ohio. There are very few non band members who have had the rare honor of dotting the ``i'' during the famous Script Ohio formation; however, Mr. Heine is one of the select few to be so honored by the Ohio State Marching Band.

Madam Speaker, I've seen the Ohio State Marching Band and Script Ohio formation many times and there is little doubt that the band referred to as ``The Best Damn Band in the Land'' is exactly that, and Mr. Heine played no small part in that legacy.

It was with sadness that I learned that Mr. Heine passed away October 11, 2007 at the age of 91. Richard's memory will live on in the lives of those he touched, and every Saturday in the fall as the sounds he created echo in the hearts of football fans across the country.

Madam Speaker, next Monday is Veterans Day, and I think all of us in America owe those who have fought for our country, given their lives, given their service to our country, we all owe them a great deal of gratitude.

But how is this Congress today, this House, going to give and show our veterans our gratitude? We're going to pass a military quality of life veterans bill, and we're going to attach a pork-laden, overstuffed Labor-Health and Human Services bill on the backs of this bill.

The Senate's not going to take this bill up in this form. They're going to split the two bills. The President's made clear he's not going to sign this bill combining these two appropriations bills. This is one of the most cynical and most political things I've seen in the 17 years that I've been here in Congress.

To know that the President is not going to sign this bill, to know that the Senate is not going to allow this two-bill pile-up to be considered in the Senate, and yet we're going to force the Members of the House today in a position where they shouldn't be.

We shouldn't play these political games on the backs of our veterans and our soldiers. I think that we should split this bill and do it the right way and show our veterans on Veterans Day that we really do appreciate their sacrifice and their service.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland moved the previous question before he engaged in debate. Under the rules, I think there are 40 minutes to be divided by both sides.

Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague from California for yielding.

Let me say that my colleague from California, the former chairman of the committee, and the current chairman of the committee, Mr. Obey from Wisconsin, are two Members who spent their entire careers working through this appropriation process. They deserve the thanks and respect of all the Members.

The motion here to go to conference is not about the Labor, Health and Human Services bill. That is not the issue. The issue isn't whether we have omnibus bills. We have had omnibus bills long before I got here and they will be going on long after I have been here. The issue here is the fact that the plan is to move this bill to the Senate to get a conference report, to package the Labor, Health and Human Services bill with the Defense appropriation bill and the Military Quality of Life bill.

Why is this happening? Because our friends in the majority want to continue to play political games here in Washington, DC. We went through political games last week with the SCHIP vote, a bill that there was some attempt to work with us, but not really. No changes were made. We are going through the same process of having this bill vetoed again. Why? Because the majority refused to reach out and work with us in a bipartisan manner to resolve the few differences, the few differences we had in the SCHIP bill. But here we go again. Here we go again.

Madam Speaker, the majority knows and the President has made clear that he will veto this bill. To pass a bloated Labor, Health and Human Services bill on the backs of our troops and our veterans is not the right thing to do. It's a political trick. You're daring the President to veto this bill. Well, guess what? You know and I know that the President is going to veto this bill. Yet, here we go, playing political games once again.

As I said last week, I said last month, and probably the month before that, the American people are tired of all the political games. They want us to find some way to resolve our differences and to deal with the issues that they care about. There are a lot of important issues in the Labor, Health and Human Services bill that are very important to our country. There's a lot of important issues in the Defense appropriation bill. They help fund our troops and give them the tools that they need. Certainly, when it comes to the Military Construction Quality of Life bill, taking care of our veterans is very important. But you know and I know that this is not more than a political trick.

Let me tell you what; it makes me sick, makes me sick to watch this process continue, playing political games, and nothing gets done. Congress is at the lowest approval rating in history, and what is going on? We are continuing to play political games. That is why the American people are sick of this process, and it ought to stop.

I want to thank my colleague for yielding.

Madam Speaker and my colleagues, if you feel as though we've been here before, it's because we have.

Last week, we had a vote to override the President's veto. The votes were here to sustain the President's veto. I said during that debate that Republicans and Democrats had created this program together; Republicans and Democrats want to reauthorize this program together. The issues that separate us are not that great; we can sit down and resolve those issues. That has not happened.

As has been pointed out during this debate today, there are differences. There were some attempts to address those differences; but by and large most of them, as my colleague from Texas pointed out, were just painted over, little tweaks with words here and little tweaks with words there. And you've already heard about the deficiencies in this bill.

But that's not why I rise. Why I rise is because this doesn't have to be this way. There is no reason why we, on both sides of the aisle, can't come together and resolve the few differences we have in this bill that are well known now.

This bill is not being brought up today in a rush, delivered by 7:30 last night, a 293-page bill with all kinds of changes in it. We're not debating this bill today to pass it. We're debating this bill again today to play another political game. You know it; I know it. I sat with the majority leader yesterday, along with the minority whip, to say, Mr. Majority Leader, we can resolve these differences. We can fix this and we can reauthorize this program. We were turned down.

The chairman of the Democrat Caucus stopped my staffer and said, We don't care whether you'll give us the votes to pass this or not because if you don't, we'll just pull this bill and we'll wrap it around your necks in the next election. Political games, political games, political games. Exactly what the American public are sick of, and you all know it. Everyone knows this is nothing more than a political game, trying to score political points, getting ready for the next legislation. I thought the American people sent us here to deal with their problems. I think they sent us here to work together to deal with their problems in a way that we can be proud of.

Nothing has happened this year in this Congress. You think about it. Step back over the course of this year, nothing has happened yet. And let me tell

you, we've got another 14 months left in this Congress and nothing is going to happen. Why? Because all the majority wants to do is play political games and not reach across the aisle and get things done.

My promised accomplishments over the 17 years that I've been here, three big legislative projects that I've worked on, were all done in a bipartisan manner. Members from both sides of the aisle that played a significant role in coming together, dealing with issues like education reform, dealing with issues like financial services modernization, dealing with issues like the Pension Protection Act that we did last year, we did it together.

And when you think about the little bit of differences in this bill, you begin to wonder once again why Congress' approval rating is at a dismal 10 or 15 percent. Why? Because people are tired of watching this process not work.

This bill is not going to become law. The votes are there to sustain the President's veto; the President has made it clear he is going to veto it. How long are we going to play the games before we get serious about resolving our differences?

This is a sad day. And I think a lot of my friends on both sides of the aisle realize this is a sad day when we can't come together and deal with the issues the American people want us to deal with and deal with them like adults, adults that are willing to sit down and work together and to resolve those differences.

So I say to my colleagues, even those of my colleagues who voted for this, if you're tired of the political games, if you're tired of Congress' approval rating being at these ridiculous levels, let's all just vote ``no.'' Let's vote ``no'' and stop this bill. And then we can sit down and resolve the differences we have, and we can do it in a bipartisan manner and show the American people that we can, in fact, work together on their behalf.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor former Congressman Charles Vanik, who passed away earlier this year. There are two things we do in Washington--politics and policy. Congressman Vanik excelled at policy and understood politics well enough to make a difference with the policies that he fought to see enacted. A champion of the underdog and an unfailing advocate for the poor, Congressman Vanik's legacy was solidified in 1974 by the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Reform Bill linking the former Soviet Union's trade status with the ability of Russian Jews to emigrate freely.

Congressman Vanik served in the House from 1955 to 1981, representing his Cleveland-area constituents well. A 13-term veteran of the U.S. House, Congressman Vanik graciously stepped aside from his original district in 1968 to make way for Louis Stokes, who became the first African-American Congressman from Ohio. He also had his own particular style, and those privileged to have served with Congressman Vanik remember his black suits and bow ties in addition to his utter disdain to having to raise re-election funds. His constituents responded to his hard work and his commitment to them by continuing to re-elect him, proving that a hard-charging public servant who's in Congress for the right reasons will be returned to continue his work.

Congressman Vanik's public service began after graduating from Western Reserve University and Law School when he entered the Navy during World War II. Following the war, he served as a municipal judge and in the Ohio Senate before first running for Congress in 1954.

My thoughts and prayers continue to be with Congressman Vanik's family and friends, and we are grateful for his dedicated public service.

Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 767) and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that we have reached this point. I think all of us know that Democrats want to renew the SCHIP program and Republicans want to renew the SCHIP program. We haven't been afforded the opportunity to sit down and work together to resolve the differences we might have in order to keep this important program alive and available to children in America who deserve and need good health care coverage. I hope that that opportunity to sit down and work together comes today after this vote.

In 1997, Republicans and Democrats worked together to create the State Children's Health Insurance Program. We worked to ensure that low-income children without health insurance come first. But I think all of us know that is not what has happened.

Today, there are 500,000 eligible low-income children for this program who are not covered. Yet there are some 700,000 adults around America who are covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program. I think the numbers speak for themselves. In Minnesota, 87 percent of the people on the Children's Health Insurance Program are adults. In Wisconsin, 66 percent of the people on the Children's Health Insurance Program are adults.

Madam Speaker, what we have been working towards is trying to find a way to say that we ought to insure poor children first. I know States have all kinds of ideas about how to expand this program, but let's not let this become another Washington program that starts with one principle in mind and then becomes something for everyone. Why can't we refocus the program to ensure that we help those poor children who do not have health insurance before we get into insuring adults and people beyond the low-income folks that we are trying to help?

I think the President vetoed this bill because, frankly, I think the majority sent it to him to ensure that it was vetoed. There were no conversations in this House between Democrats and Republicans on what this bill would ever look like. I don't think there was ever any intention that this bill be sent to the White House to be signed into law.

It is a point that I have made here before, and I am going to make it again: the American people are tired of all the political games. They want us to find some way to work together to resolve our differences and to help move America forward. What we have seen over the last several months on this bill, and especially the last two weeks, is an example of the political games that the American people are tired of.

Madam Speaker, when you begin to look at Congress's approval ratings, it shouldn't come to anyone's surprise in this Chamber that they are very low. And why are they low? Because I think Americans are tired of the rhetoric, they are tired of the political games, and they want us to find some way to work together to address their needs and their concerns.

Two weeks ago, when the President vetoed this bill because we didn't put poor children first, we could have had this vote right then and there. We could have had the override vote. Then we could have sat down and begun to resolve our differences. By now we could have had them resolved and we could actually be here today on a new bill that makes sure that the poor children who don't have health insurance actually get it.

Madam Speaker, what I would say to all of my colleagues is that I would hope that the political games will come to an end.

On behalf of House Republicans, I again extend this invitation to all of you: let's sit down and work together in a bipartisan manner to resolve our differences. Secondly, let's make sure that we put poor children first.