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,…
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.