members will move their conversations from the floor members will take their seats members will remove their conversations from the floor members of staff will i move their conversations from the floor members will take their se and seventy seven for the gentleman from michigan mr dingell the gentleman from texas mr barton the gentleman from new york mr wrangle the gentleman from louisiana mr mccreery each will control fifteen minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan compromise and i would observe that it meets the concerns expressed both in the president's veto message and also in the comments raised by our republican colleagues as we debated the bill in earlier times i will note that the bill protect health insurance coverage for sub six million children who don't depend on chip i will observe that it provides health coverage for three point nine million children who are eligible yet remain uninsured together this is a total of better than ten million young americans who without this legislation would not have health and charge and it is to be noted that those same young people will be losing their health insurance shortly if we do not act expeditiously on this matter as mentioned the bill makes changes to accommodate the president's stated concern first repeat and it prohibits states from coverage children and families with incomes above fifty one thousand third it contains adequate enforcement to ensure that only u s citizens are covered fourth it encourages states to help low income families to secure health insurance provided through their private employer the bill is focused on the private marketplace the evidence of that is that the bill has strong support from the private health insurance industry it is supported by the medical community a m a children's advocates educators advocates for people with disabilities health professionals hospitals the a a r p and others it is solid bipartisan legislation worked out in careful meetings with members of both parties had putting our dear friends senators hatch and  others on the senate side who have done such important work on this matter in times past and that includes also our dear friend senator grassley it is also solid bipartisan legislation that addresses the concerns expressed by the president and by our colleagues in the house on the republican side i urge and i vote on a char three nine six three and i reserve the balance of my time gemma from michigan me there is a kind  i thank the gentleman today we are dealing with a bill that supposedly has a fix on the previous legislation that has been vetoed we're all entitled to our opinion but we should live our lives on the a body that gives us the facts and that's the congressional budget office i'd like to briefly look at some of those facts first of all they're supposed to have been a fix on the issue of illegal immigration c b l still estimates that there will be three point seven billion dollars of increased federal spending in a complimentary state spending that will total some six and a half billion dollars of additional spending because of this change as it relates to the immigration issue over the next ten years and that additional hundred thousand adults will gain eligibility because of this section now the questions  ought to be asked but the two questions that were put to the staff at the social security administration because if we're going to allow social security numbers to be used as duff cation these ought to be the questions and they were asked to their staff they said the question is with the name and social security number verification system in this bill verify that the person submitting the name and social security numbers who they say they are they answer no second question with a name and social security verification system in this bill prevent an illegal alien from using another person's valid name and matching social security number to obtain medicaid in s chip benefits the answer no now the authors of this bill also claim that there is a fix on the issue of adults and asked chip the fact that c b s still projects that up to ten percent of the aroma in rowley's and s chip will be adults not children in the next five years and money for the poor children shouldn't my opinion go to cover adults the fix on the issue of crowd out the c still estimates that there will be some two million people who will lose their private health insurance coverage and become enrolled in a government run program then the thicks relating to the enrollment of higher income children see below estimates that there are will only be some eight hundred thousand children who are currently eligible for s chip will be enrolled in the next five years but an additional one point one million people with incomes that are not currently eligible for history up will be enrolled in the program d have been corrected we reached a point that the end of the line the question's going to be did you vote for health care for ten million children and did you vote to support the thirty five billion dollars that's necessary to do it i don't think that any of the family of the children or the governess or or the agencies that are just waiting to see what's going to happen very interested and the distortions continue and then it's going to be very very simple which way did you vote and if you did not vote for the bill why didn't you now there may be some particular loyalty to the president but you have to remember that when these voters and people come to you the president's veto message would not be stapled to you and you would have to on your own be able to explain why you thought what he said was true that's why we rely heavily on some of the president's strongest supporters senator orrin hatch and senator chuck grassley because as a democrat i'm kind of used to republicans beating up on me but i'm not used to them beating up on the republican leaders in the senate such as orrin hatch and chuck grassley and this is particularly so since the senate has  much responsibility in putting together this bill which neither you nor i like but what the heck we have to play the hand the style to so remember that just by attacking personalities that it may be like getting a circle and we find each other shooting at each other but really the winners in law those are going to be those who have no health care that are children they have families that are struggling hard and ultimately these kids are really america it costs so much to take care of some of the illnesses that could be detected and this sensitive as the president is to the poor that is smoking and having the tobacco tax increase tobacco smoking is dangerous for america is stain just file system it's very expensive and it is a deterrent to children smoking so when all of this is done i don't know how many people going to ask you why did you vote no but please remember that many of the reasons that as they did today the truth would be cut caught up to the allegations and if and i have to have a better answer remarks the reason i say that is we on the minority side just got this bill at eight o'clock last night so it's going to take us a few days to really understand the changes that have been made and so we might in fact to revise and extend their remarks the when this debate is over today this is the third time madam speaker that we've debated a measure like this along these lines and you know i'm i'm probably going to repeat some of the things i've said earlier because in our cursory examination of the bill at least it doesn't appear to change very much the bill does nothing for example to address the cliff in the funding of s chip so a future congress will still face a choice between throwing off the s chip roll six and a half million kids or raising taxes by about forty billion dollars it still relies on a declining revenue source tobacco taxes to fund a growing program which is likely to exacerbate the funding cliff issue and short the legislation remains i believe fiscally irresponsible further despite someone addressing on the us it appears that illegal immigrants will be able to use fraudulent social security numbers and still be able to get s j up and medicaid benefits it still allows states to enroll higher income children at least through two thousand and ten but it also continues i'm afraid to allow states to use a system of so called income disregards to set just about any income limit they please and i support joe i want to chip to be extended with this new so called new legislation seems to do absolutely nothing to address the serious flaws in the previous proposals on the kind of thing thank you gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute i thank my friend from new jersey for yelling to me and i rise in strong support of the esk chip program the bottomline my friends is do we want to fund children's health care for poor children in this country or do we not  the arguments against it from fiscal conservatism and i always have to question it a bit because our republican friends have driven up the deficit the greatest in american history and now they want to tell us that this is program is too expensive one of the reasons why congress is so disenchanted with with what's happening the american people are so disenchanted with congress is because the republicans are blocking a bill that is very very supportive of what merican people want we see here that seventy two percent of the american public two thirds of the senate the majority of the house forty three state governors and wasn't three hundred organizations support this legislation and our friends on the other side of the a blocking the will of the american people let's fun this bill let's help poor children stop with the nonsense stop with the nonsense about new york fire we try to help as much as we can congress ought to help our poor kids that's the question i think anyone opposes providing health care for poor children and children of the working poor that is not what our argument is about today what we do oppose is having a bill before us that covers four hundred thousand less kids in s chip than previously we do oppose having a bill that has a funding cliff and twenty twelve where you just planned to run out of money now the question is why would you vote for a bill that you plan on having a program fail another thing we say this bill before us it's going to spend a half million dollars more then s chip version one and then it's going to cover less kids so there are plenty of reasons to oppose that in addition you have the issue with illegal immigration say below the congressional budget office projects that section two eleven of this bill will result in spending three point seven billion in increased spending on health care for this population over the next t n years and then you get to the issue of adults well what you're talking about is getting childless adults off the program not all adults just childless adults madam speaker i think that we as parents expect our children to grow up and expect them to take responsibility this is not never neverland and all adults need to be removed from this program s chip as it was put in place in ninety seven is that they are for poor children children of the working poor the list could go on and on we also know that there is a massive redistribution of taxes insurance program and i hope the third time will be charm eighty percent of america's seventy two percent perhaps a strong bipartisan majority in the senate nearly every house democrat in the last count forty five house republicans all supported this version of s chip president bush and many of my republican colleagues however opposed the previous version of this legislation supposedly you oppose it because one it might have been able to say to provide health care to adult to children in the middle income families might get health care and sure you are still all undocumented immigrant children might have gotten health care also there was a concern by some that we'd run out of money i haven't heard that concern where we're going to get one point seven trillion dollars for a war that we're fighting but at least you're worried about bringing that money to health care the bill before us today answers those criticisms it should be more acceptable to a few more of my republican colleagues perhaps even to the president the pres the previous version concerns have been met rectified and so those who vote against today's legislation can only be voting against the government providing health care to poor children who have no other means of obtaining medical care that's the only reason left to vote against this no other way to account for a vote but i'm most proud of what this bill does not do it doesn't compromise in covering children it adds thirty five billion in new funding to the s chip program and it provides coverage to ten million additional children i urge my colleagues to join with me making the third time a charm not a strike out for america's children with an even stronger bipartisan support we may convince president bush to do right by america's children let's provide him that opportunity no matter what's said on the floor of this house or how many times it's said facts are facts and the real fact is this compromise bill is nothing less than a bunch of baloney this bill covers fewer kids costs more than last week's bogus s chip bill and you know we have a saying in texas charlie if you put lipstick on a pig it'll still be a pig my biggest concern with this bill is it doesn't fix the illegal immigration loophole that congress congressional budget office projects the federal government will spend almost four billion dollars to pay for health insurance benefits for illegal immigrants that doesn't sound like much of a solution to me and this bill diverts resources away from kids who need the resources most in fact in five years ten percent of the enrollees in the children's health care insurance program will not be children but adults if we're going to reauthorize a children's health care insurance program we ought to be sure american kids have access to health insurance not adults not illegal immigrants i say support poor kids first the american taxpayer huang needs and deserves a bill that does just that you'll be telling us that it's time without objection the gentleman from michigan reclaim control it is time the gentleman from michigan thank you madam speaker and thank you chairman dingell i'm really pained when i listen to the last speaker and some of the comments that have been made on the other side you know calling this sincere effort by the democrats on a bipartisan basis with the senate to try to come up with something that we can get you on the other side of the aisle to support you know i heard words like bull loney and bogus and almost i think actual laughter and it's it's a sad day when we left this issue which is an issue of whether we're going to cover kids so that they don't have to go to an emergency room and can actually go to a doctor and get proper health care the democrats and this is again bipartisan with some republicans in the senate republicans have gone out of their way to try to address the concerns that some of the republicans have expressed but the bottom line is that we can't change the fact that we want to cover additional kids ten million in total and when we know that the american people support this effort what they support is covering more kids those that are already eligible and not rolled up to the tune of ten million kids now that's going to take thirty five billion dollars over five years you can't get away from it and the president is saying well i can't support any new tobacco tax to pay for it i'm going to pay for it out of the existing budget well that's simply not possible if you look at the budget he's actually cutting medicaid and one of the things that this bill does is to stop those cuts  medicaid so we can cover the kids that we have now we have tried very hard to address each of the three issues that the republicans have raised and the first one for the first one i'd like to talk about today is issue of illegal lillian's there was never anything in this provision that allowed illegal aliens to be covered we have made it absolutely clear in this new bill that that is the case and that they will not be covered anyone who suggests otherwise is just not telling and not being honest about this and the second thing the second thing that we did we tried to address the issue of adults single adults who were phased out after two years now under this bill would be phased out after one year and even the parents yet there were also phased out i think over two or three years so we're addressing that issue and then the third issue that was raised was was with regard to the income eligibility and here again what we're saying is that if you go over three hundred percent ok other than those that are already grandfathered into the program you're no longer going to be able to cover those kids at that eighty two thousand or the other levels that they suggested now we've made an honest effort here to accomplish this and well all we're asking is that a few more of you come over to our side and join the republicans in the senate to vote for this legislation this is an honest way to try to achieve a compromise that will allow us to cover these ten million children now take this seriously one of my colleagues said well this is never never land this is it never never land we've had discussions with the republicans we've talked to you have a set with both of you can cover the kid in georgia i understand why my colleague from new jersey might like the bill because his state the three hundred fifty percent of poverty poverty yes grandfather d n a give special treatment over other states the majority of states in this country i'm pleased to yield a minute to the member of the energy and commerce committee missed shattuck marathon challenge marathon is recognized for one minute i thank the gentleman for yielding it really is a sad day here in the united states congress this is an effort in pure politics and this if this was an honest effort at compromise how come nobody ever sat i'm with the president how come nobody ever sat down with our leaders the gentleman just said that they tried to address the issues everybody here on the floor knows they didn't address the issues adults remain covered under this legislation the republicans said adults shouldn't be covered in the child health care program a crowd out the issue of people losing their private health insurance causing the private health insurance to go up and cost not addressed c b l nonpartizan body says two million people will lose their private coverage by pro crowd under this legislation the sad thing is this is pure politics and it was demonstrated the day that the override attempts failed because on that day the republicans had an opportunity to celebrate having sustained the president's position but we weren't proud of that moment of that day because we like to deal with the nation's problems you know applauded on that day democrats applauded when the override failed why for political gain not because they're caring about insurance o madam speaker arrives today in a spirit of bipartisanship to thank all of my colleagues both democrats and republicans for working to gavel to brain for its important piece of legislation n is the time not tomorrow and next week nigh is the time to reauthorize and expand s chip because s nothing but nothing more important than the health of our little children a speaker i vote to create the children's health care program and i believe in it but let's be honest these changes are more cosmetic than doctor nine o two want to know this bill still isn't paid for it still isn't cover poor kids first the still allows abuses like subsidizing adults to continue and let's especially says that today while the california tragedy unfolds most americans see homes in flames lives lost in families huddling in football stadiums as their life's possessions go up in flames but washington democrats see political opportunity while dedicated california lawmakers rush home to their communities democrats rushed the bill to the floor it seems like none of us in congress either party ought to look like vultures circling above the burned out homes of california families gleefully eyeing a cynical chance to try to pass their part legislation this proves what we've said all along is hidden about the children so about defeating george bush some hate him so badly they'll sacrifice whatever morals and integrity to win at all costs democrats promised to change washington but it's business as usual up here in situ liberals who lose as parents we teach our kids to sit down and work out their differences that finding doesn't accomplish anything that big boys and girls find a way to work together when this political politics it's about providing children's cover health care coverage at ten million low income americans children this bill is paid for it's paid for more than one hundred ninety billion dollars a presence asking for supplemental to support the war in iraq and afghanistan this is paid for ten million georgie's parents are hard working americans but cannot afford private health insurance the bill is clear on documented children no federal funding we spend on undocumented immigrants and the bill is clear on childless adults for one year they get coverage and these adults actually got a waiver the state's got a waiver to cover these adults so they're going to have one year and then they're off of it the bill is clear on family income only the lowest income children are covered with the prohibition on coverage for children three hundred percent you can't go about three hundred percent most are at two hundred percent but some are three madam speaker four months of spending in iraq is enough to provide s chip chairman under the changes that have been made in regards to the income disregards in the bill could a state in its current practice still if allow a family to exclude from income five hundred dollars a year for child care expenses as the question is yes and i think the chairman could a state allow a family to exclude from income twenty thousand dollars a year for housing expenses  that would be a matter for this to be determined by the state in which this transaction and the events occurred and i'm not a lawyer but if i were a lawyer and asked for a yes or no answer i'm going to soon that is a yes well it's yes if the state so decides it says no if they decide not further than if the chairman will indulge me could a state allow for a family to exclude from income ten thousand dollars a year for transportation expenses and i'll yield to the chairman again as the response is that that is up to the state and there's nothing in the legislation to preclude that so the answer would be a yes if the transportation expenses if the chairman would then put a state allow a family to exclude from income ten if i could just ask one one last question several people have alluded on this floor today that six point six million children will lose their health insurance if the house does not act now mr chairman you know and i know that this congress this speaker is not so insensitive as to allow this health insurance to expire for these children we will do an extension we will do what is required to continue to allow coverage for the children until congress passes the bill is that not correct well i would certainly hope so but i can't guarantee and i would hope that i would again i would reclaiming my time i cannot place any speaker the house would be so insensitive  gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute your five and extend madam to and speaker there's a piece of poetry that starts like this i'd rather see a sermon that day here one any day i rather one should why talk with me then just to show the way that i is a better pupil and more willing than the ear advice may be misleading but examples are always clear and the very best of teachers are the ones who live their creed it goes on to talk about you can deliver lectures but i'd rather get a lesson by observing what you do i'm saying to my colleagues democrat or republican the children of america are listening to us jibe at one another about whether they deserve health care they deserve health care and we can give that to them today they deserve health care because many of them are spending so many hours in an emergency room costly many of them  spending times at home when they can be educated many parents are not at work because they're staying home with their children health care should be a right in america and our children are saying that privacy is starman then here one they want to walk and two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin mr ryan a member of the ways and means committee gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes but i think jennifer yielding as we look at this bill which we received this morning it still has the same policy just a little different cosmetics i don't think our constituents want us to vote for a bill that makes it easier for illegal immigrants to get tax payer health care this bill does that i don't think our constituents want us to vote for a bill where we spend our tax our constituents tax dollars to pay for insurance that people already have this bill does that i don't think our constituents want to vote to create a new middle class entitlement this does that this bill also is only one half paid for that's right they only pay for half of this law and they have an enormous budget gimmick that when you add it all together doubles the last of this bill so if the goal here is ultimately get to universal health care so that everybody has insurance which i think most of us all share this is not the pathway to do it if you take a look at what it cost to fund three point nine million people who are uninsured that leaves us with another forty three million people uninsured and at the spend rate at the cost of that if we want to fund everybody it's another four hundred billion dollars that would add a trillion dollars to the debt we have for our kids and our grandkids by doing it this way by creating an enormous new entitlement you are making matters worse before the baby boomers you are making this enormous cliff we entitlement spending that much deeper mr speaker we're there is a better way to getting universal access to affordable health insurance this is not the way we believe in patient centered health care not government centered health care we don't think bureaucrats should be running health care whether they're an insurance bureaucrat or a government bureaucrat we think patients and their doctors should be running and making health care decisions unfortunately this bill does not do that this bill puts the government squarely in the middle and says if you want health care you've got to get it from the government that's not what we believe in that's not what we should be doing that's what we should be voting against this bill by a gentleman from michigan congressional research service and the point here is that the money needs to continue to flow to working families so that we can keep working rather than stay going well for at this time i know  i think my good friend from michigan for the olding and thank you madam speaker this vote today is about what kind of a country are we this vote today is about what our priorities are this vote today is about what our values are just the interest rate on funds to pay for the iraq war are twenty five billion a year yet our president believes that spending twelve billion a year on children's health care is too much i strongly reject the argument that we are spending too much on our children our children deserve better our children deserve a healthy start i've heard over and over from my constituents about the vital importance of the state children's health insurance program nearly sixty thousand children in oregon currently receive health care through s chip and the legislation before the house today will provide for an additional thirty six thousand children i know hardworking parents who can't afford health insurance for their children when they don't know what to do how am i going to cover my kids thankfully today we're taking strong action to gentleman from ohio thank you at this time i'd like to get one minute to my colleague and good friend from the ways and means committee alison stewart from the great state of pennsylvania general of pennsylvania has recognized one minute thanks man speaker the american people are clear they want this congress and the president to ensure that america's children have access to health coverage american parents on behalf of their children who get health care coverage under the chip program are clear chip is working health coverage under chip is affordable and accessible we we have compromised we but we are determined we're determined to continue and to extend chip for america's children ten million american children a working families this bill before us is reasonable it's smart and it's responsible a majority of congress agrees yet the president and some in congress are still on sure the choice is clear vote for health care for america's children or stand in the way the american people are watching they're waiting and maybe most importantly they are hoping we will do the right thing and ten million american children well the access to health coverage let's make it happen it's anything less than ten million children and yet the congressional budget office shows that their own bill falls short yet again it also fails to give real priority to poor children it imposes billions of dollars in new taxes on poor families and we know that this tax revenue stream won't even cover the expense of the bill of the bill in the out years and it causes millions to lose private coverage finally despite warnings from g a o it also ignores provider access something that's critical for our children in the s chip programs throughout the country i know in my state of louisiana we have a serious access problem despite the fact that we have one hundred six thousand children in the state covered  by s chip sixty eight thousand who would be on it not covered and yet all of them have significant access problems i asked the question one of our democratic friends blocked debate on any amendments that would address these and other concerns we really shouldn't be playing political games with this we should be playing games with children's medical care i urge my colleagues to urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and let's work together in good faith to improve coverage and access for children i thank my dear friend for yielding madam speaker why would someone not vote for health insurance for ten million american children well there's the excuse that the bill covers illegal aliens read section six zero five of the bill it doesn't there's the excuse that it covers adults not children read section one twelve of the bill which is called determination of coverage of non pregnant childless adults there's the excuse that it covers a lot of wealthy kids but there's the fact that ninety one point three percent of the children covered come from families that make less than forty thousand dollars a year and the rest live in states that are very very expensive to live in like mine in new jersey then there's the excuse that well it's bad for the budget somehow unlike the hundred and nine billion dollars they want to send to iraq but the congressional budget office the nonpartisan congressional budget office says over ten sinatra one minute thank the gentle speaker want to talk about enforcement of this three hundred percent above the poverty line the people who wrote the bill claim that we've got this hard cap on above three hundred percent in terms of family income but if you look on page seventy six of the bill the first part of the start line found says no payment shall be made into this section for the thirteen but for the application of a general exclusion of a block of income that is not determined by type of expense or type of income so you leave it up to the state to say you can have an income level over three hundred percent but you can deduct twenty thousand dollars for for a housing allowance or you can deduct fifteen thousand dollars for shelter or whatever thirty said you must have an additional thirty m effect i think thirty second so so what you've got here is the classic bait and switch i would say that the majority is listened to some of the concerns of the minority but you're not really ready to address them substantive you put the rot verbiage in the first paragraph and then you take it away in the second at some point and we need to sit down together and really work these things out to make sure that you not only have the verbiage you also have the enforcement and when that day comes we will have a bipartisan bill but that day is not today telling me their time gentleman from ohio thank you madam speaker it gives me great pleasure to yield one minute to one of our new members from the great state of florida in florida is recognized for one minute madam speaker as a father it is unfathomable to me why the president chose to deny health care coverage to children it's uncomprehensible to me that some of my colleagues would play politics with a child's health i always tell my daughter that in life you don't get do overs well apparently here in congress you do the president of my colleagues across the aisle have the opportunity that is very rare and that is to have a second chance to do it right last week i met with pediatricians at a hospital in port st lucie where doctors painted a stark picture of the challenges faced by children without insurance and then went across the street to a daycare center and visited the children who rely on florida's chip program could care for their health care needs kids like four year old samantha and two year old hannah four year old rafi ellen two year old julian the president opposes s chip because he thinks that children from working families that go to work pay their taxes but can't afford health insurance shouldn't go to the doctor he says it's too many kids and too expensive even though the bill is paid for without putting our country further into debt mrs madam speaker i would ask that the president which child would you deny health care coverage to julian hanna which child is one too many i yield back the balance of my time and time is expired the gentleman from michigan good this time meal one and one half minutes to the gentleman from georgia dr price letter that were about this bill have been addressed well as a physician and a co author of that letter i respectfully disagree the letter said that s chip ought to be reserved for low income kids first in fact what this bill does is provide incentives to insure higher income kids before poor kids the letter said that s chip ought to be for children only in fact c b i estimates that over seven hundred thousand adults will be on the program in twenty twelve not in one year in two thousand and twelve the letter said  that s chip ought to cover low income american children in fact the bill weakens both medicaid and ass chip citizenship verification and all with a huge tax increase when a speaker members ought to know that there is an alternative there are multiple alternatives one of them is h r thirty eight eighty eight it would provide insurance for the same number of kids it would not move any kids from private personal insurance to government run insurance it would make certain that personal weiss's were respected and it would not increase taxes so why proceed today why is the majority party proceeding today because it's all about politics in fact they've already had their cronies purchase t v and radio ads in the districts of folks that they believe aren't going to support this for gentleman from michigan better speaker i want to thank my colleagues on the other side for their weeks of expressing to us what their concerns were about the s chip bills that we've passed and i'm happy to say that we've heard those concerns and in this bill that we're voting on today we address those concerns they were concerned as am i about coverage for illegal immigrants and this bill expressly prohibits coverage of illegal immigrants they were concerned about coverage of adults including adults who are currently covered in the s chip program this bill eliminates coverage for those adults and all childless adults and they were concerned about income levels they wanted to keep this program for low income children and this bill today caps it three hundred percent of poverty the qualification level for families to get into the s chip program so there should be no reason for any of my colleagues on the other side to vote texas i apologize madam speaker i was talking to staff i'd like to yield one and a half minutes to the distinguished policy chairman the republican conference congressman mccotter one and a half minutes but we always have to remember that it is not simply enough to do the right thing we must do the right thing in the right way and again that is the purpose of this debate much of what we hear outside of these walls tends to mute the serious discussion that we have i know that following this debate there will be those ads or others that will say that republicans do not like kids i assure you republicans like kids and not just medium rare with a side of fries we do care about the future of children but it is a comprehensive holistic approach to the care of children which we discuss too little in this body it is my belief that what we should have done to truly put poor kids first was it from the first moments of the first hundred hours this should have been the first bill we could have done instead of the bills were passed and billions were spent we have seen appropriation bills come through this chamber repeatedly where billions are spent and there was no talk of putting kids first and helping poor kids have health insurance and now today we reach the point where the only way we can help poor children is to raise taxes on the american people this is not a prioritization of children and their health care tell me it's time to fire and i have and i'll have more seconds mass thirty thirty seconds on the track and i thirty seconds i am prepared to accept the majority when they say that they have the second time around is the charm and they have fixed access of illegals to this program i am prepared to be concerned about poor kids and kids who are in the margins but i do ask them to reconsider raising taxes because we do not want to see one day where our children grow up to be the healthiest people in the unemployment line i yield back my time thank you madam speaker at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished minority whip the gentleman from missouri to mr serious recognize for two minutes i think the gentleman for yielding madam speaker here we are again it seems to be just the same act in the same play the same time why are we having this vote today i really don't know many of our members believe it's because the t v ads the radio ads have already been bought in their districts and if they didn't have this vote today somehow that money might be wasted i don't know that i believe that i and many of our members believe we're having the vote on a day when seven republicans from california can't be here to make our no votes on this bill appear to be less than they really are fact i ask that this build not be voted on today for that reason i will i just what i wonder is why we weren't allowed to see the bill if this bill is such a great bill if this bill solve these problems what would have been the harm of seeing the bill in fact a lot of the debate today would have been a different debate if the bill would have been laid down last night and we'd had the vote next wednesday our next thursday this idea that somehow we have to get it done before november the sixteenth because that's the day that this this extension ends doesn't make any sense to anybody we're going to be here well beyond that once again we go through this process where we're told we've checked the boxes but then when you look at where the boxes have been checked they really don't do their job we ought to get to poor kids first when we get the kids with at three hundred percent of the level of poverty and their families that's fifty four percent of all the families in america would have their kids have insurance through the government i've talked to several people in my district that don't mind helping poor kids but i'm really offended when i'm helping kids whose families make more than i do i'm really offended as someone who's raised their family when i'm paying taxes to provide insurance for families who make twenty thousand dollars more than i do and the sea but the congressional budget office believes that the verification standards aren't right yet i think this is a step in that direction let's get this bill right fast see the bill let's vote no today and get to work on a serious proposal i  two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas mr hans knowing tellus in texas is recognized for two minutes i think the gentleman for yielding on a speaker we're not having a debate today on whether or not to reauthorize s chip what we're really having a debate about is a tale of two s chips because it was ten years ago that republicans created s chip to provide health insurance benefits to uninsured low income american children and every republican stands ready today to reauthorize that program and fund that program but yet again democrats are coming with their tale of s chip s chip that instead is transforming this program to give additional benefits to adults before children illegal immigrants before americans the insured before the uninsured and finally to higher income before lower income these are the facts th program was designed for those up to two hundred percent of the federal poverty level the democrats will increase it explicitly up to three hundred percent but with all their loopholes even wealthier families will qualify short changing low income uninsured american children to subsidize higher income families although the program was designed for children thirteen states insure a doll's three cover more adults than children democrats continue this practice shortchanging low income uninsured american children in order to subsidize adults although the program was designed for the americans the democrats still still strip out proof of citizenship measures democrats short change low income uninsured american children in order to subsidize illegal immigrants although the program is designed to help the uninsured c b o t reports that the plan will affect take two million off of private health insurance democrats shortchange low income uninsured american children in order to subsidize the already insured let's put the children first and the politics second let's reject this bill and l madam speaker we continue to reserve our time gentlemen visitors our time gentleman from michigan speaker this time i yield myself two minutes john is recognized two minutes this bill both in terms of its scope expanding a low income children's program to cover adults and middle class families and cost thirty five billion in new taxes and spending remains unacceptable and it's truly unfortunate this house this congress and this president support s chip the failure to form a bipartisan compromise to provide low income american children with health insurance is nothing short of a failure of the majority's leadership the minor changes tinkering clarifications we see today do not a compromise make compromise by definition is a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions the previous bill doubled the cost of this program and this bill cost a half billion more beyond that in the last one the majority is not made one concession in this cosmetic redraft it's the same bill with the same objections and we should not compromise our principles to satisfy their political aims but we have before us is a bill that continues to allow federal resources ten percent or more to be diverted away from low income children and given to adults a bill that provides a back door to illegal immigrants to get federal benefits to the tune of three point seven billion and a bill that continues to force at least two million families out of their current plan and into a government program while southern california has burned the speaker has this house fiddling and posturing worse yet the majority is manipulating that tragedy and it's time this vote to ensure our votes are reduced it's as crass a tactic as i have seen in my time in congress it's past time for the games to end and it's past time for the majority to engage in a serious negotiation with us and how to renew and improve this program i urge my colleagues to again vote no and again send a message that low income children's health insurance is not an issue to be politicized we can do better than this and i reserve the balance of my time tell me sir is it time the gentleman to the very distinguished gentleman from north carolina mr butterfield one event to mention north carolina is recognized for one minute i want to thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me and i also thank him for his leadership as the chairman of the energy and commerce committee also want to th democratic leadership for bringing this bowl and visionary legislation to the house floor today also want to thank my republican friends who are willing to vote with us on this important measure madam speaker out represent the fifteen poorest districts in the united states of america thirty percent of the children in my congressional district live below the poverty level and so this is not an academic discussion this is real serious business for the people of my district in north carolina and so i ask my friends and colleagues today to listen to this debate don't let it just go over your head but if you would please listen to this debate listen to the plea of the children of america and please consider voting for this very important legislation the specifically says under current law individuals who apply for medicaid and claim to be u s citizens are required to provide certain documents passport or birth certificates in order to receive any such help carry section two eleven would allow states the option to either use the requirements created in the d r eight for citizenship documentation under medicaid or instead verify the individual's name and some security number with the cell security administration some states have reported a drop i n roman said implementation of the d r a because of medicaid applicants have had difficulty satisfy the documentation requirement of a bill available evidence based on state reports and other information provided by state officials suggest that i reserve the balance of my time telling me her time telling her michigan my time telling me her time time i contacted them speaker we're waiting for the minority leader to be our close what's the order of close family recognize members for closing speeches in reverse order of opening michigan has the right to press the gentleman from ohio you know i got to be a father late in life so that now i'm i've got a loving year old and fourteen year old at home and last winter i had a real long miserable anxious weekend one that any parent probably has experienced had a sick kid and then i didn't know what to do fever higher than i was comfortable with the disposition of my little fella very different than usual and in the end we sought some medical care i have spent a lot of time thinking about that weekend as we thought about this s chip because there are families with sick young ones and they don't know what to do but they cannot afford medical care they don't have coverage they don't have medicaid for the poorest of the poor but by virtue of working in a place that doesn't provide employer health insurance by virtue of earning an income that doesn't let them afford it there on coverage what do you do a cost of one trip to an emergency rooms a month rent what do you do you pray and you hope that the little one gets better and for actually they often do but tragically they sometimes don't and so when that long delayed trip to the doctor or the hospital occurs we've got a runaway health of health issue that the parent has had to sit and watch develop all the while trying to figure out how to handle a situation you know we can make this problem go away for ten million children by moving this legislation forward to me this isn't a democrat this isn't a republican matter this is a matter of basic morality are we going to help families make certain that their children i asked for an additional thirty seconds of the time is available to you as a gentleman one minute are we going to help families get access to medical care by getting insurance coverage for their kids so they don't have to pick between bankruptcy and trying to address their kids medical problem in a more timely way simple as that gosh the rhetoric's gotten so he this and that one charge or another for what we try to do is take many of the issues that were offered in support of sustaining the veto of the president stopping this insurance coverage for children for taking place and we tried to address that in this bill they said they said families eighty three thousand could get this kind of coverage it wasn't true but we've taken steps in this bill to make absolutely certain couldn't happen under any circumstances that said parents are getting coverage as well there are a few isolated examples of where grandfathered programs allow that but we've faced that out we have listened and we have responded and it's time for this side to take yes for an answer because there's something that's got to rise above the daily squabbling in this place and that is responding to the needs of their family getting their kids to health care they need to vote yes on this bill keller ok i believe i have three minutes remaining is that least objection thank you i'm reminded of a homeowner who's getting ready to sell their home a little older home it's shopworn it's it's not seen its best day so they have a building inspector come out to inspect the home before they put it up for up for barket and inspector gives the report and specter says you've got some major termite damage in the walls and i think you need to really rebuild says we're paying over it he says your plumbing is all rusted out i think you really need to replace the plumbing in the homeowner says well paying over it he says i think your insulation in your electrical system is very frayed and you need to replace it he says well we' saying the right rhetorical things are saying that nobody about three hundred percent of poverty is going to get a benefit but they then disallow all the income disregard enforcement mechanisms that would enforce that they say in section six zero five that no illegal aliens going to get a benefit but then they they change the enforcement mechanism so if somebody has a social security card in the name to it that's all they have  to do to prove citizenship in this so secure in ministration rightfully so says that's really not a proof of citizenship if you're able to go to a social security card and they they claim that they're going to take the adults off the program within a year but according to the c b s show at least a half a million adults are still going to be on the program in five years so it's the same bill with different a little bit different paint you know in texas we have saying you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig this bill is a pig may be a good pig it may be a nice pig it may be intended to be the right kind of  recognized for two minutes thank you madam speaker if i continue to be upset by the republican characterizations of this bill as a pig or the the effort to trivialize what we do here today i think it's very unfortunate we've got at that point there's been a lot of distortions on the other side from the republicans but the one that i have to correct today is the continued mention so the fact that this bill is not going to cover ten million children or that somehow the c b l has said it's not ten million but it's seven point four million what they have neglected to point out is that the difference are the kids that were going to enroll under medicaid and c b l has emphasized that over and over again there are seven point four million covered by  addition of to the ten is essentially covered by medicaid now what we forget to and those of the lowest income kids of all this bill does the best job of making sure that those low income children who are eligible for medicaid and not enrolled would in fact get insurance the republicans continue to forget and eliminate the fact that this bill also addresses the medicaid program there are a lot of kids at the very lowest end less than one hundred percent of poverty who are not enrolled in medicaid because there hasn't been the proper outreach to get them in rolled and so what we're doing here is providing for that outreach so don't tell me we're not covering ten million children we are and the ones you're not mentioning are the lowest income of all and then i heard my colleague talk about the illegal aliens again once again we have put in provisions here that you have to verify whether it's through the social security administration or it's true documentation now i mean there are probably there's probably some person who come and met miss represent who they are but the fact of the matter is that the c b o says in that letter that was introduced by the gentlewoman from from ohio into the record that virtually no one that's on this program is an illegal alien the vat the fact of the matter is that the republicans continue these distortions there are no illegal aliens there are ten million children speaker to close the debate on the minority said i'm very pleased to see you know one minute to the distinguished minority leader from the great of ohio mr b president's veto of the votes we're here to sustain the president's veto i said during that debate that republicans and democrats agree to this program together republicans and democrats  the issues that separate us are not that great we can sit down and resolve this issue that has not happened as has been pointed out during this debate today is that 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 in words here and little tweaks and words there and you've already heard about the deficiencies in this bill  that's not why i rise why arises because this doesn't have to be this way there is no reason why we both sides of this aisle can't come together and resolve the few differences we have in this bill that that are well known now but this bill is not being brought up today in a rush delivered delivered about seven thirty last night a two hundred ninety three page bill with all kinds of changes in it it wasn't brought it isn't we're not debating this bill a day to pass it we're debating this bill again today to play another political game you know what i know i sat wit 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 political games political games exactly what the american people are sick of and you all know what everyone knows this is nothing more than a political game trying to make score political points getting ready for the next election 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 is think about that step back over the course of this year nothing has happened yet and let me tell you we've got another fourteen 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 proudest accomplishments over the seventeen years that i've been here three big legislative projects that i worked on were all done in a bipartisan manner members from both sides of the aisle the played a significant role in coming together dealing with issues like education reform dealing with issues like financial services modernization dealing with issues like pension protection the pension protection act 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's approval rating is at a dismal ten or fifteen 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 made clear is going to be to it and how long we're 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  realize this is a sad day when we can't come together and to deal with the issues the american people want us to deal with and deal with it like adults adults that are willing to sit down and work together and it and 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 the congress approval rating being of 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 do it in a bipartisan manner and show the american people that we can in fact work together on their behalf i helped negotiate the original as you have when i worked for president clinton at that time the republicans were actually it was president clinton who proposed the s chip bill that the republicans in fact they opposed it then they agreed after in the balanced budget agreement that we would have pediatric care i am dental but it was president clinton that demanded and made as a precondition and therefore any agreement on the balanced budget agreement now i believe the sincerity that my colleagues support this and i believe the sincerity of what they said in their letter which is why we answered every one of those questions about the sincerity in supporting it and this is heresy of those remarks at some point you have to understand that you can take yes for an answer and that is we have provided that answer second is the lower sweeney lives in my district she didn't work for an insurance company delores when he has three kids her insurance company does not provide her or her kids health care she does right by the kids she earns a paycheck not a welfare check if her kids got sick she'd go to medicaid and go to welfare but she's doing right by your children because she's working in child teaching them right from wrong and her kids are in s g and without this program her kids with will live one illness away from medicaid medicaid for them for poor s chip is for parents who work full time earning a paycheck not a welfare check they're doing right by their children now i believe in sincerity your position which is why we answered that in the last two weeks and this vote is to say whether ten million children will get the health care they deserve whose parents work full time these are not these are parents who are doing right now the president one time referred to as chip as an excess at the children's health insurance program as expense excessive spending yet this week he submitted  this is a good day this is a good day because we have another opportunity to extend to children four million of whom are not covered by health insurance coverage i don't know how many families that is but it's obviously millions of families who will have the confidence that if their child gets sick they will have insurance they can access health care they can try to make their children well i want t refer briefly to my friend mr boehner to comment because i agree with him that the american public expected us to come here and work together but let us review this legislative process first of all we had committee hearings on tell my friend from texas those committee hearings were difficult we didn't really get to the kind of committee hearings and committee markups that we wanted to have i think that's unfortunate that was not our fault i suggest to you secondly let me say that we passed a major bill through this sounds probably ninety billion dollars it dealt with a number of subjects including dr reimbursement so they would continue to serve those who were poor under medicaid and indeed under medicare so the reimbursement levels under medicare would be appropriate we don't with rural hospitals so that they would be reimbursed at levels that allowed them to continue to serve our rural communities we dealt with some other issues and yes we dealt with children's health insurance and that bill went to the senate and there were a lot of members of your party who didn't like the expansive bill but before it got there you offered a motion to recommit on our bill you cut our spending cuts you did not agree with those but you adopted the revenues from the tax increase in cigarettes in your motion to recommit most of you perhaps not all the most of you voted for that motion to recommit so this funding source is one that we have agreed to and everybody's voted for when it got to the senate we made a tremendous compromise and we went from a ninety billion dollars bill covering rural hospitals and doctors reimbursement and poor people who would have been marginalized perhaps by the cuts to medicare advantage and we made a compromise mainly with republicans in the senate who felt that they wanted a more restrictive bill so that bill that is confronting us now is now a thirty five billion dollar bill a very substantial compromise i will suggest to you that bill then passed the senate went to the president he beat it came back here and you made a determination some of you not to vote to override presents beatles with those children those four million children don't yet have a health insurance bill then thirty eight of you wrote to the speaker and said that you wanted to see certain changes we addressed we addressed it very  substantively we address it carefully and we addressed it in a bipartisan way and because this bill has to go through the senate we engage then engage senator hatch and senator grassley so that would not be simply democrats saying well we'll take it was a very concerned entered judgment applied and almost all of the points raised in that letter were addressed now i had the opportunity this afternoon to meet with or that was this morning to meet with the not all thirty eight but the majority of those thirty eight obviously they were correct that there was not more time to discuss this i think that was a fair analysis but the fact of the matter you that one of the indications i had was that those changes would not affect at least one of those votes because philosophically that leader is not for this bill i understand that that's a fair position to take we're for this bill we want to see this bill go forward but i would say to my friends on this side of the aisle in the republican side of the i want to continue to work with those who really want to see as that letter of thirty eight said reauthorization affected because that's what we want to see and we'll continue to work with you this bill has to go to the senate it will be considered there in the senate we have significant concrete changes to the legislation vetoed by president bush changes that are just designed to address the concerns expressed by the president and by a number of republican members will listen carefully to the criticisms of the vetoed bill we reviewed the letter as i've said that the thirty eight house republican sent to the president as well as all the letters that were distributed i misspoke i said it was said to the speaker i observe only that apparently you want to negotiate  president we also work closely with senators grassley and hachoo met extensively with house republicans the bottom line is this we have taken a bipartisan compromise that was strongly supported by the american people and by the overwhelming members of both houses of the congress of the united states and worked to make it an even stronger bipartisan compromise specifically this legislation clarifies that it targets low income children that was one of the concerns that the compromise we have reached in the legislative language appended to the legislation today does in fact accomplish that objective prohibiting chip coverage above three hundred prints percent of the federal poverty level the president talked a lot about that talked about the eighty three thousand we have prevented that we've said that's not going to happen it clarifies that illegal immigrants are not eligible for coverage under chip i have not reviewed the prescription drug bill that you passed but the legislation i think in this bill is stronger on that issue it clarifies that this bill is focused on children that was a legitimate objection raised a on your side of the aisle we took that into consideration because we believed it was something we should respond to because that was our intent to focus on children as a result we have phased out coverage for childless adults over one year not to some said that this is just tweaking to have the time of phase that it seems to me is a very significant change it clarifies that this bill seeks to minimize the number of children moving from private insurance to chip crowd out requiring all states to develop plans and implement recommended best practices for a minute minimizing so called crowd out we think we tried to respond and we did respond we believe to the concerns you raised these are significant concrete changes changes that neither affect nor undermine our principal objective and commitment to ensure that ten million american children from low income working families who are eligible for coverage under chip guidelines today can participate in this successful program and i again remind my colleagues that this indeed was the stated objective of the president of the united states when at the republican national convention in twenty  four he promised in seeking election re election by the american public he promised this quote in a new term we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions with an s millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs he went on to say this we will not allow a lack of attention or information to stand between these children and the health care they need unfortunately what stands between the we continue to try to achieve the president's expressed objective i urge my colleagues urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle mr boehner is correct this is not a partisan issue there's not a member on your side of the aisle who doesn't care about our children there's not a member on my side of the aisle who doesn't care about our children we have an opportunity to add four million children to the health coverage of our country just as the president said he wanted to do i urge you to stand with the bipartisan majorities in congress including forty five house republicans and eighteen senate republicans who voted for the first chip bill this bill in some ways in my opinion is a better bill for the suggestions made from your side of the aisle stam with the state's governors the american medical association the association of health insurance plans the pharmaceutical companies nurses children's advocates and others who support this bill stand with the american people eighty one percent of whom support this legislation and stand with the ten million american children who were see the health coverage they need and deserve under this legislation this bipartisan compromise addresses your concerns let us give yes for an answer to america's children vote for this bill it's good for america it's good for our children solution seventy seven for the bill is considered red and the previous question is water the question is on growth and a third reading of the bill those in favor say aye those oppose no r thirty nine sixty three to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendments stright section one hundred four relating to chip program performance bonus payment page twenty eight lines one through page forty two line twenty after section one o nine page fifty one after long line nine insert the following section one can requiring requiring outreach in coverage before expansion of eligibility a state plan required to specify how it will achieve coverage for ninety percent of targeted low income children one in general section twenty one zero two forty two u s c thirteen ninety by adding at the end the following new paragraph eight how the eligible and how the elder building and benefits provided for under the plan for each fiscal year beginning with the school year two thousand i will allow for the state annual funding allotment to cover at least ninety percent of the eligible targeted low income children in the state to effective date the amendment made by paragraph one child's life a state child health plan c thirty ninety seven d d c as amended in this act is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph thirteen limitation on increased coverage of higher income children for child health assistance furnished in one to school year beginning with his school year two thousand a session rules for payment for children with family income above two hundred percent of poverty line in the case of child health assistance for a targeted low income child and a family the low income of which sees two hundred percent but does not exceed three hundred percent of the poverty line a pleasurable to a family of the size involved no payment shall be made under this section for such assistance unless the state demonstrates to the satisfaction of the secretary that the state has met the ninety percent retrospective coverage test that's a fine and said paragraph  for the previous fiscal year and double why the state will meet the ninety percent perspective coverage test specified in september crafty double life for the fiscal year the ninety percent coverage test in the state to one are children under nineteen years of age or are pregnant women and are eligible for medical assistance under title night scene or two are targeted low income children whose family income whose family income does not exceed such percent of the party line and excess of two hundred percent as in state elect consistent consistent with this paragraph and who are eligible for children health child health assistance under this title see grandfather scepter graph a and b shall not applied to the provision of child health assistance to a targeted low income child who is involved for child health assistance under this postpartum period following completion of her pregnancy and triple live write ins and services furnishes furnace before october want two thousand and eight to an individual who is not a targeted low income child and who was enrolled for assistance under this title as of september thirtieth two thousand and seven see standardization of income determination one in general section twenty one tin forty two u one thirty nine seven double j is amended by adding at the end the following to subsection d standardization of incomes terminations and to turning family income under th under this title including in the case of a state child health plan that provides health benefits coverage in the manner described in section twenty one zero one a two a state shall pay such determination on gross income including amounts that would be included in gross income if they were not example of income taxation to effective date the admin that made by paragraph one shall apply to determination in redetermination of income made on or after october one two thousand and eight and then section one twelve page fifty nine lines or thirteen through page seventy four line fifteen to read as follows section one twelve phase out of coverage were not pregnant adult under chip conditions for coverage of parent a in general title twenty one forty two u s c thirteen ninety seven double a is amended by adding at the end the following new section section twenty one eleven days out of coverage for non pregnant adult terminations of coverage for non pregnant adult one no new chip waivers automatic extension that state options are two thousand  not withstanding section one eleven fifteen or any other provision of this title except as provided in this subsection a the secretary shall not on or after the date of the inactive and that one of the children's health insurance program reauthorization act of two thousand and seven approve or a new i waiver experimental pilot or demonstration project that would allow fund made available under this title to be used to  child health assistance or other health benefits coverage to a non pregnant adult and be notwithstanding the terms condition of an implicit flexible existing waiver the provisions of paragraph t apply for purposes of any period beginning on or after january one two thousand and nine and determining the period to which the waiver applies to individuals eligible to be covered by the waiver and the amount of federal payment under this or other health benefits coverage that it's provided to a non pregnant adult under an implicit political existing waiver after the summer thirty first two thousand and eight the application of enhanced f ma determines under section twenty one zero five b shall apply to expenditures under the under in the book a ball existing waiver for the provision of child health assistance or other health benefits coverage to a non pregnant childless adult during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subsection and being on december thirty first two thousand and eight three state option to apply for medicaid waiver to continue coverage for non pregnant an application to the secretary for a waiver under section one eleven fifteen to the state plan under title twenty one to provide medical assistance to a non pregnant childless adults whose coverage is so terminating in this subsection refer to as meditates not pregnant childless soundless adults waiver b deadline for approval the secretary make shall make a decision to approve or deny an application for a medicaid not pregnant childless adult waiver submitted under scepter graph a within ninety days of the date of the submission of the application if no decision has been a by the secretary as of the summer thirty first two thousand and eight on the application of a state for a medicare medicaid not pregnant childless adult waiver that was submitted to the secretary by september thirtieth two thousand and eight application shall be deemed approved c standard for budget neutrality the budget neutrality requirement apply couple with respect to expenditures for medical assistance under a medicaid non pregnant child adults waiver shall in the case of two thousand and nine eleven it's been detours for medical assistance under title twenty one for all such adults to not exceed the total amount of payments made to the state under paragraph three before two thousand and eight increase by the percentage increase if any and the projected nominal per capital amount per capita amount of national health expenditures for two the case of any succeeding year allows such expenditures to not exceed the amount in effect under this september graph where the proceeding year increased by the percentage increase if any and the projected nominal per capita amount of national health expenditures for the year involved over the preceding year as most reduced as most recently published by the secretary be a political existing waiver for purposes of this section one in general the term a political existing waiver a waiver experimental pilot or demonstration project under section eleven fifteen grandfathered under section sixty one zero two c three of the deficit reduction act of two thousand and five or otherwise conducted that day would allow funds made available under this section to be used to provide child health assistance or other health benefits coverage to a parent of a targeted low income child  pregnant childless adult or triple live individuals described in both clauses and double i and b was in effect on october one two thousand and seven two definitions the term non pregnant adult means any individual who is not a targeted low income pregnant woman as defined in section twenty one twelve deed to or a targeted low income child be conforming amendment one section twenty one i was seven forty two u s c thirteen ninety seven double g l is amended by striking the secretary inserting one the secretary b in the first sentence by striking childless c by striking the second sentence and d by adding at the end the following new paragraph to the secretary may not approve extend you new or i'm in a waiver experimental of income on line sixteen and insert will exceed three hundred percent of the poverty line and mandy paragraph ninety added by section one sixteen page eighty five beginning on line twenty want to read as follows be higher income eligibility state a higher income eligibility state described in this clause is a state that applies under its state child health plan and eligibility in standard for targeted low income children that exceeds three hundred percent of the poverty line and then section two eleven page one thirty line nine through page one forty six line eleven to read as follows section two eleven application of citizenship documentation requirements a and general section twenty one o five c forty two u s c thirteen ninety seven d d c as amended by section one fourteen a and one sixteen see is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph to an application of citizenship documentation requirement in general subject to separate graffy no payment made treatment of pregnant women for purposes of applying applying sub paragraph a in the case of a pregnant woman who qualifies for child health assistance by virtue of the application of section forty five seven ten of title forty two of federal regulations the requirement of such section shall be deemed to be satisfied by the present patient of documentation a personal identity described in section two seventy four  shall apply to eligibility determinations and we determinations made after march thirty first two thousand and eight and the paragraph eleven added by section three a one a and at the end the following page one two hundred percent of the poverty line the last and implement the option under this paragraph in section six zero five on page two fifty one beginning on line eight strike nothing in this that allows federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents and insert not withstanding or any other provisions of law no several payment shall be made under title twenty one of the social security act for any individual who is not a legal resident of the united states strike section six thirteen page two fifty five lines fourteen three twenty motion thanks a gentle lady i appreciate my good friend mr dingell asking that the most commit be read i did the same thing in committee on the five hundred ninety three faints bill and so i think payback is fair so i don't have a problem with that i hope that the members in the chamber actually listen to the reading of the quarte because those that did will agree with me on the following things first of all we've taken the two hundred ninety three page bill that we got at seven p m approximate last evening and left most of it untouched we have changed approximately fifteen pages of a two hundred ninety three page bill we have listened carefully to our friends on the majority it what they say they want and we try to implement those changes in this motion to recommit we start out with the fact that our friends on the majority sat agree with us that s chip should for the poor and the near poor in american society this motion to recommit eliminates the loophole for income disregards that would allow states to actually cover children and families in all probability well above three hundred percent so we have a and elimination action in this motion to recommit that would eliminate that lupo we also believe that before you go above two hundred percent of poverty you should cover the children below two hundred percent of poverty so we have a requirement in the motion to recommit that states cannot go above two hundred percent of poverty until they've covered at least ninety percent of the eligible s chip and medicaid to be covered in the bill we put a requirement in the motion to recommit that applies the same citizenship documentation requirements for s chip as we have for medicaid in the deficit reduction act and applies t sixteen states that it is not currently applied to we also take the majority at their word when they say that they really want a ship to be for children motion to recommit would take all adults off the program within one year except for pregnant women we would continue to cover pregnant women under the s chip program and we we have a concern about when you begin to go above two hundred percent of poverty that you actually begin to crowd out the private insurance market so we do have a requirement in the motion to recommit that if this is if a state wants to go above two hundred percent of poverty they have to have a proof they have to they must have a premium support assistance program that would give those families that have dollars from the pending bill also in full disclosure i need to point out we do not change in the motion to recommit the pay for so the the portion of the of the underlying bill that does have the tobacco tax is still we do not touch dad we don't try to move it up we don't try to move it down we don't try to substitute for the motion to recommit that we offered in august had that same provision but i think in the interest of full disclosure we need to put that on the table with that speaker i would reserve the balance of my time if i'm allowed to gentleman and you continue to time or yell back time in that case i impediments inserted into the bill by the motion to recommit to covering the number of kids having said that my colleagues on the other side say they want to ensure the lowest income states are covered but they strike the boat us payments that c b s says will get one point nine million of the lowest income children covered who would not otherwise be covered the second thing they say that there are that they are for working families but they it is interesting to know that they are forcing by this that many of the working families who would receive coverage under the bill before us are forced to go on to welfare in order to get health care because they strike the provisions which would discourage that kind of unfortunate event my colleagues i would have  have the wrong medicine for the problem now in addition to this the legislature the recommit would prohibit states looking to expand coverage to a family of three at fifty two thousand dollars from doing so unless they meet arbitrary enrollment targets the result of that is of course again harder for people who do serve and need this kind of relief to get this kind of benefit the last point i want to make here is that is that their proposal does not remedy the current problem that has caused thousands of children to lose health coverage due to republican  c requirements i would point out something else and that is that my good friends have essentially in this as near as i can figure redacted the president's proposal which would set forth a directive to the states as to how they will administer this something which has caused a huge outrage amongst the states amongst persons affected and amongst advocates for the poor and the unfortunate this is perhaps the worst part of what the proposal to recommit does now let's take a look at what the bill does the bill increases the number of children who are eligible for coverage for coverage and for health insurance from six point six to ten million young americans must be observed that we're doing this amidst a circumstance where we have see have seen significant increases in the number of our children joining the ranks of the uninsured the bill to the bill does more it sees to it that we take care of the problem nearly seventy percent of all in uninsured children are from families with incomes below forty three thousand forty one thousand three hundred dollars for a family of four of the nine million uninsured children you know the two thirds are either  preschool or elementary school age and this is the time when the health care becomes singularly precious and important to them i would remind my colleagues that a nation this judge by how it treats and cares for those who are most vulnerable and least able to help themselves the bill sees to it that we have to fire and include greater numbers of those who are both dependent upon others  their survival but in addition of that i would remind my colleagues that this legislation is something which is of great importance because we're talking about the future of the kids giving them health care now what they have d is something which a short americans in the future will be the kind of productive valuable citizens who are able to carry forward the competition of this nation in some of its most difficult competitive time now this bill would significantly increase and improve access for needed health care to children the proposal in the motion to recommit requested the saving or