Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, earlier this week President Bush showed us that his view of the economy does not match that of the overwhelming majority of Americans. That is when he tried to convince the Nation that the economy was strong for everyone. Does the President realize that on his watch, poverty has increased every single year, and that overall household income has decreased? Does the President realize that at a time when Americans have less money in their wallets, they are trying to squeeze every dollar to pay higher food, gas, education and health care bills? Madam Speaker, how bad does the economy have to get for the average working man and woman before the President realizes that there is a problem? This Democratic Congress is not satisfied with the status quo. Over the last year, we have made progress to ease the economic crunch for middle-class, working-class families. We have passed legislation to make college education more affordable, increased the minimum wage, addressed the subprime mortgage crisis, and cut taxes for middle-class families. We are proud of these accomplishments. We also realize that with most Americans struggling, this economy is just not working.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. It is certainly my honor. Many, many people loved Julia Carson, and I want to thank the Congressman from Connecticut for sharing his sentiments as well.

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, tonight, as I stand to pay respects and honor to Julia Carson, I don't believe I will take 5 minutes, but I will say that as a freshman Member, I really can't recall some of the great stories that I've heard my friends tell about the great Julia Carson, but I do have my own recollections of her. The most important thing I want to share with people tonight is that, when I just started here and I started getting on my feet and figuring out where the bathrooms were and how to get around the House a little bit, Julia Carson took a moment, Julia Carson had time, Julia Carson and I sat in the chairs of this gallery and talked. And she told me about the struggles that she had to overcome. And she also told me, when I had my first bill, ``if you don't put me on that bill right now, boy, I don't know what I'm going to do.'' And I had to laugh, because the spirit that she had was remarkable, given some of the health problems she was facing. The health problems she was facing may have been a burden, but they were not too great for her to show kindness to a new freshman here in Congress. And so I will always remember Julia Carson, very fond memories of her, and I will always be inspired by the great example that she gave us.

Mr. ELLISON. Certainly.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. First of all, let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for leading this important debate in our country. No doubt, the American Dream has always been homeownership and yet, with exploding ARMs, with prepayment penalty and other such exotic products, that dream of homeownership has become an American nightmare. Mr. Chairman, I'd love to be able to take every Member of this body through a tour of north Minneapolis. There are blocks on my community where every other house is boarded and vacant. The fact is that for the people who have made every single mortgage payment, and never late, they suffer because of this crisis because their home values have been dropping and plummeting. We have seen our cities suffer, we have seen communities become unattractive nuisances, which were once vibrant places where people owned their own homes and did well. It's not because the market worked right; it's because it worked wrong. It's because of defective financial products, defective financial products which are addressed in this bill. It's important to understand that this bill is not designed to harm the subprime market. It's designed to reform and correct it and make it work properly, Mr. Chairman. The fact is that it does not help any homeowner who gets into a 227 with a prepayment penalty, who eventually can't pay the mortgage after it explodes in their face and then lose their home. We are not better off because of something that happens like that. That is what this bill is here to stop. So, Mr. Chairman, let me say that this is an important part of making the American Dream come true for middle-class Americans, making sure that when they buy a home, they can actually keep that home and that it will be a product that can enhance themselves and their families and the communities they come from.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on November 6, 2007, I inadvertently failed to vote on rollcall No. 1043. Had I voted, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I am for fair trade, not simply free trade. And I would associate myself with comments already made today, ``free trade for free people.'' Yet already reported recently, miners in Peru are facing having their strike declared illegal and shut down. That doesn't sound very free to me. This Peru FTA, I will acknowledge I am happy to see the positive developments in the labor and environmental standards. For me, however, they don't go quite far enough. I believe that the Congress has a constitutional role and responsibility to be able to amend these trade agreements no matter whom they are with or how large or small they may be. Trade negotiations have successfully passed before without fast track authority or closed rule type of treatment, and I think that should be the case today. The Peru agreement, as currently structured, to me is symptomatic of the larger problem: allowing an unelected trade representative, and not the duly elected representative of the American people, to decide what is best in our trade policy. The current agreement does not provide for enforceable environmental protections, especially with regard to the lumber industry in sensitive areas of Peru's environment. The agreement, as currently written, would help force the privatization of Peru's Social Security system. The agreement would devastate Peru's already faltering rural agricultural economy. Congress forced the trade representative to include minimal standards, in my opinion, and these things have been called a breakthrough. I think there should be credit where credit is due, and they have been an improvement. But at the end of the day, if we are to rely on the trade representative and the Bush administration to enforce the trade agreement, I don't think that's an enforceable agreement. I tried to offer an amendment which would allow for a private right of action to allow American citizens to enforce the provisions of the trade agreement to be carried out and enforce those labor and environmental provisions to be fully fulfilled. But, however, due to the nature of this debate, no such amendment was allowed, and I think that's to the detriment of us all. I believe that we must work to return to a time when Congress and the elected representatives of the people were allowed to amend our trade agreements. Organized, negotiated and fair trade amongst nations is one of the most important issues facing our Nation, indeed, our world. Its great importance demands that it be given the attention that such an issue deserves.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairman, today is a very proud day for me. I am proud to be an American today because when this ENDA bill passes, what we will be doing is affirming traditional values, traditional values like tolerance, traditional values like minding your own business, traditional values like allowing fellow Americans to rise to the full measure of their ability, traditional values, values that have made this country endure and pass the test of time. Opportunity and traditional values is what this ENDA bill is all about. This bill has nothing to do with the institution of marriage. This bill is about giving opportunity to fellow Americans so that we can reap the full benefit, the talent, the creativity, this hardworking ethic of both gay and lesbian and all Americans. All. This bill today makes me proud to be an American and makes me very, very happy to vote for it, and I do hope all of our Members do.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on November 6, 2007, I inadvertently failed to vote on rollcall No. 1044. Had I voted, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Congressman Klein. Whether it be from Colorado to Vermont, from Kentucky to Tennessee, to Minnesota, to Florida, no matter where we come from, this freshman class that we belong to is here to stay and here to say, very clearly, that we are reclaiming the coequal branch of this legislative body in our constitutional framework. We don't have another branch of government which we take orders from. We don't have to prove patriotism by servile behavior towards the executive branch. We stand up with doing our constitutional responsibility, and our only boss is the American people, not the President, not the courts. Article I states, all legislative power herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States. Part of that power is, of course, passing laws and, of course, all of you, my fine colleagues, have made it clear that we have been productive, we have been busy, we have been putting up the fight, and we have been passing legislation that this President should sign and, in fact, in many cases has signed. But we have also done something else which I am proud of, and that is provided oversight. We have subpoenaed people and made them come to these hearings. We have asked people the questions, the tough questions, and made them give forth the right answer. Why, on the Judiciary Committee just this week, we had Mr. Tanner, who is the section chief of the voting section. He offered the opinion that, actually I wish I had it written down, because I don't want to get it wrong, but he offered the opinion that voter ID bills may affect seniors because they live longer, but when it comes to minority seniors they die, so it doesn't really matter for them. Chairman Conyers issued that request for him to come to that committee, and we asked him questions about voting rights. We asked him about how that department was being run. We asked him the tough questions that Americans expect us to ask. But that's not all. Chairman Nadler of the committee has had constitutional hearings, and we have had people come in and talk about important issues, and, of course, Representative Cohen has been there as well, on Guantanamo, on habeas corpus. These are the kinds of things that Americans are concerned about because America will never be a place where we give up on our constitutional protections and our civil liberties. I just want to say that I am so proud to be a Member of this freshman class that is not only passing legislation, not only standing up for its right as a coequal branch of government, but is calling people on the carpet and asking the tough questions as it is our job to do. The American people expect us to say, What's going on? Tell us what's going on. What have you done? Why have you done it? That is our job, and we will continue to do it, because we don't work for anybody but for the American people. Not the judiciary. Not the executive branch. We are enshrined in article I of the Constitution, coequal branch of government, that branch of government in which all vested power to legislate is inside of us. Mr. Klein, I want to thank you for conducting yet another excellent freshman hour.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Well, my colleagues, let me thank you again for this excellent dialogue. We have to, as the difference makers in this 110th Congress, tell the people what's going on, what we're here for, and to reclaim the Congress as a co-equal branch of government articulated in article I, a co-equal branch of government that resides and has all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States and shall consist of the Senate and the House of Representatives. And so as I heard my colleague, Mr. John Hall, articulate his trip to Iraq, I was forced to reflect upon my own. And I didn't go there out of an idle curiosity seeker, a person trying to go on an interesting trip, but as somebody who is going to be called upon to execute a vote, to push a button, red or green or otherwise, as to monies that will be sent forth and as to other business that will be happening in Iraq. That's our job, we claim it, we do not abdicate it, and it would be wrong and a dereliction of our duty to do otherwise. So, let me commend you and everybody who has gone to that place where our constituents, some of them have spent up to 18 months at a time as they face extended deployments. And I also want you to know that I sat down at a table with young people from my district in Minnesota where we ate lunch. I was struck by the fact that wherever they go, they've got these big old guns that they carry with them, everybody. It's like a wallet, but it probably weighs quite a bit more than that. And that's just the lives that they lead. But they distinguish themselves and make us proud by their courage. And it is political authority, politicians like us that make decisions whether they stay or whether they go. So we had better at least spend a little bit of time there with them, and we had better at least try to get in their shoes and identify with what they're going through just a little bit and feel that 130-degree heat that they're in every single day and feel the dust and sand under their feet and the hum of those helicopters. I'm sure you were humming around in those Black Hawks with the windows out and the machine guns on either side, strapped in in four places and feeling the heat of those propellers as the air hits against your helmet. It's the kind of experience that we go through so that we can have some real sympathy and empathy with the people who we are charged to represent. So, hats off to you, Congressman. I appreciate it. I'm not going to talk long because I love the switching around that we do. But I just want to make one other point as we look at article I and we reclaim and assert our responsibility under the Constitution as Congress. It is also important to understand that we have asserted our authority in the area of promoting working-class prosperity for people. I am so proud that one of the things we did for the first time in 9 years is raised the minimum wage, Mr. Speaker. The hardest working people in America getting paid the least got a raise under this Congress. And I don't want people to make that into any kind of a small matter. Thousands and thousands of Americans benefited by raising the minimum wage for the first time in 9 years. I'm talking about the folks that clean the bedpans, mop the floors, sit in those cold or hot parking booths all across this country and really do the tough, tough work, getting paid not much of nothing. And you know that if you make minimum wage, basically, if your employer can pay you less, they probably would. So what we did is we raised that minimum wage so people can have a little bit better of a life. So now instead of moms having to tell kids, ``Honey, you can't go on that class trip,'' ``Honey, you're going to have to wear those sneakers a few months longer,'' now, instead of dad saying, ``No, son, you can't sign up for baseball,'' or, ``Yes, we're having macaroni and cheese again,'' now they can say, ``No, we're going to do a little better this time. We're going to make your life a little better. We're going to make your quality of life a little better.'' So I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I'm so proud of my colleagues and this whole 110th Congress to be able to do a little bit better for the hardest working Americans in our country.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, when I think about article I, I think this passage in the Federalist Papers where it says that we are to be in intimate sympathy with the people, I got to tell you, that when I sat down along with my colleague Congressman Hodes and Congressman Klein with the Financial Services Committee to listen to people who had faced foreclosure in their homes because of the subprime lending crisis, I thought about article I. Mr. Speaker, I thought about article I because article I is that provision that empowers me as an individual Member of Congress to want to listen to people who are facing foreclosure; listen to the mortgage originators who say, yes, we do need to have some regulation of what we are doing, there are some cowboys out there; to listen to these community bankers; and to listen to people who say, look, I made all my mortgage payments, but there is a foreclosure on the left and a boarded building on the right, and my house where I paid every payment is now suffering loss in the value of it because of this foreclosure crisis. I was in intimate contact with article I as I sat there in earnest and sincere humility listening to people and what they were going through, when I was so proud to sit there on that committee to be able to respond to the people. Because we have to go back there every 2 years. We can't take a vacation from the people in the House. We got to listen every week. Week in, week out, we are in touch with our folks. So Mr. Speaker, Mr. Yarmuth, I just wanted to say that article I, what it means to me is sympathy with the people and action on their behalf.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the House's attention that it was on October 25 a few years ago, not long it seems, only days ago, in 2002 that our State of Minnesota lost Senator Paul Wellstone. Paul Wellstone, Mr. Speaker, was a United States Senator, was a professor of politics, political science, at Carleton College. Paul Wellstone was an organizer of average citizens in Minnesota and helped them to discover their own power and their ability to maneuver the instrumentality of government to work for the benefit of the average citizen. Paul Wellstone was actually the State Chair of the Jackson for President campaign in 1988. Paul Wellstone was truly a friend of all working people everywhere on the globe. And I just wanted to let you know, Mr. Speaker, that as we approach October 25, and I reflect back upon my own personal exposure and friendship with Paul Wellstone, whose picture hangs in my office right now, that I just wanted this day to go by with us in contemplation of what a true servant leader represents. Paul Wellstone was a friend of mine. I'm proud to say that he was a political hero of mine as well. I had the awesome benefit of knowing him, and I'll never forget some of the things he said to me. But, among those things was to make sure that you never ever stop listening to the people. Paul Wellstone was comfortable anywhere he went. He was comfortable in the hair shops, the beauty salons and the laundromats. Paul Wellstone obviously was comfortable in the halls of power in Congress. Paul Wellstone, wherever he went, was a person who understood that he carried a sacred trust, that government service was a trust that the people of the State of Minnesota entrusted in him, that it was not a privilege, but it was an awesome responsibility, and he never forgot it. Paul Wellstone was a leader in many ways and was an example to young people like myself. And as I think what his life means to me, means to the people of Minnesota, I have to consider that it is also that awesome responsibility that he laid out there. A servant leader, Mr. Speaker. Not just somebody who was looking to be served but a person who was looking to serve. Paul Wellstone's favorite color was green, that was the color of his campaign literature, because it symbolized life. And I shamelessly copied it, Mr. Speaker, because I wanted to carry on that spirit of service, of being evergreen, of being ever new, and being committed to the idea that we have to constantly and continuously renew ourselves, our values, our faith, and our consistency when it comes to serving people all over the world. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that whether it was veterans, of whom Paul Wellstone was a tireless advocate, or whether it was students or whether it was the poor in our country, and I will never forget the tour he took around this country to highlight poverty in America, Paul Wellstone could always be found serving people. His loss was a tragic loss. Only the day before we lost him, he was scheduled to come to my office, and we were going to do some campaigning together. It was a long night, Mr. Speaker, when we heard back the reports as the news reports said that a plane has gone down in Ely, Minnesota, and it was thought to be containing Paul Wellstone and his partner, Sheila Wellstone, and their daughter and several other campaigners. We hoped all night that what we thought might have happened didn't happen, but at the end of the evening, we learned that that tragedy, in fact, did occur. Our worst fears were confirmed when we learned that we lost him, but it was a long several hours before we realized that that tragedy had actually occurred, and we had hoped against hope. I will never forget that night. Mr. Speaker, as I wind down my remarks, I just want to say that in many ways I have dedicated my service and take great inspiration from Senator Wellstone. I will never forget him, and I hope that this House and Senate never do, either.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on October 10, 2007, I inadvertently failed to vote on H. Res. 719 (rollcall No. 954), had I voted, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on October 22, 2007, I inadvertently failed to vote on rollcall No. 983-985, had I voted, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on October 15, 2007, I was back in Minneapolis attending a funeral for a constituent and failed to vote on rollcall votes: 961, 962, and 963. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes, 961-963.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the life of Vernon Bellecourt of Minnesota, a selfless servant who committed his life not just to fight for American Indians but for the rights of all people. Last night I was at a funeral service for Mr. Bellecourt, and while I regret to report the recent passing of Mr. Bellecourt at age 75, I am grateful for his spirit of equality and inclusiveness which will continue to live on in the Twin Cities of Minnesota and around the world. Mr. Bellecourt, a member of the Ojibwe Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, came to St. Paul from Minnesota's White Earth Indian Reservation. As a skilled communicator and a natural leader, Vernon championed the power of community. He practiced what he preached, solidifying his commitment to community by operating several small businesses. And while Vernon was a businessman, his greatest contribution was as a human rights leader around the world and in Minnesota. Let me read a little bit from the Washington Post obituary that appeared today in the paper: ``Vernon Bellecourt, who fought to restore land and dignity to Native Americans and against the use of Indian nicknames for sports teams as a longtime leader of the American Indian Movement (AIM) died October 13 of complications of pneumonia at a Minneapolis hospital. ``Since leaving behind careers as a hair stylist and real estate agent and joining his brother'' Clyde Bellecourt ``at AIM in the 1970s, Mr. Bellecourt had been in the forefront of the movement to ensure that treaty rights of Native American tribes and the U.S. Government would be fulfilled. He was president of the National Coalition of Racism in Sports and the Media and a principal spokesman for AIM. ``He was involved in numerous demonstrations to bring attention to his causes, including the 1972 occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington and the 1992 Super Bowl rally to protest the name of Washington's football team. He also spoke at colleges and universities around the world about more than 400 treaties that the group believed the U.S. was not honoring. ``Clyde Bellecourt, a founding member of AIM, said yesterday that his brother had been in Venezuela about 4 weeks ago'' to talk about ``providing heating assistance to American tribes.'' Mr. Speaker, let me wrap up and say that Vernon Bellecourt brought an issue to the attention of the American people that most of us walk past very quickly. Most of us would look at Native American sports team mascots and think no big deal. But just imagine, if you would, Mr. Speaker, teams called the Chicago Negroes or the Washington Caucasians. None of us would appreciate that kind of depiction of our ethnicity, and Mr. Bellecourt didn't appreciate it either. And he helped elevate the self-esteem of young Native Americans and also helped us understand our common humanity as we respect each other due to his inspirational work. I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I met Mr. Bellecourt in the early 1980s in Detroit, Michigan, when he was standing up for Native Americans at the Hopi Indian Reservation as they were in a conflict with Peabody Coal Company over land and treaty rights. I got to know him better when I joined him in northern Wisconsin, standing on the docks to stand up for Native American treaty rights. And whether you agree with him or not, Mr. Speaker, he embodied the spirit of an American standing up for what you believe in, speaking out for what is right, speaking up for the people who don't have a voice. Mr. Speaker, Vernon Bellecourt will be sorely missed and will never be forgotten. In my opinion, he is a great man and he has helped us discover ourselves in a deeper and more meaningful way. May God bless Vernon Bellecourt and sympathy for his family.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on September 26, 2007, I inadvertently failed to vote on H. Res. 678 (rollcall No. 909), had I voted, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. That's right.

Mr. ELLISON. Let's talk about this idea. Would it be okay, and people can do whatever they want, we are not telling anybody what to do, but what somebody might do is ask their pastor to sort of talk about SCHIP and its moral implications.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, if it wouldn't violate the rules of decorum, I would clap after Mr. Sarbanes' comment. I thought it was very eloquent. I thought the examples he used were very poignant. The young man who had a tooth abscess and had that go up into his brain and he died as a result of it stands as an indictment against our whole Nation. That young man deserves to have all of us, every adult in America, stand up and say, change must come, and it must come now. I just would like to read a quote and see if I could get my colleague from Brooklyn's reaction, if I may. Yvette Clarke, you are here with us tonight. You are a stalwart. You are a clarion voice for the public good. I just want to know what you might think about this statement as relates to SCHIP, which is a quote from the late Senator and former Vice President Hubert Humphrey, from my home State of Minnesota, in which he said that the moral test of any government is how it treats those in the dawn of life, the children; those in the dusk of life, the elderly; and those in the shadow of life, the disadvantaged. When you think about this veto of SCHIP and you think about the moral test of the Nation, what do you think? What thoughts come to mind?

Mr. ELLISON. The doctor is in the House. Mr. Speaker, we have a doctor in the House. We are all richly benefited by the presence of Dr. Steve Kagen in this Congress. He is one of the freshman Members who tells it like it is. Very few people are better qualified to talk about health care than he is. He is a physician. I think he was probably practicing right up until the day he got sworn in. We are all very honored to have you here again, Doctor. What do you have to say about this veto?

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that this is a bipartisan effort. As we come here and ask that this veto be overridden, it is not simply a Democratic initiative. It is also a Republican one. Let me tell you, I was really warmed, my heart was warmed up when I read the words written by Representative Heather Wilson and Representative Ray LaHood, two Republican Members, who sent out a Dear Colleague letter for the support of the SCHIP. They wrote, ``According to Census Bureau data, about 9 million children lack health insurance. This SCHIP agreement would cover 3 to 4 million of them by investing $35 billion in additional funding in children's health insurance over 5 years.'' Here is what our two Republican colleagues wrote further: ``We urge your support for the SCHIP agreement and believe it is the best vehicle for reauthorizing the program before it expires.'' That is what two Republican colleagues had to say about this bill. Presumably, they will be with us trying to overturn the veto. My point is that as Americans citizens are watching us and watching this whole debate unfold here in the Capitol, they should know that they don't have to take sides based on party. This is something that is simply a moral imperative. It is right, it is cost-effective, and improves our health and well-being. It demonstrates our commitment to our children. It is right for a whole number of reasons, not just one reason. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say, Senator Charles Grassley, who is a Republican Member, spoke very eloquently on this. He says, well, I am not trying to score political points. Again, it is not politics we are talking here. And any of the Democrats that have worked with me I know believe in they want to help kids, low-income kids, and we are going to not only keep the existing kids on the program, we are going to do what the President implied he wanted to do, was to bring more kids on. We are going to cover 4 million more kids as a result of what we are doing. I think it's up to the President, based on his message, to look at what we have done and see if it doesn't fit into that he tried to do, that he can't do that with just $5 million. So, the point being, Senator Grassley, a Republican, is in support of this.

Mr. ELLISON. Dr. Kagen, how are you looking at this?

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I think that the words of Dr. Kagen are on the mark. Elections certainly do have consequences. Elections absolutely have consequences. I do hope as we deliberate on the next phase of this struggle, because the American people should know that we will not falter, we will not back down, we will stand strong with them, we will stand strong with the children, we will keep the faith, we will be in fidelity with them on this issue of health care. Mr. Speaker, please let everyone know that we have heard our Speaker clearly state that we are not going to back down on this one. This is a gut-check issue, and we will be sticking to it. Not only have both Democrat and Republican legislators been very clear on the importance of this issue, it is bipartisan and it is a moral issue, and our Nation's editorial boards have been clear. It is important to point out that on October 1, The Washington Post editorial stated that President Bush appears determined to veto, and he did now, the $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program that the House and Senate approved last week. The administration's proposal to increase spending by less $5 billion would fall $14 billion short of what is needed to maintain the existing coverage in SCHIP alone, never mind adding the millions of eligible but uncovered children the President once said he was determined to sign up. Where is the commitment in that? The Austin American Statesman editorial states on October 1: ``For many kids, the doctor is not in.'' What kind of statement is that, doc? The Atlanta Journal Constitution: ``Kids lose out to politics,'' screams the headline on September 30. The Chicago Tribune editorial: ``A sound children's health bill.'' Stating further, ``We urge the President to sign the measure. If he vetoes it, Congress should override that decision. We share the concern over stealthy leaps toward government-sponsored and universal health care. But this bill doesn't do that. It is a reasonable expansion of a vital program.'' The New York Times editorial: ``Overcoming a veto and helping children.'' The Daily News, New York, editorial. ``Presidential malpractice,'' screams the headline. ``President Bush is threatening a veto of legislation with broad bipartisan support that would extend health coverage to millions of uninsured children. He is wrong. Dead wrong.'' My colleagues, do the editorial writers have it right or wrong?